Combined Statistical Areas by Total Federal Income Tax Liability, 2018

[kimumingyu]

Originally Posted by popka

Can you do the per capita numbers too?

I'm not OP but let me try:

$11,214.70 San Francisco
$8,831.72 New York City
$7,698.15 Boston-Worcester-Providence
$7,524.97 Seattle-Tacoma
$6,869.97 Austin-Round Rock
$6,865.09 Miami
$6,765.21 Washington-Baltimore-Arlington
$6,384.87 Denver-Aurora
$6,330.58 Chicago-Naperville
$5,859.19 Minneapolis-St Paul
$5,645.24 Philadelphia-Reading-Camden
$5,631.56 San Diego
$5,424.49 Los Angeles
$5,197.71 Houston-The Woolands
$5,075.83 Dallas-Fort
$4,785.70 Portland-Vancouver-Salem
$4,623.74 Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor
$4,552.49 Atlanta-Athens--Clark
$4,319.48 Tampa-St Petersburg
$4,281.72 Sacramento-Roseville
$4,078.19 Phoenix-Mesa
$3,986.71 Cleveland-Akron-Canton
$3,733.57 San Antonio
$3,533.11 Orlando-Lakeland-Deltona

[mwj119]

Originally Posted by kimumingyu

I'm not OP but let me try:

$11,214.70 San Francisco
$8,831.72 New York City
$7,698.15 Boston-Worcester-Providence
$7,524.97 Seattle-Tacoma
$6,869.97 Austin-Round Rock
$6,865.09 Miami
$6,765.21 Washington-Baltimore-Arlington
$6,384.87 Denver-Aurora
$6,330.58 Chicago-Naperville
$5,859.19 Minneapolis-St Paul
$5,645.24 Philadelphia-Reading-Camden
$5,631.56 San Diego
$5,424.49 Los Angeles
$5,197.71 Houston-The Woolands
$5,075.83 Dallas-Fort
$4,785.70 Portland-Vancouver-Salem
$4,623.74 Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor
$4,552.49 Atlanta-Athens--Clark
$4,319.48 Tampa-St Petersburg
$4,281.72 Sacramento-Roseville
$4,078.19 Phoenix-Mesa
$3,986.71 Cleveland-Akron-Canton
$3,733.57 San Antonio
$3,533.11 Orlando-Lakeland-Deltona

The Bay Area and NYC are such beasts, good lord.

Also, what an indictment on LA this is. Not necessarily surprising, but geesh.

[elchevere]

I’m confused by this ranking....federal taxes are based on “reported” income, yes?

In the case of the Miami CSA (7th highest tax liability here), it gets bashed on C-D “median income” threads for allegedly punching below its weight; however, it ranks near the top of all cities for being dependent upon small business as a percentage of its workforce and small business owners and some small business workers (especially in hospitality fields) often do not report all of their income unlike wage slaves who work for corporations (which other cities have more of that do report all (or more) of their earnings/income....therefore, what might be the explanation for Miami having the 7th highest tax liability if it’s supposedly such an underperforming (reported) income producing city??...on the other end of the spectrum, the well off in the CSA can be very good at tax avoidance through creative accounting. Retirees, which the CSA also has a fair share of, are drawing much less income than when they were working.

Am I missing something??...how is it the 7th highest...population, yes (unrelated to tax liability); income which translates into tax liability, having a hard time understanding??? ....Miami ahead of DC and LA, among others... Appreciate some insight to the ranking or items other than income that account for the high liability as this stood out to me. Thanks.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by elchevere

I’m confused by this ranking....federal taxes are based on “reported” income, yes?

In the case of the Miami CSA (7th highest tax liability here), it gets bashed on C-D “median income” threads for allegedly punching below its weight; however, it ranks near the top of all cities for being dependent upon small business as a percentage of its workforce and small business owners and some small business workers (especially in hospitality fields) often do not report all of their income unlike wage slaves who work for corporations (which other cities have more of that do report all (or more) of their earnings/income....therefore, what might be the explanation for Miami having the 7th highest tax liability if it’s supposedly such an underperforming (reported) income producing city??...on the other end of the spectrum, the well off in the CSA can be very good at tax avoidance through creative accounting. Retirees, which the CSA also has a fair share of, are drawing much less income than when they were working.

Am I missing something??...how is it the 7th highest...population, yes (unrelated to tax liability); income which translates into tax liability, having a hard time understanding??? ....Miami ahead of DC and LA, among others... Appreciate some insight to the ranking or items other than income that account for the high liability as this stood out to me. Thanks.

Well as far as tax liability, Palm Beach County punches far above it's weight at $15.6 Billion-that's $10,420 per capita. That's nearly double Miami-Dade's $5844 so I think Palm Beach lifts the entire CSA.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by mwj119

The Bay Area and NYC are such beasts, good lord.

Also, what an indictment on LA this is. Not necessarily surprising, but geesh.

LA is dragged all the way down because of the Inland Empire--they have by far the lowest tax liabilty of any comparably sized MSA. I dont blame them tho, it's a gigantic bedroom community with not many high paying industries. They'll get there some day.

CA MSA by Total Federal Income Tax Liability, 2018
$84.9 Billion Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim MSA(13.2 million population)
$64.5 Billion San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley MSA(4.7 million population)
$32.0 BIllion San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA(1.9 million population)
$11.9 Billion Remainder of Bay Area CSA(2.9 million population)
$11.6 Billion Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA(4.6 million population)
$4.9 Billion Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura MSA(846,000)

[masssachoicetts]

Anybody have how these numbers have changed recently?

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by elchevere

I’m confused by this ranking....federal taxes are based on “reported” income, yes?

In the case of the Miami CSA (7th highest tax liability here), it gets bashed on C-D “median income” threads for allegedly punching below its weight; however, it ranks near the top of all cities for being dependent upon small business as a percentage of its workforce and small business owners and some small business workers (especially in hospitality fields) often do not report all of their income unlike wage slaves who work for corporations (which other cities have more of that do report all (or more) of their earnings/income....therefore, what might be the explanation for Miami having the 7th highest tax liability if it’s supposedly such an underperforming (reported) income producing city??...on the other end of the spectrum, the well off in the CSA can be very good at tax avoidance through creative accounting. Retirees, which the CSA also has a fair share of, are drawing much less income than when they were working.

Am I missing something??...how is it the 7th highest...population, yes (unrelated to tax liability); income which translates into tax liability, having a hard time understanding??? ....Miami ahead of DC and LA, among others... Appreciate some insight to the ranking or items other than income that account for the high liability as this stood out to me. Thanks.

Per capita ahead of DC by CSA by $100. By MSA per capita it would trail DC. Miami is significantly ahead of LA however which more explaining on LA's end needs to be done. Nonetheless your points about Miami are valid, and it's still the jobs and economic epicenter of the 3rd largest state.

[elchevere]

Sorry, folks...deleted a couple of messages...mistook per capita for total taxes. Senior moment. My bad. Per capita, LA has 3x the population—hard to maintain a higher average with such a dramatic difference.