I live in San Diego because I love the weather, the culture, the people, the ocean, the recreational opportunities, and that sort of thing. If I lived in Nevada, could I have a bigger house and pay no state tax? Sure. But I’d be living in Nevada. Or Texas or Florida or wherever.

If were somewhat poorer and my options were a studio condo in San Diego or a pretty nice house in Florida, I would still live in San Diego. If I were a lot poorer and my options were renting a room in a house in a not-so-good part of San Diego or a small condo in an inexpensive part of Florida, I would still live in San Diego. If I were trying to live on $800/month and my options were to be homeless in San Diego or to have meager accommodations in Florida…I’d move to Florida. Probably.

If I had $60M (or $30M), there’s no way in hell I would ever dream of living anywhere but San Diego. Or whichever city I would most want to live in. I guess what city they live in is less important to some people. But I think only the tiniest (and most foolish) minority of people worth $60M would decide what city they live in based on money.

What good is money if you can’t even live where you want? So you die with $30M instead of $60M. You’re going to live your life in your second- (or third- or fourth-) favorite state so that you can…what? Have a 30,000 sf house on the ocean (in Florida? Yuck. or Texas?) instead of a 10,000 sf house overlooking the Pacific? Have a bigger jet? Die with more money? None of those options comes remotely close to making any sense to me.

If you like those states better, sure. But to move there to save money when you have that much is unfathomable to me.

To do it “on principle,” as another poster suggested, would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. That’s taking stupid up a notch.