When I use the term “tax evasion” what comes to mind? I would assume you
would immediately think of an individual or perhaps a corporation that used illegal
means to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Lately, however, the term has been
redefined.

Take last month’s story about PGA golfer Phil Mickelson. After playing in a
tournament in California, he hinted that his new tax burdens might drive him out of the
state or perhaps out of professional golf. He was suffering from sticker shock because
new federal and state levies increased his tax rate to 62 percent.

The harsh reaction from pundits and politicians was predictable. After getting
pounded all week, he decided to take a rhetorical mulligan and apologized “to those I
have upset or insulted.” That was too bad. This left-handed golfer could have warned
some of the lefties in the Golden State about the impact high taxes will have on their
future.

Shortly after Mickelson’s apology, Tiger Woods said he sympathized with his
golf rival. He acknowledged his moved out of California many years ago because of high
taxes. He now enjoys living in Florida, for many reasons. One of those reasons is the
absence of a state income tax.

People who are leaving high tax states for states with lower state taxes or no state
taxes are the new “tax evaders.” What they are doing isn’t illegal, but they are being
treated with criticism and becoming publicly shamed for their desire to leave.

What if public shaming doesn’t work? That is why pundits and politicians are
talking about implementing an exit tax. After all, we don’t let people move away from
their credit card debts. Why should we allow these “economic deserters” leave the state
without paying their “fair share” of the state’s debts and obligations? Shouldn’t they have
to pay for their “tax evasion”?

At the moment, all of this is just talk. But if more and more wealthy people
publicly talk of leaving a state because of taxes, expect politicians to get serious about
passing an exit tax.