You've picked a niche edge case where the benefits of the local taxes are directly internalized into the individual via materially higher house prices and better schools. Of course I'm not going to opt-out of my taxes if those taxes are directly going back to me in proportion to the SES of my rich neighborhood (which is something that a lot of progressives are unhappy about), and not the person down the road. I also dispute that there aren't switching costs to pulling kids out of school in order to dodge state taxes that are much smaller, and for the large majority of people it is hardly as trivial as just moving down the road. Moving from CA to Texas just to reduce tax burden by a few percent might not be worth the switching costs. What if my family is in CA?

Anyway, this example doesn't translate to the majority of taxation which are more akin to transfer payments, and which are harder to escape from. My ROI from tax I pay into public health care is about -98%, which is much lower than the ROI of tax spend that goes into my own kids' school district or which directly pumps up my own house price. Just because I'm not abandoning my family doesn't mean that I'm choosing to fund public healthcare. In practice, I'm being coerced.

> I also dispute that there aren't switching costs

There are always switching costs to moving even within an apartment condo, but when someone decides to move picking a location has more freedom. Just as someone deciding to move across the country have freedom to pick inside or outside of a city so does someone from the UK moving to the US had a lot more freedom to consider Canada. Rates of migration consider each year in isolation, but over say a 50 year period a large percentage of the global population does move long distances and most of those people have significant freedom.