Lila Valencia, Miguel Flores, & Nazrul Hoque University of Texas at San Antonio Applied Demography Conference January 2012

  Texas is characterized by large and rapid growth.  One of the fastest growing states in the nation.  Second in population only to California. Background 2000 Population* 2010 Population* Numerical Change Percent Change United States 281,421,906308,745,53827,323,6329.7% Texas 20,851,82025,145,5614,293, % California 33,871,64837,253,9563,382, % Florida 15,982,37818,801,3102,818, % Georgia 8,186,4539,687,6531,501, % North Carolina 8,049,313 9,535,483 1,486, % Arizona 5,130,632 6,392,017 1,261, % Population values are decennial census counts for April 1, 2000 and April 1, % of numerical change in U.S. Source: U.S. Census Bureau and 2010 Apportionment Data.

  Texas has had a net surplus of migrants dating back to  In the last decade, net migration contributed a little less than half to the Texas total population growth. Background Percent Change Due to Year*Population Numerical Change Natural Increase Net Migration Percent Change Natural Increase Net Migration 19507,711, ,579,6771,868,4831,754,652113, ,196,7301,617,0531,402,683214, ,229,1913,032,4611,260,7941,771, ,986,5102,757,3191,815,670941, ,851,028 3,865,310 1,919,2811,946, ,782,302 3,930,4842,124,1241,781, *All values for the decennial dates are for the indicated census year. Values for 2011 are for July 1 as estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau. Note: Residual values are not presented in this table. Source: Derived from U.S. Census Bureau Estimates for dates indicated by the Texas State Data Center.

  Common data sources used in estimating domestic migration include the decennial census, ACS, CPS, SIPP, and IRS.  Hughes et al. (2007) and officials at the North Dakota State Data Center have used tax returns and exemptions as a proxy for net population flows.  The U.S. Census Bureau incorporates IRS data in their estimates of net internal migration. Literature Review

 ACS – IRS Comparison



  Take two distinct approaches to explore who is moving to Texas and how these characteristics may impact the Texas economy  Exploring economic impact using aggregate adjusted gross income generated from net gains of migrants.  Estimating demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of domestic migrants to Texas Objectives

  U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, Single-Year estimates  U.S. Internal Revenue Service State-to-State Migration Data based on individual income tax returns Data Sources

 Methods  ACS 1-Year Estimates characteristics of domestic migrants to Texas  Sex  Age group (Under 18, 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65+)  Race/Ethnicity (NH White, NH Black, NH Asian, NH Other, Hispanic)  Educational attainment (<HS, HS or GED, some college, college grad, graduate or professional degree)  Occupation (including Management, Business, & Finance; Computer, Engineering, & Science; Service; and Construction & Extraction occupations)  Industry (20 NAICS general categories, including Utilities; Construction; Manufacturing, Wholesale and Retail Trade)

  Inflow – taxpayers who filed federal tax returns in Texas but filed from a different state in the previous year.  Outflow – taxpayers who filed federal tax returns in a state other than Texas but filed from Texas the previous year.  Net Flow – the difference between inflow tax returns and outflow tax returns. A positive net flow indicates more inflow than outflow in Texas, and vice versa.  Adjusted gross income – gross income (total non-tax- exempt money, goods, property, and services) minus adjustments to income.  Exemptions – the characteristics of a taxpayer, such as age or number of dependents, that allow the taxpayer to make certain deductions from taxable income. Methods

 Statistical Methods  Descriptive analysis evaluating similarities and differences between IRS and ACS estimates  Descriptive analysis of IRS State-to-State Migration data to determine state of origin of inflows to Texas, destination state of outflows in Texas, and the associated aggregate adjusted gross income of these in/outflows.  Bivariate analysis of ACS 1-Year Estimates of characteristics of domestic migrants to Texas, including a Chi-square test of independence with the cellchi2 option.

 Results







 Flows of Federal Tax Returns in Texas YearInflowOutflowNet Flow ,524157,72816, ,934160,30768, ,272165,97648, ,169168,20652, ,308163,78255,526 Flows of Exemptions in Texas YearInflowOutflowNet Flow ,442321,71945, ,625328,077169, ,085340,178120, ,563337,997125, ,286329,215127,071

 Results Flows of Income into and out of Texas Aggregate AGI ($ 000) YearInflowOutflowNet Flow 20048,249,1347,160,7941,088, ,556,9987,643,9702,913, ,948,6558,018,6682,929, ,340,7288,563,0932,777, ,667,7878,002,1552,665,632 Total51,763,30239,388,68012,374,622 Average AGI, Net Returns, and Net Aggregate AGI Average AGI per Return YearInto TexasOut of Texas 2004$47,266$45, $46,114$47, $51,097$48, $51,276$50, $48,643$48,859

 Results Exemptions and Income Inflow into Texas: Top Ten Origin States, 2008 Rank*Origin StateExemptions Aggregate Adjusted Gross Income ($ 000) 1CALIFORNIA 56,6821,316,386 2FLORIDA 35,455730,009 3LOUISIANA 24,485538,274 4OKLAHOMA 20,164468,619 5GEORGIA 18,622377,599 6ILLINOIS 17,154498,060 7ARIZONA 16,933349,336 8COLORADO 15,813370,367 9VIRGINIA 14,640411,287 10NEW YORK 14,129412,660 TX Total Mig - US 456,28610,667,787 % Top Ten State 51.3 Exemptions and Income Outflow from Texas: Top Ten Destination States, 2008 Rank*Destination StateExemptions Aggregate Adjusted Gross Income ($ 000) 1CALIFORNIA 34,010909,746 2LOUISIANA 22,522403,484 3OKLAHOMA 20,711437,429 4FLORIDA 19,223484,651 5COLORADO 14,195394,268 6GEORGIA 13,492305,186 7VIRGINIA 12,021333,493 8NEW MEXICO 11,759227,224 9ARIZONA 11,003268,751 10NEW YORK 9,628315,488 TX Total Mig - US 329,2158,002,155 % Top Ten State *Ranking by total number of exemptions.

 Conclusions Push Factors  Minimal safety net  High property taxes  Relatively lower- performing public schools  Low insurance rates  High pollution rates Pull Factors  No state income tax  Lower than average unemployment  Relatively affordable housing  Relatively affordable higher education

  Increases in net AGI can produce related increases in consumer expenditures, jobs, GDP, and state sales/property, and income taxes.  Future studies could evaluate economic impact of net migration flows, particularly net AGI’s, in states with and without state income tax.  Compare ACS household incomes of in- versus out- migrants with IRS inflow and outflow AGIs.  While it is clear migration is an important part of Texas’ growth, motivations for migrating to or from Texas are less clear, but there is some evidence of an economic pull. Conclusions