[nobody9999]

>The value proposition for living in those places isn't very good for high earners, if you make enough money the taxes alone are enough to live in TX, FL and get your fix of NY, CA from traveling.

The downside being you have to spend at least half the year in TX or FL. I had such a choice and rejected it for that reason.

[questime]

Sure, but clearly a lot of people are taking it. For me personally it means 25k in more discretionary spend, a lot of which I'm using to travel the world w/ my remote job. Also if this exodus continues taxes are just going to go up (they already are on the payroll side in NYC to fund the MTA) to make up the deficit.

[Scoundreller]

How’s it work if you don’t spend half the year anywhere but spend the most time in FL or TX?

[nobody9999]

>How’s it work if you don’t spend half the year anywhere but spend the most time in FL or TX?

This site[0] should answer your question for the several states. In general:

   Most U.S. states require residents to pay income taxes to the state as well 
   as to the federal government. The factors that determine residency vary by 
   state, but usually involve a person having established their domicile in that
   state or having spent more than half the year there.

[0] https://www.annuity.org/personal-finance/taxes/residency-req...

[unstatusthequo]

In CA, “half a year” is 5 months. Also, there is a long list of factors the FTB uses to go after you to prove you still have significant contacts with CA to extract tax from you. A clean, permanent break is best. Worked well with tax attorney planning. Was great getting a free house in tax savings by leaving that state. Plus I can retire earlier. Nice state but no longer worth it unless you make little or no money.