Come Tuesday, John Kasich likely will have added substantially to his share of the vote compared to four years ago. The governor then received 49 percent and soon talked about trampling lobbyists with a bus. Polls show his percentage in seeking re-election headed for the 60s. If that proves true, Kasich and team, plus fellow Republicans at the Statehouse, surely will claim a strong mandate from voters. And that means one thing for certain: They will champion additional income tax cuts.

To review, Republicans launched a 21 percent reduction in income tax rates starting in 2005. They added another 10 percent cut in the current state budget. They have wiped out the estate tax. On the campaign trail, the governor has pledged to take the income tax rates even lower, insisting, contrary to most evidence, that the reductions will lead the way in spurring growth and job creation.

The governor also contends that lowering the top rate is crucial to holding onto the best and the brightest, who may flee Ohio for states with lower rates or no income tax at all. On this matter, too, the governor lacks persuasive evidence.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently looked at the role of tax levels in people moving from one state to another. The Washington-based think tank found that rates rarely play a major factor. Other things are much more decisive, such as job opportunities, family matters, climate and housing costs.

Now the center has plunged deeper and learned that states with relatively high income tax rates do not suffer significant economic damage because they are losing the incomes of those migrating to other states. For starters, the vast majority do not take their incomes with them. The income they made usually goes to the person here who fills their job. More, their departures may open opportunities for those filling the void, say, a doctor picking up patients or a business owner purchasing a company.

The center analysis adds that all of this suggests the loss of income often is exaggerated by those promoting tax cuts as an economic elixir.

Actually, few Americans (between 1.5 percent and 2 percent) move from one state to another, and a tiny fraction of those people report doing so because of tax rates. The analysis points out that from 1993 to 2011, Florida, with no income tax, lost households to 15 states ó 11 with income taxes. North Carolina, now with a higher income tax rate than Ohio, attracted more than twice as many people as Tennessee, which has no income tax.

Worth highlighting, too, is that those who move more likely have incomes below $50,000, and the financial boost doesnít come through tax rates but via reductions in housing costs.

The trouble is, this pursuit of false hope risks real and lasting harm. An eroding income tax base too easily translates into diminished support for public schools, higher education, parks, public safety, roads and other priorities that contribute substantially to making a place, or state, attractive to investors, not to mention talented workers and their families. That is worth keeping in mind as the victory parties fade into the actual choices of budgeting and governing.