My partner and I had a long-distance relationship for a couple years where we lived five hours apart and saw each other every weekend. Eventually I got a job slightly closer that involved them driving an hour each way and me taking transit an hour and a half each way.

True, we could have dinner together on weeknights, but overall we had less quality time together because we were spending so much time in transit that we spent the weekends catching up from everything we put off during the week.

Some folks I worked with had a pied-à-terre. They drove 3-5 hours into the city on Monday morning, stayed in a ~200sqft studio for three nights, drove home on Thursday afternoon, and worked from home on Friday. If you rent it out to tourists over the weekend it's not quite as expensive as it sounds and I was considering doing that so that we could move near my partner's office.

Thankfully, saner heads prevailed and we just got jobs closer together.

Whatever you decide, good luck!

It is also my concern that the 9% top rate is just too high compared to comparable and neighboring states and could lead to a drop in net revenue.

A Tufts analysis projected that this would likely not be the case:

"Together, cross-border moves and tax avoidance would reduce millionaires tax revenue by roughly 35 percent [to $1.3 billion]. (Absent these responses, the tax would be expected to raise $2.1 billion in 2023.)"

Via: https://cspa.tufts.edu/node/406

However, there is substantial uncertainty here, especially in the long-run, that this end up going the scales for a lot of people, lower net tax revenue, and force cuts to state budgets.

Given that, I'm frankly mystified why the "no on 1" ads went with a "sympathy for multi-millionaires" angle instead of "risk of capital flight" angle.

This is a reasonable concern. The most thorough analysis I've seen (also mentioned below) projects that increased tax avoidance will have a larger impact than people moving out of state. But taken together they won't be quite enough to make the impact of this change negative:

"Together, cross-border moves and tax avoidance would reduce millionaires tax revenue by roughly 35 percent [to $1.3 billion]. (Absent these responses, the tax would be expected to raise $2.1 billion in 2023.)"

Via: https://cspa.tufts.edu/node/406

This is an important and valid concern that I share as well. If it helps you sleep better at night, the most thorough analysis I've seen concludes that:

"Together, cross-border moves and tax avoidance would reduce millionaires tax revenue by roughly 35 percent [to $1.3 billion]. (Absent these responses, the tax would be expected to raise $2.1 billion in 2023.)"

Via: https://cspa.tufts.edu/node/406

So it seems that 9% is still low enough to be a net positive from an income tax revenue perspective. (Though local property taxes may also take a small hit.) It won't raise as much as many people expect due to tax avoidance, but it also probably won't result in lowering the state's overall tax revenue.

Still, I would feel much more confident voting yes if they had chosen something like 7% as the top marginal tax rate to be more in alignment with the average of our neighboring states to test the waters. Going from a flat rate straight to a CA/NY/NJ/VT-level marginal rate overnight seems unnecessarily risky.

I think this is the best way of thinking about it.

I would be much more enthusiastic if the ballot initiative had picked 7% to be in closer alignment with our neighboring states and still substantially lower than the premium charged by states like NY and CA.

It is perfectly reasonable for FL and TX to compete on price to attract residents just as it's perfectly reasonable for other states to charge a premium and focus more on quality of life and amenities. The nice thing about the laboratory of democracy is that we get to see what people actually value and states can respond accordingly.

Not just leather, but eating meat as well. It seems logically inconsistent to me that someone who kills animals for food would object to killing similarly intelligent animals for clothing.

Both largely come from factory farms, both have non-animal alternatives that are almost as good, both result in a lot of unused animal carcass.

If anything, a fur coat made from two dozen foxes that lasts ten years results in substantially less animal death than a meat diet over that same timeframe.

Agreed that food and clothing are basic human necessities.

But in modern society, food and clothing made from animals are not necessary. Animals are used for reasons of convenience, cost, and pleasure.

I believe that the primary difference is not logical but just that killing animals for food is still culturally accepted and killing animals for clothing is less so.

I still don't understand what is "unique" about the fur trade compared to animal agriculture or how someone who eats meat on a regular basis could logically object to fur.

Similar to fur, the majority of animal meat consumed in the US comes from factory farms. Similar to fur, most factory farms exist specifically to raise animals and kill them solely for meat. Pigs and raccoons are both shockingly smart and rabbits and chickens perhaps less so so it's not like there's some qualitative difference in animal intelligence.

If anything, fur and leather seem less problematic to me because they last longer. A fur coat or leather upper on a good pair of boots can last ten years. In that same time-frame a diet that includes daily meat will result in substantially more animal death.