The number of Asian residents has also increased at a similar rate during the same time period. The Hispanic population in the U.
Loading statistic Show source. Download for free You need to log in to download this statistic Register for free Already a member? Log in. Show detailed source information? Register for free Already a member? More information. Supplementary notes. Other statistics on the topic. Demographics Population of the U. Demographics Population in the states of the U.
Demographics Population of metropolitan areas in the U. Demographics Population density in the U. Profit from additional features with an Employee Account. Please create an employee account to be able to mark statistics as favorites. Then you can access your favorite statistics via the star in the header.
Profit from additional features by authenticating your Admin account. Then you will be able to mark statistics as favourites and use personal statistics alerts. Thereafter, we examine some of the public services funded by the existing state government in those three regions. The existing State of California—with about Following creation of the three new states, there would be 52 U. Income and Income Disparities. Personal income generally excludes capital gains income—income received from sales of stock, homes, and other assets.
For the U. Within the existing California, wealth is disproportionately concentrated in the Bay Area, while the San Joaquin Valley is one of the poorest regions in the country.
Income in the three new states also would vary:. In , as shown in Figure 2, the per capita PIT paid by filers in Northern California was much higher than that paid by filers in either of the other two proposed states.
This is because Bay Area residents have the highest income levels in the state, and the existing California PIT relies on a progressive rate structure—one in which higher-income individuals pay a higher effective tax rate on their income, including capital gains income from stock and home sales when realized by taxpayers. Currently, the sales tax—levied at a rate of at least 7. Nevertheless, the differences among the proposed states are not as great for this measure as they are for per capita PIT revenues.
Part of the reason for this is that lower-income consumers spend a greater portion of their income on taxable goods. Accordingly, in Southern California—the proposed state with the lowest per capita income levels—per capita taxable sales total 36 percent of per capita income, the highest level among the three new states. Property taxes are the main source of local government revenues and directly influence the existing state budget.
Higher distributions of property taxes to schools typically reduce the amount of money the state must provide to local school districts under Proposition 98, a state constitutional provision passed in As shown in Figure 4 see next page , the per capita assessed value AV of property in the Bay Area is higher than in any other region.
Per capita AV in Southern California lags the other two states and the existing statewide average. In summary, differences in incomes and wealth would translate into very different tax bases for the proposed states.
Mainly because Bay Area residents in the new Northern California have higher incomes, they pay notably more per person in income, sales, and property taxes under the existing California tax system. Residents of the proposed California state—principally in Los Angeles—have income levels at about the existing state average, and on a per-person basis, they pay about the statewide average in income and property taxes, but less per person in sales taxes. Finally, income levels in the proposed Southern California are the weakest of the three new states.
For these reasons, the new Southern California state, at least initially, probably would have a somewhat less robust tax base than that of the other two proposed states and the existing State of California. Proposition 98, a provision of the existing California Constitution, establishes a minimum statewide funding level for K schools and community colleges, funded from a combination of state General Fund revenues and local property taxes.
The colleges and universities also receive tuition and fee revenue from students in addition to tax revenues. The different tax bases and characteristics of the three proposed states would force each to make major decisions about these areas of public spending. Figure 5 see next page shows the level of per-pupil funding from local property taxes and state sources for public schools as of This excludes certain categories of federal and other funding.
The reason for this relatively small disparity in per-pupil school funding is that the existing State of California provides state funding to supplement resources of districts that receive relatively less in property taxes.
In other words, state funding—mainly from state income taxes—equalizes disparities in property tax wealth across school districts and regions. By contrast, Northern California—in which school districts receive far more local property taxes per pupil—now receives far less in state funding per student. The numbers in Figure 5 also are influenced by the fact that the proposed Southern California, due to its demographics, has far more K students 2.
California's public higher education system consists of 72 community college districts with colleges , 23 CSU campuses, and 10 UC campuses. Under the measure, each of the new states presumably would become responsible for a subset of these campuses.
The leaders of the new states would face choices about how to manage and oversee the higher education institutions within their jurisdictions.
Existing state practices are such that funding and cost per student is highest at UC and lowest at community colleges. For this reason, Northern California probably would incur relatively greater costs to maintain these institutions, compared to the other two states, at least initially. Federal research funding also is not evenly distributed among the three proposed states, with campuses particularly UC campuses in the proposed Northern California state now receiving more of this funding compared to campuses in the other two proposed states.
Currently in California, state and local governments jointly fund various health and social services programs—in many cases, with additional support provided by the federal government. Figure 7 see next page provides data on per-resident spending on the CalWORKs program—which provides cash assistance and welfare-to-work services to very low-income families. The figure shows that such spending is higher in the new California than the existing statewide average. Changes in the socioeconomic status and the policies of the new states could increase the level of federal funding for the poorer new states or perhaps decrease it, at least for relatively wealthy Northern California.
Changes in federal funding could offset some of the change in state and local funding for certain health and social services programs. One reason for this complexity is that water does not naturally appear in California where demand is highest.
Large federal, state, and local infrastructure projects have been built to move water from one part of the state to another. About one-third of Americans report currently living in a state other than their home state.
You can find your state by searching or scrolling though the complete list of results below. For more information, reach out to uspress yougov. Methodology: 1, US adults were asked to choose the better of two states from a list of the 50 US states and Washington, D. The poll's introductory text stated, "On each of the next few pages, you will see the names of two states in the US. On each page, we would like you to select the state that you think is the better state.
0コメント