placestats

Share of some other race, not Hispanic and Local income tax as a share of income

Across 162 counties, Share of some other race, not Hispanic and Local income tax as a share of income have a link of +0.53, on a scale from −1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). But compare places with the same population density, income and education, and what is left could easily be chance. Most of the first figure came from both measures following how urban, rich and educated a place is, not from a link with each other.

Mostly gone after adjusting

Every place, plotted

One dot for each place reporting both measures. Hover over or tap a dot to see its name and values. The thin line is the straight line that best fits the dots. The bold line, shown for counties, is the link after adjusting for density, income and education. A dot far from the lines is a place that does not follow the pattern.

Loading every place…

What each measure is

Share of some other race, not Hispanic

The percentage of residents who report some other race alone and are not Hispanic. It is small almost everywhere. It is included so the eight shares cover everyone, with nobody left over.

Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B03002_008, divided by total population

Local income tax as a share of income

Local income tax as a percentage of what residents earned. It is zero in most of the country. About 4,800 local governments in a dozen states charge one, and New York City's is the largest. When a city spans several counties, its tax is split between them by where its residents' income is.

Census local government finances · Census local government finances, item T40, every local government

Highest and lowest

Where each measure is highest and lowest among the places reporting both (2023), with the other measure beside it. This is shown for every size of place where both are published. Metro-area values are added up from their counties. A measure that cannot be added up across counties, such as a middle value (median), has no metro figure. Counts are shown per 1,000 residents, since raw totals would only list the largest places. Cities and towns and ZIP codes are shown where the Census survey or the CDC publishes them; most other sources stop at the county. They are shown for places of 5,000 residents or more, and only where the survey’s margin of error is small enough for the figure to be usable. The CDC publishes its health estimates for cities in a version adjusted for age, so places with older or younger people can be compared fairly, but not for ZIP codes.

Counties

By share of some other race, not Hispanic

Share of some other race, not HispanicLocal income tax as a share of income
Highest
Queens County, NY2.26%2.42
Monroe County, PA1.4%0.445
Fulton County, PA1.32%0.416
Westchester County, NY1.07%0.0597
Bronx County, NY0.995%2.44
Lowest
Wilcox County, AL0%0.00102
Elk County, PA0%0.476
Cameron County, PA0%0.3
Pike County, OH0%0.233
Mercer County, OH0%0.776

By local income tax as a share of income

Share of some other race, not HispanicLocal income tax as a share of income
Highest
District of Columbia, DC0.64%4.57
Bronx County, NY0.995%2.44
New York County, NY0.801%2.44
Kings County, NY0.981%2.42
Queens County, NY2.26%2.42
Lowest
Sedgwick County, KS0.473%0.00001
McPherson County, KS0%0.000168
Jefferson County, MO0.295%0.000194
Hickory County, MO0%0.000294
Mississippi County, MO0%0.000404
States

By share of some other race, not Hispanic

Share of some other race, not HispanicLocal income tax as a share of income
Highest
New York0.901%1.01
District of Columbia0.64%4.16
Maryland0.587%1.69
Oregon0.491%0.136
Pennsylvania0.444%0.735
Lowest
Iowa0.248%0.0602
Kentucky0.263%0.766
Alabama0.307%0.0541
Missouri0.364%0.14
Ohio0.38%0.992

By local income tax as a share of income

Share of some other race, not HispanicLocal income tax as a share of income
Highest
District of Columbia0.64%4.16
Maryland0.587%1.69
New York0.901%1.01
Ohio0.38%0.992
Kentucky0.263%0.766
Lowest
Kansas0.381%0.00054
Alabama0.307%0.0541
Iowa0.248%0.0602
Michigan0.391%0.135
Oregon0.491%0.136
Metro areas — Local income tax as a share of income is not published for metro areas

By share of some other race, not Hispanic

Share of some other race, not HispanicLocal income tax as a share of income
Highest
East Stroudsburg, PA1.4%—
Barnstable Town, MA1.25%—
Cheyenne, WY1.23%—
Kingston, NY1.23%—
Providence-Warwick, RI-MA1.22%—
Lowest
Zapata, TX0%—
Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH0%—
Weatherford, OK0%—
Victoria, TX0%—
Vernon, TX0%—
Cities and towns — Local income tax as a share of income is not published for cities and towns

By share of some other race, not Hispanic

Share of some other race, not HispanicLocal income tax as a share of income
Highest
Brockton city, MA6.8%—
Framingham city, MA6.26%—
New Bedford city, MA4.17%—
Milford CDP, MA4.08%—
Marlborough city, MA3.91%—
Lowest
Terryville CDP, CT0%—
Southwood Acres CDP, CT0%—
Sandy Hook CDP, CT0%—
Ridgefield CDP, CT0%—
Pawcatuck CDP, CT0%—
ZIP codes — Local income tax as a share of income is not published for ZIP codes

By share of some other race, not Hispanic

Share of some other race, not HispanicLocal income tax as a share of income
Highest
ZIP 11419 (New York city, NY)19.7%—
ZIP 11436 (New York city, NY)11.7%—
ZIP 07105 (Newark city, NJ)8.66%—
ZIP 01702 (Framingham city, MA)8.45%—
ZIP 11420 (New York city, NY)8.4%—
Lowest
ZIP 08867 (Hunterdon County, NJ)0%—
ZIP 08853 (Neshanic Station CDP, NJ)0%—
ZIP 08833 (Hunterdon County, NJ)0%—
ZIP 08826 (Hunterdon County, NJ)0%—
ZIP 08758 (Ocean County, NJ)0%—

Counties furthest from the pattern

Compared with the straight line that best fits all 162 counties: the five with far more local income tax as a share of income than their share of some other race, not Hispanic would suggest, and the five with far less.

Share of some other race, not HispanicLocal income tax as a share of income
Above the line
District of Columbia, DC0.64%4.57
Richmond County, NY0.539%2.31
New York County, NY0.801%2.44
Philadelphia County, PA0.684%2.16
Bronx County, NY0.995%2.44
Below the line
Westchester County, NY1.07%0.0597
Monroe County, PA1.4%0.445
Fulton County, PA1.32%0.416
Berrien County, MI0.615%0.0217
Oakland County, MI0.525%0.0145

Two series, one county

Both measures over time for a county you pick. The two charts are stacked, so they share only the years along the bottom. You can pick from the thirty largest counties reporting both. This panel covers 2010–2024, and a measure published only once shows as a single dot.

Loading…

Every version of the link

Each row measures the same link, from −1 to +1, in a different way. If the rows mostly agree, the link does not depend on one choice of method.

Before adjusting for anything+0.531162 counties reporting both
After adjusting for density, income and education+0.027the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is
Also adjusting for population size+0.069size taken out as well as density
Also comparing only within each state-0.029each county is compared only with others in its own state, so this is no longer a comparison between states
Giving bigger counties more weight+0.015the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 51 equally weighted counties
Middle value inside single states+0.199the link worked out inside each of 4 states with at least 20 counties reporting
Using ranks, after adjusting-0.002uses each county’s rank, not its value, so a few extreme counties cannot create the link

How much to believe it

Could it be chance?

The p-value is the chance of seeing a link this strong if there were really none. A value of 0.05 or less means the link is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 3.1e-16 means 0.00000000000000031, and the bigger the number after “e-”, the smaller the value. Treating every county as a separate case gives p = 0.740. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 0.670. The site tested 20,910 pairs, and testing so many turns up some flukes. The q-value allows for that too. For this pair it is 0.760.

Do nearby places look alike?

Moran’s I measures how much nearby places look alike: 0 means no map pattern, and higher means neighbours are more similar. For the part of each county that the adjustment leaves unexplained, it is +0.32 (p = 0.001). That unexplained part still clusters on the map. So some regional factor shared by both measures is not accounted for.

Did they change together?

Not measurable: at least one of these is published for too few of the years a change needs (2014–2019 or 2019–2023), or for too few counties in both.

Related pairs

Association only. Nothing here shows that either measure changes the other. This describes counties, not the people in them. Two measures going together across places does not mean the same people have both. How the US county data works · Explore Share of some other race, not Hispanic and Local income tax as a share of income