Get documents about "In the 1990s
Document Sample
SpecialReport/ Viewpoint
The Incomeand Household
Compositionof City-CountyMigrants
In the 1990s
by Robert P. StraussandTomohiro Nakamura
posrCold Warera diminishedwith the demiseof the Advisory
Robert P. Straussis professor of economicsand public Commissionon Intergovernmental To
Relations. older genera-
policy andTbmohiro Nakamurais a graduate assistantwith tionsof public financescholars, federalgovernment'saban-
the
the H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Manage- donmentof a forum for discourse with the statesand localities
ment, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsbur{l4 PA 15213- abouthow to devisea new form offederalism to address public
3890. E-mail: RS9F@Andrew.CMU.Edu;Home Page: serviceneeds whoseeconomicandcultural assumptions would
http :/r7vww.heitu cmu.edu/- r s9f/. be relevantto the 2 I st centurywas disappointing.rPerhapsthe
This was prepared as a paper for the National Tax election of a former governor to the presidency explains why
Association's 9lst Conference, held in Austin, Texas, this has come to pass.2 be sure, rational outcomes need not
To
November I0 to 13. For coverage of the conference,see be preceded by rational discussion and analysis; however, it
State Tax Notes,'Nay 16, 1998,pages 1255and ,1256,,and seems likely that on reflection, many will agree that we cur-
p.
Nov23,1998, 1349. , j .
r :,i
, a
,,,..i :. . l
r ! : ! : . 1 .
, . . . rently are short of new ways to think about the U.S. federal
The authors benefited from the commentil'of.'Robl systemin a world that is increasinglyinterdependent.
Wassmerand Dick Netzer and the participants at.thiNTA
Session on Cities and Policy Advice. Financial suppiortfor
this proje ctfrom the U.S. Department of Housing and:,Urban
D,evelopment under Grant H-21156CA is :gratefqlly Several central cities, most recently the
aclanwledged. The authors wish to.thankM* Emily.Gross Distrfutof Columbia,havegone to thefiscal
and M* Beth KiIs of the Statistics Income Division of the
of
Internal RevenueService prcviding a variety of summary brink, and experiencedthe embarrassment
for
information about county migration pqtterns, .Respon- of substituting someform of externalfiscal
sibilityforthe researchfindingsand any errors inthis pape4
however are the sole responsibility of the authors.
control for the fiscal excesses permitted
under extremeJ effersonian democracy.
1. Introduction
It is now almost a decadesince the prospectof the end of
Currently, there seemsto be awarenessthat the state-local
the Cold War led optimists to predict a domesticpolicy renais-
sector is facing new fiscal challenges, as evidenced by
sancein the United States that would resultfrom redirectingsome
widespreadworry over how electronic conunerce may be erod-
federal defense spending to a wide range of domestic public
ing the stateand local salestax basesin many jurisdictions.
serviceneeds.In retrospect seems
this naive,especiallyin light of
Still, there has been far less worry about the fiscal health of
the increasedskepticism that the voting public has expressed
centralcity budgets, and evenlessworry aboutthe fiscal health
conceming traditional federal intergovernmental solutionsto
of centralcity schooldistricts.3 Yet,severalcentralcities, most
public problems in the statesand their localities.Some realized
recentlythe District of Columbia,havegoneto the fiscal brink,
that persistence tight federal budgets,even with defense
of
the
and experienced embarrassment substitutingsome form
of
savings,would mean that the states would be left to their own
devices to address,for example,welfare and education issues.
JohnShannon described likely turn ofeventsas "do-it-your-
this
I It is remarkable recall that in the depthsof World War II, the Secretary
to
self federalism,"
and wondered loud how govemors,
out viewing
ofthe Treasury began focusing on new ways to structure federal-state relations.
eachother frorn their statecapitols, might resolvepublic service
and askedProfessor Harold Grovesof the University of Wisconsin to createa
demandswith the new political culture that demandsboth lower nationalcommissionto precipitatedebateon American federalism.
taxesand higherservicelevels. z One might thus summarize the 1992+o-dateperiod in the U.S. as
Inside the Beltway, the prospects a rational debateabout
for "one-of-the-boys federalism."
I See,however,Chemik ( 1998),Chemik and Reschovsky( 1997),and Ladd
how the U.S. federal system should be reengineered the in
and Yinger ( 1990)for analyses municipal financial problems.
of
Stata Tax Notes. Fe hruun, l. 1999 327
Special Report / Viewpoint
Table 1: City-County Governments in Study
City-County Government 1970Population 1994 Population Change VoChange
Baltimore, Maryland 904,585 703.090 -201,495 -22Vo
Denver, Colorado 515,561 493.205 -22.356 -4Vo
District of Columbia 755,087 568.022 -187,065 -257o
Indianapolis,Indiana 193990 816,619 22.629 3Vo
Jacksonville, Florida 529,538 703,rs2 t'73.614 33Vo
Nashville,Tennessee 4 4 8 , 1l5 528,292 80,141 lSVo
New Orleans, Louisiana 592.714 485,582 -107,132 18Vo
New York. New York 7.600,r02 6,967,323 -632,179 -8Vo
Philadelphia,Pennsylvania t,946,646 r522380 424,266 -22Vo
St.Louis.Missouri 619,269 367,647 -251,622 4lVo
San Francisco, Califomia 712,874 729,193 I
1 6 . 39 2Vo
(
Bureau 986,1996)
U.S.Census
Source:
permitted under
ofexternal fiscal control for the fiscal excesses time indicatedthat thosewhich had growth in crime were also
extreme Jeffersonian democracy. net
thosewhich experienced out-migrations.
The subject matter of this paper is one piece of the continu- We
The paperis frankly empiricaland exploratory. examine
ing municipal finance puzzle in the U.S., and entails a close below the circumstances most of the major U.S. city-county
of
study of those who move into and those who move out of governments through the useof the IRS's Statisticsof Income
central cities. It is well known that major municipalities have series on county migration patterns to see if earlier patterns
continued to lose population; however, the pattern of popula- observedin the District of Columbia persist.The issueof the
tion movements over time and the composition of those who income composition of migrants is important, for it relatesto
leave, and how they compare to those who move in, are to
policies that some argue are necessary retain middle- and
less-well-understood. Understanding these facts can inform upper-incomehouseholds,who otherwise will leave central
municipal decisionmaking, for it surely mattersthat migration cities for the suburbs.6
is occurring because: (1) people are following their jobs as The paper is organizedas follows. Section 2 describesthe
employers are looking for vacantland and lessexpensiveoffice tax return data and researchmethodology to be usedto examine
space;(2) migrants are seeking more attractivehousing oppor- migration. Section3 presents characteristics central city
the of
tunities; (3) and/or migrants are seeking more attractive migrants.Section4 discusses implicationsof thesefindings
the
bundlesof municipal and educational in
services comparison for several dimensionsof central city municipal and school
with local tax costs.a services, and identifiesoutstandingresearch questions.
Here, we begin an examination of several major cities
through the analysis of tax return information. The researchis 2. Data and Methodology
a replication of an analysis performed by one of the authors,5
which found that the income of migrantsinto the District of 2.1 The City-County Areas
Columbia is not that dissimilar to the income of migrantsout Analysis of annual migration at the small geographicarea
of the District of Columbia to the Maryland and Virginia (e.g.municipality level) is hampered the relative paucity of
by
suburbs.What was striking about the District of Columbia data. Federal demographicand fiscal measurement does not
metropolitan area's migration patterns was the difference in occur at the subcountylevel on an annualbasis,and the states
family size of immigrants (measuringfamily size in terms of typically are unable to measurelocal migration. Local health
the numberof personalexemptions claimedon the federaltax records,maintainedpursuantto statelaw, typically deal with
retum) to the District compared to those leaving, and the locationof binhs and deaths.Most availableannual migration
decline in the number of low- and moderate-income data is federally collected,and at the county geographicarea
households which were capturedby D.C. and federal tax sys- level.T Given that major municipalitiesand school districtsare
tems.Tax returnsleaving D.C. were largerthan thosemoving frequently subareas counties,it is difficult to draw direct
of
into the District; compare1.7exemptions/retum with about1.5 i n f e r e n c e so f i n t e r c o u n t y m i g r a t i o n t h a t c o u l d i n f o r m
exemptions/return. Moreover,abouthalf of thosemoving to the municipalfiscal decisionmaking. Fortunately, thereare, how-
District filed as single taxpayers.Examinationof movement ever, a number of county areasthat function as stand-alone
into and out of zip codeswithin the District of Columbia over
o S e aK a s a r d ae t a l - ( 1 9 9 7 )f o r t h e a n a l y s i s f t h e s ei s s u e s h r o u g ht h e u s e
, o t
(
" SeeNechybaand Strauss I 998) for an analysis ofhow housingandpublic of the Current PopulationSurvey.
7 The Cu.ent Population Survey does periodically measure migralion;
servicelevels affect locationdecisions.
5SeeStrauss 1998b)for an analysis
( ofthe DistrictofColumbia's migration however, the sample is not large enough to inform migration researchat thc
pattems. r n u n i c i p a l i t ye v e l .
l
328 State Tax Notes, Februarl' l, 1999
Special Report / Viewpoint
municipalities, and they are the focus of this paper.Table I lists Results
3. Empirical
the cities under study.
3.1 AnnualPopulationLevelsof City-County
It is immediately evident that someof the cities under study
and
Governments Suburban Counties:1969-95
lost significant numbersof residentsduring the period 1970-94.
Note that Baltimore, the District of Columbia, Philadelphia, A graphical analysis of the city-county governments that
and St. Louis each lost more than 20 percent of their 1970 lost significant population during 1969-95 (see Table I on
population,and New Orleanslost l8 percent its 1970popula- previous page) did not reveal any particular subperiod of
of
populationgain that was subsequently offset by more substan-
tion. Only Jacksonvilleand Nashville'spopulations grew sub-
stantially. tial populationloss. Cities such as Baltimore, the District of
Columbia,Philadelphia, andSt. Louis show a continualdecline
2.2 BEA Earnings
and Population
Data in number of inhabitants. New York City's populationrr
The Bureau of EconomicAnalysis of the U.S. Department declined to a minimum, according to the Census Bureau, in
of Commerce routinely collects annualeamings information 1981,and then grew moderatelyuntil the early 1990swhen it
by county-area,and reports it in conjunction with Census has stabilized at about 92 percent of its 1969 level. San Fran-
Bureau annual populationestimates county areas.s
for These cisco showed a similar pattern of decline between 1969 and
annual cross-sections permit us to examinethe total population 1979,recoupmentand net growth to 1986, and then a stabi-
of thesecity-county governments,and the earningsof residents lization from 1989to 1995.(SeeFigure l, p.332, and Figure
and nonresidents.The latter are of interestas they indicate the 2, p. 333). Every city-county in this study was surrounded by
value of daily cornrnuterflows, and presumednonresidentuses at least one suburbancounty that had a spectacularpercentage
of local services that residentstypically at least partially growth in population(at least 150 percentor more).r2
finance.
2.3 IRS Migration Data
Most of what we know statisticallyabotrtU.S. population
In five cities, the resident's share of
movements at the small-area level between the decades(and earningsdeclinedon the order of 5 to 10
thus between each decennial census)is ultimately due to the
CensusBureau'sanalysisof the IRS Individual IncomeMaster
percentto a minimum in the early I980s,
file. The master file has been annually provided by the IRS to in
and then rebounded the late 1980s and
Census for some time.e By utilizing the mailing addressof early 1990s.
individual income taxpayers(what is on the mailing label),
Census can track by social security number migrants and
nonmigrantseach year.Censusannuallyprovidesback to the 3.2 ResidentEarnings a Percentage
as
IRS Statisticsof Income Division tabulations the numberof
of Of TotalEarningsPaidin the Cities:1969-95
retums, exemptions and, since 1991, the total and median
Among the city-county governmentsunder study, the Dis-
money income levels of tax returns showing county changesin
trict of Columbia and St. Louis had the most dramatic com-
mailing address. The StatisticsDivision of the IRS publishes
muter flows implied by the calculated resident earnings per-
state-level tables showing interstateand metropolitan area
centage. While the District of Columbia residents earned
movements,and maintains the county level data on an un-
initially only on the order of half of total earnings paid in the
publishedbasis.r0 should be remembered
It that taxpayers are
Disrict of Columbia, and St. Louis residents earned initially
not obligated to report to the IRS their residence address. A
only 47 percent of total earnings paid in St. Louis, resident
small (unknown)portion useeithertheirplace-of-workaddress
earnings as a percentage of total earnings in the other cities
to receive their paper tax return, or the place at which their tax
understudy were on the order of 62 to 95 percent.In 1969,the
preparer receives their paper tax return. However, it is
District of Columbia residentsearnedonly 46 percent of total
reasonable assume
to thatchanges mailing address,
in especial-
earnings paid in the District of Columbia, and by 1995, their
ly across county boundaries,reflect changes in residential
portion of total eamings had fallen to 36 percent. (See Figure
location decisions.
3, p. 333). All the other city-county goverrunents displayed
similar long-term declinesin the resident'sshareof earnings
paid,with the exceptions Denver(seeFigure4, p. 334); New
of
York (seeFigure 5, p. 334); Philadelphia (seeFigure 6, p. 335);
San Francisco(seeFigure 7, p. 335); and St. Louis. In these
five cities,the resident'sshareofearningsdeclinedon the order
of 5 to 10 percentto a minimum in the early 1980s,and then
reboundedin the late 1980sand early 1990s.Whether or not
this significant improvement in residentearningswas due to
o The dataarenow convenientlyavailable CD asthe RegionalEconomic
on
Information System (REIS) in August ofeach year. Data reportedbelow are
derived from the REIS 1969-95CD.
9 The universeof IRS individual income tax returnswas first provided to ll New York City's populationis perhapsmore difficult to measurethan
Censusunder the State and Local AssistanceAct,of 1972 (GeneralRevenue most other cities under study because illegal aliensand under-enumeration
of
Sharing) which also obligated Census to make small-areapopulation and of African Americans.
t2 Over 26 years, a 50 percent increase in population would occur if it
income estimatesto be usedby Treasuryin its administration the revenue-
of
sharinglegislation. compounded 1.5?percentper year.Nationally,the U.S. populationincreased
at
l0 SOI cunently sells the county level tables via its electronic bulletin 29 percentduring this period, which implies compoundingat about I perccnt
board. per year.
State Tax Notes,February I, 1999 129
. Special Report / Viewpoint
Table 2: Ratio of Out-Migrant Median Income to Immigrant Median lncome (7o)
City County Government l99 l-92 Out-MigranVlmmigranl 199 -96Out-M igranUlmmigrant
S
MedianY (7o) MedianY(7o)
Baltimore, Maryland I l4Vc ll4va
Denver, Colorado I lTVc ll4o/o
District of Columbia l3OVc ll1Va
Indianapolis,Indiana l22Vc l26Va
Jacksonville, Florida t04% I02o/o
Nashville, Tennessee | | 5c/c 1227o
New Orleans.Louisiana ll6Va ll2Vo
New York, New York ll9o/c ll6Vo
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania l39o/o l30Vo
St.[,ouis.Missouri ll9Vc llTVo
Califomia
San Francisco- l27Vc ll1Vo
conscious public policy changes in these cities or simply the two averages was about0.15 to 0.25 exemptions return.rl
per
improved economic circumstances residentsis something
of Also, the numberof exemptionsperfederaltax returngenerally
we shall be investigating. declinedin the early 1990s.
With regard to the fiscal implications of such resident
3.5 Total Exemption Flows: 1991-95
earning patterns,it should be recalledthat while New York
and Philadelphiaaggressivelytax commuters,the District of If we add up each year the total number of exemptions
Columbia does not, with the result that the District of Colum- migrating into and out of each of the cities under study, we
bia residentsmust finance servicesusedby nonresidents. As come close to measuringthe numberof personsso migrating.
the federal payment to the District of Columbia disappears, Nonfilersare,oIcourse,not accounted by suchcalculations.
for
Using this tax-based measureof migration, we find that onlv
o
this issuewill becomemore pronounced.
Jacksonville amongthe citiesunderstudydisplayed positiv:
a
net inflow in the numbero[ migrating. This is not surprising
In every one of the citiesunderstudy,the becauseJacksonville experienced,according to the Census
Bureau,the largest(33 percent)population increaseover the
average number of exemptionsper federal 1969-95 period. Thus, while Denver had more federal tax
tax return that left the city was Inrger than returns moving into than departing Denver each year, the
number of exemptions on those departing tax retunrs was
the avera,genumber of exemptionsper sufficientlylarger average therewasa netout-migration
on that
federal tax return that moved into the city. of about 3,000 exemptions 1995-96.
in Nashville lost about
2,000net exemptions well.
as
3.3 Migration of Households as Measured 3.6 Median and Average Incomes
By Location of Federal Tax Returns: 1991-95 Of In- and Out-Migrants: 1992-95
Among the cities understudy,four (Denver, Jacksonville, Of immediate to
interest municipaltax administrators theis
Nashville, and San Francisco) displayed more households ability to pay ol' those migrating into their jurisdiction com-
(defined as a federal tax return) moving into the cities than pared with those departing. In all cities under study, those
moving out by 1995, compared with 1994. Baltimore,
In about migratingout had higher median total incomesthan those
4,000 more tax returns moved out than moved in. In the in
migrating did, andtheaverage totalincomera out-migrants
of
District of Columbiaand New Orleansabout5,000more tax was higherthanthetotal incomeof thosemoving in eachyear.
returnsmoved out than moved in by 1995,while in Philadel- In the District of Columbia, New York, Ptriladelphia, San
phia, about 7,000 more tax returns migrated out than in. ln Francisco, and St. Louis, the differences median inconres
in
New York City, about 35,000more tax returnsmigratedout of were on the order of $5,000,while in the other cities the
than into the city in 1995. differences were much smaller,on the order of $2,000.Table 2
(above) the
displays ratioof out-migrating medianincoures Lo
3.4 Average Number of Exemptions on FederalTax
Returns:1991-95
In every one of the cities under study,the averagenumber '' Only Jacksonvi had more than 2 exernptions return (2.04 in I 995
lle per )
of exemptionsper federaltax retum that left the city was larger o f o u t - m i g r a t r n gf e d c r a lt a x r e t u r n s . h e o t h e r c i t i e s w e r e i n t h e 1 . 6 t o 1 . 8
T
than the averagenumber of exemptionsper federaltax retum exernptions/return range. Tlris no doubt reflects the large number of sing['
that moved into thecity. Generallythedifference between these taxpayers who migrate.
l1 The total inconrcconceptis duc to the
CensusBureau and nor the IRS
Statistics lncome Division. althoughit is derived liorn income reponed on
of
fcdelal tax re(ulns.
330 StuteTax Notes,Februar\) l, 1999
Special Report / Viewpoint
in-migrating median incomesat the beginningand end of the . the median income of those migrating out was al-
study period. Severalpoints emerge:for all but Nashville and ways larger than the median income of those migrat-
Indianapolis,the relative difference in migrants' median in- ing in. The differential generally narrowed in the
comes declined, and only in Jacksonville,which grew most to
1990s 2 percentforJacksonville,andto 30 percent
dramaticallyamong the cities understudy,was the differential for Philadelphia;and
lessthan 5 percentbetweenthe medianincome of immigrants . the average total income of thosemigrating out was
and the median income of out-migrants.In cities that lost always larger than the averagetotal median income
population, the median total income of out-migrants was of thosemigrating in; the differential generally nar-
anywherefrom l2 percentlarger(New Orleans)to 30 percent rowed during the 1990s.
larger (Philadelphia) than the median total income of im-
migrants. for Finance
4.2 Somelmplications Government
Given that stateand local governments have a constitutional
The average incomes of migrants were generally much
obligation to balancetheir budgets,one may ask at the outset
higher than the mediansfor the samecities,indicatingthat the
whether the above facts are meaningful sourcesof concern for
distribution of income for those moving in and thosemoving
local officials. Certainly with regard to the composition of
out were both skewed to the right. Total averageincome was
servicesand their levels, the changinghouseholdcomposition
highestfor New York City migrants;the initial differencewas
of thosedepartingraisesquestionsabout what central cities and
over $8,000 in 1992-93 and narrowed to about $5,000 in
central city school districtswill be askedto accomplishin the
1995-96. The averagetotal incomeof thosemigratinginto New
coming decade.rs Another possibleimplication of thesedatais
York City was about $10,000 higher than the median total
that those moving in are systematicallyyounger than those
averageincomeof thosemigratingin; the average total income
moving oul Again, differential age and household sizes of
of those migrating out of New York City was about $14,000
migrants raises questions of the composition and level of
higher than the median total incomeof thosemigratingout of,
servicesthat municipal and school officials seek to provide.
New York City (seeFigure 9, p.336, and Figure 10,p. 337).
The differing ability to pay observedbetween those leaving
and thosemoving to city-countygovernments doesraiseques-
4. Discussion tions about the viability of income-basedrevenue sources
compared with the traditional local property [ax.'u The growth
4.1 SomeStylizedFacts in nonresident shareof earnings paid in most of the city-county
Our analysisof populationand income dataand tax retum governments implies that the service burdens of commuters
information over time for major city-countygovernments sug- must be growing while the revenuebaseto support their cost
gestsseveralstylized facts: is narrowing.This trend raisesquestionsnot only at the local
. population decline in the majority of U.S. city- and regional level, but also questions about state inter-
governmential fiscal policy. There are rationalesto support state
county governmentswas generallysmooth over
the past quartercentury; defraying some of local municipal costs, because the higher
. over the period 1992-95, only Jacksonville, Florida level of governmentcan more readily adjudicatethe spillovers
and Nashville, Tennessee displayed significant of the costs imposed by commuters. Whether states, now
population growth; fiscally flush, will addressthis issue along with the related
. every city-county governmentstudied was sur- problems of tax-exempt property in central cities compared
roundedby at leastone suburbancounty with very with suburbsis difficult to predict.
high growth rates;
. city-countygovernments with decliningpopulation
remained centers employment;
of however, resident What accounts for the differential
earnings as a proportion of total earnings paid migration rates,and what accounts the
for
generallydeclined.The Districtof Columbiahadthe
in
most extremecircumstance that by 1995,resi- resurgence resi"dent
of earningsin several
dents earnedonly 36 percentof total earningspaid of the cities under study?
to thoseworking in the Districtof Columbia;
. five city-countygovernments a
experiencedreversal
of
in the early-to mid-1980s theirresidents' declin- Beyond the immediate questionsraised by the observed
ing shareoftotal earnings paid; populations and migration patterns are a series of research
. in all city-countygovernments studied, average
the questionsyet to be answered. First, what has been happening
per
numberof exemptions federaltax returnof those recently to the migration patternsat the low and high ends ol-
migratingout waslargerthantheaverage number of the distribution income?
of Second, what has beenhappening
exemptionsper federaltax returnof thosemigrating to the typesof tax-filingunitsthataremigratingin and migrat-
in. Overtime,theaverages bothgroups
for generally
declined;
. only Jacksonville, Fla.,displayed excess ex-
an of 'r While it appearsthat larger households are departing than are moving
emptions migrating in comparedto the numbers into the cities understudy, it shouldbe rememberedthat this stylizedfact holds
migrating out. However, the number of net im- f<rrthosefiling tax returns.Furtheranalysisis necessary ascertainifthis is
to
migrants was modest, and needsto be compared true for the nontaxable (poor) population,which moves as well.
l6 SeeRodgers | 987) for an extensivediscussion local nonpropertytxx
( of
carefullywith Census estimated population counts
revcnuesources.
in the 1990s;
StuteTa,rNotes,Februun, I, 1999 33t
Special Report / Viewpoint
ing out? Third, are there long-term differences in the rates of Patterns: Is A Turnaround on the Horizon?" Housing Policy
in- and out-migration among the major U.S. central cities? Debate,8,2, 307-58.
Fourth, what accounts for the differential migration rates, and Ladd, Helen F. and John Yinger (1989), America's Ailing
what accountsfor the resurgence ofresident earningsin several Cities: Fiscal Health and the Design of Urban Policy (The
of the cities under study? Fifth, are the patternsobserved for JohnsHopkins Press).
city-county govemments observablein cities of comparable Nechyba, Thomas and Robert P. Strauss (1998), "Com-
size that are also surrounded by suburbs (some also with munity Choice and Local Public Services:A Discrete Choice
significant vacant land) and parts of metropolitan areas? Approach," Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39, I
As this is essentiallya work-in-progress report, many of (January 998).51-79.
1
thesequestions will be answeredwithin the parametersof our O'Cleiracain,Carol (1997),The OrphanedCapital: Adopt-
planned research. Pending is the annual analysis of
ing the Right Revenuesfor the District of Columbia (The
Pennsylvania's personalincome tax filen by municipalityand
BrookingsInstitution).
school district from year to year in conjunction with federal tax
Rodgen,JamesD. ( 1987),"SalesTaxes,Income Taxes,and
return information matched to them. Hopefully this more
Other NonpropertyThx Revenues,"in Aaronson, J. Richard
detailed, annual examination of the individual characteristics
and Eli Schwartz (editors), Management Policies in Local
of movers and nonmovers within one state can answer these
GovernmentFinance (Intemational City Managers Associa-
important policy questions and lead to a deeperunderstanding
tion).
of why so many choose to move each year.
Strauss,Robert P. (1997), "Why Homeowners Hate the
5. References Local PropertyTax," StateTax Nofes,Jun 16, 1997,p. 1802.
Brunori, David (1998), "Metropolitan Taxationin the 2lst Strauss, Robert P. (1998a), The District of Columbia's In-
Century,"National TaxJournal, LI, 3 (September 1998),541- dividual Income Tax: Structure, Chracteristics, and Policy
551. Alternatives (Washington: the District of Columbia Tax
Chernik, Howard (1998), "Fiscal Capacity in New York: RevisionCommission,Jan 6, 1998).Also seeState TizxNotes,
The City Versus the Region," National Tax Journal, LI,3 J u n8 , 1 9 9 8 p . 1 8 5 3 .
,
(September1998),531-540. Strauss, RobertP.(1998b),"The Incomeof CentralCity and
Chernik, Howard and Andrew Reschovsky(1997), "Urban Suburban Migrants: A Case Study of Washington, D.C.
Fiscal Problems: Coordinating Actions Among Governments," Metropolitan Area," National Thx Joumal, LI, 3 (September
in Burton A. Weisbrod and James C. Worth (editors), ?nfte 1998), 493-516.
Urban Crisis: Linking Research to Action (Northwestern U.S. Bureauof the Census( I 986), Statistica I A bst ract of tlrc
University Press). United States: 1986.
Kasarda, JohnD., Stephen Appold, StuartH. Sweeny,
J. and U.S. Bureauof the Census(1996),StatisticalAbstract of the
Elaine Sieff (1997), "Central-City and Suburban Migration United States: 1996.
FigureI
Population
NewYorkCityandSuburban
in (1 00%)
1969-1995 Percentage 969=1
170.0%
160.0% 4
.f t
t I
150.0% -f l
l-
(l) 140.0% f
o, ,+z * *
+ H
130.0%
o)
() , )c-x
120.O%
o
o_ 110.O% u r4
-
100.0% t
+ +-
90.0%
80.0%
69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Year
f$* "-"rl"'V@ -t!g'"!tE
Bgi!'e"o
City : Bronx Kings+ NewYork QueensCounties
Nole: NewYork + +
332 State Tax Notes,February I , 1999
Special Report / Viewpoittt
Figure2
and Population
San Francisco Suburban
(1
1969-1 in Percentage 969=100%)
995
160.0%
t-
iF
150.0%
t
140.Oo/o t
q)
cT) r
'1
(5 I
130.0%
o) t
4 *
+
C) I ,1'
120.0%
o J * * t
a
* * * * *
+
(L I t
110.0% *
-
100.0% -l * *
t il * * T
I .x )+ tC tC i( :r+,(
90.0%
'C i+ t( 'C
t(-
+f
I
69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 BB 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Year
l+Rlameda +Contra Costa+-Marin +San_ya!99_.1
+(-San Francisco
: County
Nofe: SonFroncisco SonFroncisco
Figure
3
BEA Estimates Resident
of Earnings
in
As% of TotalEarnings DC
48.0%
46.0%
br
9 t x 44.OYo
E;
42.0o/o
>O
c n P 40.0%
CO
E0a
(IJ
38.0%
tl-l
36.0%
u.0%
69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 B0 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
l
Year
Eaminosr
i---c-oh Resident - j
I !
State Tax Notes,February I, 1999 333
Special Report / Viewpoint
of Earnings
BEAEstimates Resident
in
As % of TotalEarnings Denver
u.0%
,\
62.0o/o 1' I f-- il
o!
60.0% \ a ii
8b )t
\ i:
6= ii
ii
Io- 58.0%
>() .J
.oc I
ss 56.0%
'c o
=o
\ L_-.
I
54.0o/o L {
Ec
lrJ I
52.0o/o
50.0olo
tl
69 70 71 7273 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Year
'1-+-o/o Resident
EamingsI
::-:=:L.-
Nofe: Denver: Denver
County
BEAEstimates Resident
of Earnings
As% of TotalEarnings NewYorkCity
in
77.0o/o
76.0o/o
75.0o/o
H5
o- o-
74.0%
!k 73.0%
o*
gE 72.0%
Etr
[!
71.0o/o
7O.Oo/o
69.0%
69 70 71
City : Bronx+ Kings+ NewYork+ QueensCounties
Nofe; New York
334 State Ta.rNotes, Februarv I, 1999
Special Report / Viev,poirtt
BEAEstimates Resident
of Earnings
As % of Total Earnings Philadelphia
in
73.0o/o
A |.a.
72.0% l a.
o:. \
8b 71.0% J ;
s=
o-b 70.0o/o
\ a
a.
>\(J
.t
-oc
o9 69.0%
\ \ .r' I
o) .:l \
' C OD
F( /
68.0%
80.
tIl
67.0%
66.0%
69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Year
L=i" *":iq:!!I3rr9:i
:
Nofe; Philodelphio Philodelphio
County
Figure7
BEAEstimates Resident
of Earnings
Earnings SanFrancisco
As% of Total in
.=
ilffi
.i.r;r"
l--]
lltli
I
+f4
-l-r;-r-r /Ii|1-i tl
ilEu,onptwf-lj IfilmiA
l
:lr
I E ffi F; + fu,1):tt
tr
j / t_ --i--
I
I
i
l
__l
I
Ir I1l
I I
s;:::::1.1+Hl--l-l-tF$i
P::*Itflr-ir+tl\ )',)4J 't-lr-1
q. 'j-
s ','"IIIjf-iJ-l-]-j "ai l1l- ,ti \ I
I
Ii\j/ Il-i t l l i Ij,I rl
I
6s 70 71 72 73 747576 77 ^ t*;:att - t BB e0 e1e2e3 e4 (
8s nu]
: Son Froncisco= Son Froncisco
Counfu
:
_L- g:..,9"i!.11,i,
l
1g'.
:l
l
StateTax Notes,Februarv I, 1999 -t.t5
Special Report / ViewPoint
TotalFederal Returns
Tax
MigratingIntoand Out of New York City
170
165
160
o 155
58150
,ou
EP-
Egtao
F 135
130
125
120
93/94
Year
--+- Migrating
In T MigotingOrt_l
l
Nofe.'New York' = Bronx+ Kings+ New York+ QueensCounties
Crty
o
MedianFederal Total Income Movers
of
Migrating and
ln Outof NewYorkCity
$26,000
E $25,ooo
p sze,ooo
E sze,ooo
o
c $22,000
'$ szt,ooo
I
E $zo,ooo l_--_-,....-,.
I
$19.000
State Tax Notes, FebruarY I , 1999
336
Special Report / Viev'point
t
Figure0
AverageFederalTotal Income Movers
of
Into
Migrating andOutof NewYorkCity
$40,000 -1
t-
c
L
$39,000
o)
$38,000
E. $37,000
(D
E $36,000
o
()
c
$35,000
_-----a
o $34,000
o)
(U $33,000
o
$32,000
$31,000
$30,000
--t- Migrating --r- Migrating
In Out
:
No/e:NewYork Bronx Kings NewYork Queens
+ + + Counties
,Y
What wouldtax reform meanfor insurErs?
If you need to know the latest about the taxation of insurance companies, insurance products,
and insurance policyholdcrs, there's only one place to turn.
The Inwrance Ttw Rersiew
It's the onlyspecializedmaSazineto collect all the news on insurance tax issues from federal,
state and international sources. Every month, leadin$ practitioners provide analysis on current
insurance taxation that will help you advise your clients on complex compliance issues.And our
in-depth commentary on the effects of proposed legislation and regulation helps ensure \rou
stay up to datc with important developmcnts in the field.
I?R's covera$e is complete with full text documents and cdited summarics to offcr you a total
package of insurance tax information.
To subscribe,call (800) 955-2444. Outside the or in the Washington, DC, area.
call (703) 533-4400.
The answer'sin fhe Insurance Beuiew
lan
295-96
State Tax Notes,February l, 1999 3.t7
