To claim residency in a US state, or declare it as your primary residence and domicile, you have to be in that state for a minimum of 184 days per year amongst other things. Have you noticed how many people are doing this to save taxes? I cannot tell you how many rather fancy cars I spot in fancy neighborhoods with Florida license plates.  It's especially noticeable amongst the wealthy who can afford to travel a lot between two far-off states, but this is also happening when the drive is less than an hour or so.

It's a 40 minute drive from Boston to Salem, New Hampshire. 20 minutes between Andover and Salem. 3 hours flying between Chicago and West Palm Beach (much shorter if you own a jet!).  If you earn $1 million as a New York City resident, you'll pay roughly $422,000 in city, state and federal taxes. That same income results in a roughly $321,000 tax bill in Florida, about $100,000 less.

Is it fair that many of these 184-days-ers who own a pied-a-terre in higher tax areas, rent or commute, get to use all the infrastructure and assets/attributes of the area they visit, while reaping the tax savings of their domicile state/city? Is it fair that those who are domiciled in the higher tax area have to pay more taxes to cover lost revenue from those that leave? Is it fair that taxpayers subsidize many Walmart workers so the Walton family can amass more billions? Is it fair that someone earning $500k lives in a $1,000 per month rent-controlled apartment that you and I have to subsidize?

Very little in life is fair, so I choose being practical. Maybe high-tax states and cities need to re-evaluate some tax policies to provide incentives for those lured by tax savings elsewhere to stay put? Yes, it's true many move for a slower pace of life or warm weather, or kids, or a hundred other reasons. But we are seeing many people too who divide their time 50.1% to 49.9% and get the best of all worlds including notable tax savings. At all income levels. The costs for this to those who do not do so are steep. Someone always has to pick up the tab as there is no free lunch anywhere.

When a taxpayer departs, those lost revenues are made up by dividing the cost of that loss amongst those who remain. Local governments rarely lower spending. Maybe the 'remainers' need to rethink this subject and become more practical?