South Dakota Shows Extremes in Poverty, Income

I suppose I shouldn't get too excited about South Dakota's supposedly growing wealth. GDP growth be darned, South Dakota is still home to the most impoverished county in the United States. Take a look at the data from the U.S. Census Small Area Poverty and Income Estimates for 2009, and you'll learn that Ziebach County on the Cheyenne River Reservation has a 62.0% poverty rate. Buffalo County, home of the Crow Creek tribe on the Missouri River, has the lowest median hosuehold income in the country, just $18,860. (Remember, median means it's the halfway mark: half the households in Fort Thompson are living on less than that.)

South Dakota has seven counties among the 30 with the highest overall poverty rates. However, greater suburban Sioux Falls in Lincoln County has the ninth-lowest poverty rate in the nation, a mere 4.2%. Median household income in Lincoln County is $72,894, almost four times the median in Buffalo County.

Child poverty in Lincoln County is a mere 5.4%, compared with 76.7% in Ziebach County. As this PDF map of South Dakota school districts shows, we have a concentration of white districts (o.k., pale green) around Sioux Falls with exceptionally low child poverty rates, below 9%.

Add those extremes, and South Dakota comes out right in the middle, with a 14.2% poverty rate among all ages, just below the national average of 14.3%. We rank 27th among the states and D.C. New Hampshire, Alaska, Maryland, Connecticut, and New Jersey are best off, with poverty below 10%. West Virginia, New Mexico, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Mississippi have the most poverty, with Mississippi the only state cracking 20% (21.8%, to be exact).

We are similarly middling in child poverty: our state rate of 18.9% of all kids (i.e., under 18) in poverty ranks us 26th nationally, under the national average of 20.0%. But being a little above average still means nearly 111,000 of our neighbors, including 37,000 of our kids, are in poverty.

Table 1: Poverty and Income in the United States Source: U.S. Census Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 2009
State and County	People in Poverty	% in Poverty	Kids (Under 18) in Poverty	% Under 18 in Poverty	Median Income
United States	42,868,163	14.3	14,656,962	20	50,221
Alabama	805,223	17.5	274,243	24.6	40,547
Alaska	61,949	9.1	22,221	12.3	66,712
Arizona	1,065,728	16.5	396,006	23.3	48,711
Arkansas	519,026	18.5	185,268	26.6	37,888
California	5,132,640	14.2	1,846,994	19.9	58,925
Colorado	618,676	12.6	201,208	16.6	55,735
Connecticut	318,008	9.3	95,570	12	66,906
Delaware	96,409	11.2	33,851	16.7	56,985
Dist. Columbia	100,489	17.6	32,621	29	58,906
Florida	2,712,692	15	857,326	21.5	44,755
Georgia	1,585,116	16.6	575,429	22.7	47,469
Hawaii	131,896	10.4	39,214	13.7	63,741
Idaho	217,528	14.4	76,630	18.5	44,644
Illinois	1,671,343	13.3	586,040	18.7	53,974
Indiana	895,619	14.4	310,140	19.9	45,427
Iowa	342,309	11.8	109,384	15.6	48,065
Kansas	359,692	13.2	118,187	17.1	47,709
Kentucky	771,876	18.4	251,684	25.3	40,061
Louisiana	769,001	17.6	274,805	24.8	42,460
Maine	161,504	12.6	46,349	17.5	45,708
Maryland	509,141	9.2	157,164	11.8	69,193
Massachusetts	658,497	10.3	187,931	13.3	64,057
Michigan	1,565,559	16.1	513,550	22.2	45,254
Minnesota	558,118	10.9	172,134	13.9	55,621
Mississippi	620,446	21.8	230,409	30.7	36,764
Missouri	850,316	14.6	291,359	20.7	45,149
Montana	142,257	15	44,840	20.9	42,222
Nebraska	212,312	12.2	67,346	15.3	47,470
Nevada	323,738	12.4	117,742	17.6	53,310
New Hampshire	110,769	8.6	31,278	11	60,734
New Jersey	798,258	9.4	269,659	13.3	68,444
New Mexico	359,030	18.2	129,552	25.8	42,830
New York	2,708,119	14.2	878,114	20.2	54,554
North Carolina	1,475,063	16.2	503,713	22.5	43,754
North Dakota	72,911	11.7	20,022	14.1	47,898
Ohio	1,699,288	15.1	577,026	21.6	45,467
Oklahoma	575,711	16.1	199,277	22.1	41,716
Oregon	536,813	14.3	166,073	19.4	48,325
Pennsylvania	1,517,347	12.5	466,423	17.1	49,501
Rhode Island	122,379	12	39,988	17.9	53,243
South Carolina	753,286	17.1	258,848	24.4	42,580
South Dakota	110,863	14.2	36,884	18.9	45,048
Tennessee	1,055,635	17.2	352,943	24	41,715
Texas	4,143,077	17.1	1,655,085	24.3	48,286
Utah	321,441	11.7	110,852	12.9	55,183
Vermont	69,137	11.5	17,371	14	51,219
Virginia	805,555	10.6	255,156	14	59,372
Washington	803,266	12.3	249,767	16.2	56,479
West Virginia	316,155	17.8	91,059	24.1	37,423
Wisconsin	682,973	12.4	215,052	16.7	49,994
Wyoming	53,974	10.2	17,176	13.2	54,400

Breaking it down by county, my home county of Lake comes out 18th for median household income at $45,322, not quite $300 above the statewide median, and a few thousand above my own. Lake County's poverty rates for all residents and for kids are about the same, a tick or two above 12%.

1074 counties in the United States have higher median household incomes than our fair Lake County. 2101 counties have lower median household incomes than we do. Not bad!

Table 2: Poverty and income in South Dakota, by County. Source: U.S. Census Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 2009
Place	People in Poverty	% in Poverty	Kids (under 18) in Poverty	% Kids in Poverty	Median Income
South Dakota	110,863	14.2	36,884	18.9	45,048
Aurora	348	13	127	19.7	40,900
Beadle	2,138	13.5	719	19	42,348
Bennett	1,242	37.8	530	49	32,137
Bon Homme	864	15.5	196	15.9	39,485
Brookings	3,942	14.7	574	10.3	46,733
Brown	3,455	10.2	944	12.1	47,378
Brule	739	14.6	256	20	40,113
Buffalo	893	43.6	405	51.5	18,860
Butte	1,343	14.2	488	20.6	38,015
Campbell	162	12	31	12.9	39,048
Charles Mix	2,137	24.3	954	36.2	33,135
Clark	428	12.7	141	18.6	40,806
Clay	2,573	23.1	441	19.5	38,421
Codington	2,952	11.4	856	13.3	44,548
Corson	1,578	39	691	52.6	26,426
Custer	830	10.9	271	18.6	46,441
Davison	2,384	13.1	670	15.4	41,441
Day	848	15.9	275	22.2	36,702
Deuel	403	9.6	132	13.3	43,678
Dewey	1,834	31.2	849	40.9	29,804
Douglas	355	12.6	108	16.8	41,049
Edmunds	463	12.2	127	13.7	46,490
Fall River	1,264	18.6	367	27.8	34,464
Faulk	282	13	72	15.1	43,600
Grant	744	10.7	192	12.2	42,559
Gregory	796	20.3	252	30	31,580
Haakon	233	13.5	72	18.3	40,447
Hamlin	623	10.9	241	14.3	46,444
Hand	377	11.9	109	15.7	42,791
Hanson	287	8.1	124	12.4	53,377
Harding	169	15.6	46	20.5	39,496
Hughes	1,835	11.4	562	14.4	56,239
Hutchinson	851	12.5	270	16.4	39,880
Hyde	186	13.7	59	18.8	40,674
Jackson	947	36.1	447	52.7	30,375
Jerauld	305	16	79	20.4	39,786
Jones	170	16.4	71	28.6	38,843
Kingsbury	573	11.2	140	12.6	41,629
Lake	1,390	12.2	294	12.1	45,322
Lawrence	3,355	15	800	17.6	41,227
Lincoln	1,704	4.2	641	5.4	72,894
Lyman	921	23.8	383	32.8	34,318
McCook	533	9.8	167	11.6	45,730
McPherson	430	18.1	107	22.1	31,945
Marshall	547	13.5	178	18.3	39,303
Meade	3,001	12.9	921	16.6	44,568
Mellette	757	38.2	332	52.7	27,455
Miner	295	12.5	87	15.5	38,370
Minnehaha	18,519	10.5	5,642	13.1	48,443
Moody	609	9.7	204	13	47,045
Pennington	13,863	14.1	5,013	20.4	46,972
Perkins	490	17.4	139	22.9	33,755
Potter	259	13	75	19.4	43,348
Roberts	2,008	20.6	795	29	36,718
Sanborn	333	13.9	103	18.6	41,364
Shannon	6,977	51.6	3,090	57.2	25,048
Spink	743	12.3	214	14.3	43,905
Stanley	270	9.7	107	15.5	51,185
Sully	146	10.9	39	11.3	48,816
Todd	4,491	45.3	2,191	57.1	24,742
Tripp	1,107	20.4	400	30.1	38,887
Turner	739	9.2	203	10.9	47,749
Union	889	6.2	290	8.1	58,785
Walworth	867	17.2	275	24.2	36,704
Yankton	2,484	12.3	711	14.5	46,028
Ziebach	1,582	62	593	76.7	25,084

South Dakota Posts 4th Best Q2 Personal Income Growth

I don't feel much richer, but someone in South Dakota must be making money. The latest report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that South Dakota had the fourth-highest rate of growth in personal income during the second quarter of 2010. Personal income growth across all states rose 1.0%; South Dakota's personal income grew 1.4% over Q1, thanks largely to increases in the farm sector. The three states beating us: third-place Texas, second-place Montana (nice work, Larry!), and (trumpets!) first-place North Dakota. Our income-taxing socialist neighbors to the north posted 2.0% personal income growth.

No report from the Noem camp on how this data squares with a "jobless stimulus."

Federal Taxes Trend Lower Since 1979

Top Income Earners Take Bigger Share of Wealth

So I was reading the Congressional Budget Office Director's Blog (because that's what bloggers do, right?). CBO Chief Douglas Elmendorf wrote a really interesting post last month about the estimated average federal tax rates we all pay. These numbers fit with the Rachel Maddow report I discussed last April about how Americans under President Obama have one of the lowest federal income tax burdens in modern history. The CBO's numbers cover 1979 to 2007—nuts! no Obama comparisons yet! But they do offer a broader picture by looking at not just federal income tax, but every penny we send Washington-ward. The CBO even includes corporate income tax and employer share of payroll taxes, figuring those taxes all get passed on to households one way or another.

Cool! Hand me that data and let's make some charts:

persons in household	lowest	second	middle	fourth	highest
1	$0	$20,500	$34,300	$50,000	$74,700
2	$0	$28,991	$48,508	$70,711	$105,642
3	$0	$35,507	$59,409	$86,603	$129,384
4	$0	$41,000	$68,600	$100,000	$149,400
5	$0	$45,839	$76,697	$111,803	$167,034
6	$0	$50,215	$84,017	$122,474	$182,977
7	$0	$54,238	$90,749	$132,288	$197,638
8	$0	$57,983	$97,015	$141,421	$211,284
9	$0	$61,500	$102,900	$150,000	$224,100
10	$0	$64,827	$108,466	$158,114	$236,222

Table 1: Minimum adjusted income by quintile and household size

First, let's talk quintiles. The CBO numbers divide American households into five equal slices: lowest fifth of income earners, second, middle, fourth, and highest. The above chart shows the minimum amount a household has to make to be considered part of a given quintile.

CBO adjusts income based on the square root of the number of people in the household. Basically, the more people in a household, the more income they need to count as members of the richer group. My three-person family is currently in the second quintile. Add one more child, and we might well drop to the lowest quintile by CBO's count.

Now that you can figure out which quintile you're in, here's an idea of what the average federal tax burden is for folks in about the same household income situation as you (you'll want to click the chart to make it bigger):

We see that, as of 2007, overall federal tax burden as a percentage of household income was lower under the Bush Administration than under the Reagan Administration for everyone but the highest quintile (that is, the top-earning 20% of households). Again, as Maddow and real data suggested in April, if folks feel their taxes have been getting higher over the past several years, they can't blame Uncle Sam.

The overall tax rate is neatly progressive, with each quintile paying a larger percentage of its income than the one below it throughout the 28 years surveyed.

The richest fifth of American households have footed over half the federal tax bill throughout the period CBO surveys. Their share of the tax liability has increased from a minimum of 55.0% in 1982 to 68.9% in 2007. The biggest chunk the lowest 20% paid was in 1984: 2.4% of Uncle Sam's tab. Since 2004, the lowest quintile's share has been less than 1%.

Of course, you'd expect the richest fifth to pay a bigger chunk of the tax bill, since they have a bigger chunk of the money, right?

Indeed, but note, fellow Marxist plotters: the highest quintile has a smaller share of the nation's income than their share of the federal tax liability. That top fifth do take the lion's share, increasing their take from 45.5% of the nation's income in 1979 to 55.9% in 2007. Conversely, the bottom quintile earns a larger chunk of the national income than its share of the federal tax liability. but their share of the wealth has dropped from 5.8% in 1979 to 4.0% in 2007.

Interestingly, over the same span, the other three income quintiles have each seen their share of the national income drop by 2.7 percentage points. The difference may not be much, but the only people getting a bigger piece of the pie since the Reagan years are the richest Americans.

Consider also the percentage increases in average income for each quintile since 1979, adjusted for inflation:

1. Lowest quintile: 11%
2. Second quintile: 18%
3. Middle quintile: 19%
4. Fourth quintile: 29%
5. Highest quintile: 89%

Apparently all five quintiles have gained some buying power, but as usual, the rich get richer faster. Consider that the average household income in the lowest quintile in 2007 was $18,400. If we had managed to trickle down to the bottom quintile the same 89% income growth that the top quintile enjoyed, the bottom quintile's average household income would have been $31,319. If you're scraping by on $18K, tell me what a difference it would make in your life if suddenly you were making $31K.

These numbers show that the recent historical trend is for a lower federal tax burden for everyone. As intended in a progressive tax scheme, the rich shoulder by far the greatest portion of those taxes. Their share of taxes exceeds their share of income, but the rich are claiming an increasing share of the national wealth, leaving every group beneath them with smaller slices of the American pie.