> Did they even lose tax revenue other than income tax from some admin jobs?

There's no doubt that there is more to lose than just the direct job losses. There's the GDP impact of those people traveling to the city, eating lunch, taking out clients, sticking around after work to socialize. It's not easy to put a number on it but it's definitely much larger than just the direct income tax losses.

> Most states have moved to market based sourcing rules for corporate taxes, so revenue is taxed where the services are received. If the clients are still in CA/NY, I presume it does not change much.

It doesn't work like that for managing assets as the client is delivering the assets to the manager in their jurisdiction. Where the manager's revenue is taxed is based on the location of those employees and the company headquarters. Not where the customer assets came from.

I believe a big chunk of the NY city budget is property taxes on the big boi buildings all over, as well as private houses. This is why NY is squeezing so hard on things like parking tickets and the MTA, because they are having budgeting issues :( Remember that time where they were overly aggressive ticketing people for seatbelt usage (I loved that because it made people actually buckle up) and it was 100% because they needed revenue.

Yeah, but they vote the “wrong” way so they’re not important. /s

How many Walmart's worth? (Not a joke, genuine question) Big numbers are meh and for the clicks, just tell us what the aggregate state income tax delta is (federal taxes still getting paid). It's not a total loss, people will still move and work in the locales these jobs moved from, as well as pay property taxes (as real estate prices and rents aren't going down in CA and NY from all available data).

If California and New York want those dollars back, extract it through the federal government and the top 40% of taxpayers who pay federal income tax and can't avoid it (congresscritter hustle). You know, like red states do [1].

(tangentially, this will not age well when Texas and Florida come with their hands out for climate costs [2] [3]; grab those bootstraps y'all)

[1] https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the...

[2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/florida-and-texas-are-expe...

[3] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aal4369

Not enough to even notice. I live in Texas. They always have some blurb about X company moving to Dallas and "creating" 500 jobs, and that's the last time you hear about them until they pop up in a WARN notice.

Unless the $2T moves to Texas Banks and trades on Texas exchanges (are there any?), The $2T stays where it is and so is irrelevant to the story, just there for the click baiting.

Nothing in the article suggests the $2T moves. At most it suggests at least some of the jobs managing it will, but that's not the same thing.

It is about race to the bottom - which state taxes corporations at the lowest rate, or has other corporation friendly laws. There is a reason why huge number of businesses are incorporated in Delaware, a state with a minuscule population of about 1 million. NYC by contrast has 8.5M.

The residents of Delaware perhaps benefit in some minuscule way, but the money isn't being spread out.

An individual’s tax liabilities are different than a business’ tax liabilities, which are mostly dependent on where the services are received. Even independent contractors are subject to market based sourcing rules for determining tax liabilities, similar to how a store without a presence in your state still has to collect and remit sales tax to the jurisdiction that the item was shipped to.