Returns reporting capital gains and Poverty rate (model-based)
Where Returns reporting capital gains is higher, Poverty rate (model-based) tends to be lower. The link is moderate: -0.40 across 3,121 counties, on a scale from −1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). That figure compares places with the same population density, income and education, so those differences can't explain it. It holds inside states too. Measured separately within each of 40 states, the middle value of the link is -0.57.
Holds 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
Returns reporting capital gains
The percentage of tax returns reporting a capital gain: profit from selling something like stock or property.
IRS Statistics of Income · IRS SOI N01000 / N1
Poverty rate (model-based)
The percentage of people in poverty, as an estimate from a statistical model, not a direct count. The Census Bureau combines survey answers with tax and food-assistance records, to get figures that small counties' survey answers cannot give on their own.
Census SAIPE · Census SAIPE SAEPOVRTALL_PT
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 returns reporting capital gains
| Returns reporting capital gains | Poverty rate (model-based) | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Harding County, SD | 46.6% | 12.1% |
| McPherson County, NE | 45% | 12% |
| Garfield County, MT | 44.4% | 16.9% |
| Carter County, MT | 44.1% | 13.7% |
| Marin County, CA | 43.9% | 8.7% |
| Lowest | ||
| Loving County, TX | 0% | 4.7% |
| King County, TX | 0% | 9.7% |
| Kenedy County, TX | 0% | 14.9% |
| Kusilvak Census Area, AK | 0.722% | 30.8% |
| Starr County, TX | 2.19% | 28.8% |
By poverty rate (model-based)
| Returns reporting capital gains | Poverty rate (model-based) | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Issaquena County, MS | 8.33% | 49.6% |
| Martin County, KY | 4.08% | 48.1% |
| East Carroll Parish, LA | 5.83% | 46.5% |
| Ziebach County, SD | 26% | 46.2% |
| Bolivar County, MS | 9.47% | 38.7% |
| Lowest | ||
| Lincoln County, SD | 24.2% | 3.3% |
| Douglas County, CO | 31.9% | 3.7% |
| Los Alamos County, NM | 31% | 3.8% |
| Loudoun County, VA | 31% | 4.1% |
| Morgan County, UT | 23.2% | 4.3% |
States
By returns reporting capital gains
| Returns reporting capital gains | Poverty rate (model-based) | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| District of Columbia | 23.9% | 15.2% |
| Washington | 23.4% | 10.3% |
| Massachusetts | 22.8% | 10.5% |
| New Jersey | 22.4% | 9.7% |
| Connecticut | 22.3% | 10.2% |
| Lowest | ||
| Mississippi | 10.1% | 18.3% |
| West Virginia | 11.2% | 16.4% |
| Alabama | 12.8% | 15.7% |
| Louisiana | 13.1% | 18.9% |
| New Mexico | 13.4% | 16.9% |
By poverty rate (model-based)
| Returns reporting capital gains | Poverty rate (model-based) | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Louisiana | 13.1% | 18.9% |
| Mississippi | 10.1% | 18.3% |
| New Mexico | 13.4% | 16.9% |
| West Virginia | 11.2% | 16.4% |
| Kentucky | 13.6% | 16.1% |
| Lowest | ||
| New Hampshire | 22% | 7.3% |
| Utah | 16.8% | 9% |
| Minnesota | 21.5% | 9.2% |
| Colorado | 21.9% | 9.4% |
| New Jersey | 22.4% | 9.7% |
Metro areas
By returns reporting capital gains
| Returns reporting capital gains | Poverty rate (model-based) | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Wildwood-The Villages, FL | 37.9% | 9.7% |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA | 36.3% | 7.65% |
| Jackson, WY-ID | 35.2% | 6.34% |
| Boulder, CO | 34.6% | 11% |
| Heber, UT | 33.1% | 5.05% |
| Lowest | ||
| Rio Grande City-Roma, TX | 2.19% | 28.8% |
| Eagle Pass, TX | 2.5% | 22.8% |
| Gallup, NM | 3.21% | 34.3% |
| Raymondville, TX | 3.64% | 27.8% |
| El Centro, CA | 3.72% | 17.3% |
By poverty rate (model-based)
| Returns reporting capital gains | Poverty rate (model-based) | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Cleveland, MS | 9.47% | 38.7% |
| Greenville, MS | 6.75% | 35.5% |
| Forrest City, AR | 6.07% | 34.3% |
| Gallup, NM | 3.21% | 34.3% |
| Selma, AL | 6.88% | 31.4% |
| Lowest | ||
| Los Alamos, NM | 31% | 3.8% |
| Heber, UT | 33.1% | 5.05% |
| Appleton, WI | 21.8% | 5.93% |
| Jackson, WY-ID | 35.2% | 6.34% |
| Nantucket, MA | 23% | 6.5% |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 3,143 counties: the five with far more poverty rate (model-based) than their returns reporting capital gains would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Returns reporting capital gains | Poverty rate (model-based) | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Ziebach County, SD | 26% | 46.2% |
| Issaquena County, MS | 8.33% | 49.6% |
| Martin County, KY | 4.08% | 48.1% |
| East Carroll Parish, LA | 5.83% | 46.5% |
| Bolivar County, MS | 9.47% | 38.7% |
| Below the line | ||
| Loving County, TX | 0% | 4.7% |
| King County, TX | 0% | 9.7% |
| Tooele County, UT | 9.65% | 6.8% |
| Manassas Park city, VA | 8.62% | 7.7% |
| Aleutians West Census Area, AK | 5.7% | 10% |
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 | -0.624 | 3,121 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | -0.400 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | -0.398 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | -0.272 | each county is compared only with others in its own state, so this is no longer a comparison between states |
| Giving bigger counties more weight | -0.179 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 287 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | -0.570 | the link worked out inside each of 40 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | -0.404 | uses 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 = 3.6e-120. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 3.3e-12. 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 3.2e-119.
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 +0.36 (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?
The figures above compare counties at one moment. This asks a different question: where returns reporting capital gains rose most, did poverty rate (model-based)move too? Each county’s change is compared with the average change in its own state. That takes out ups and downs that hit a whole region at once. Each change is the gap between two estimates that both contain some error. That error pulls these links towards zero, so a weak one is weak partly for that reason. The q column shows whether a link could be a fluke, allowing for the many pairs tested: 0.05 or less means it is unlikely to be chance.
| Period | Counties | Change together | Within states | q |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014–2019 the main test: each Census survey figure averages five years, and these two do not overlap; before the pandemic | 3,143 | -0.06 | -0.03 | 0.364 |
| 2019–2023 a repeat check: its two five-year survey figures both include 2019, and it covers the COVID years | 3,143 | +0.00 | +0.00 | 0.899 |
Over the main period, any link between the changes could easily be chance. How change is measured.
Related pairs
- Returns claiming the earned income credit and Poverty rate (model-based) — +0.71
- Poverty rate (model-based) and Homicide rate, annual — +0.56
- Returns reporting capital gains and Adult income rank of children raised poor here — +0.55
- Share with a bachelor's degree or higher and Returns reporting capital gains — +0.55
- Children in single-parent households and Poverty rate (model-based) — +0.55
- Homicide rate and Poverty rate (model-based) — +0.55
- Returns reporting capital gains and Social connection score — +0.54
- Poverty rate (model-based) and Average test score — -0.54
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 Returns reporting capital gains and Poverty rate (model-based)