Submitted by lemonzestttttttt t3_11n1q8k in dataisbeautiful
Comments
tilapios t1_jbl18j1 wrote
It should be the difference between per capita and per taxpayer since not all city residents are city taxpayers.
Dont____Panic t1_jblagyt wrote
I read the one above as individual private debt, not government municipal debt.
Amerikanen t1_jbnsxr6 wrote
I looked at both sources briefly, both are municipal (not personal debt).
However, the data Forbes links to is a much broader measure of municipal debt and the one OP is narrower.
For NYC OP's source is 86B in debt from the city's annual report, and Forbes/Truth in Accounting is 256B. The major difference seems to be the inclusion of unfunded pension and health insurance benefits to city employees.
The use of denominator will also matter for the levels (fewer taxpayers than population), but shouldn't affect the ordering of cities as much as what's included in "debt."
pocketdare t1_jbodurj wrote
Great points. Thanks for doing the legwork. Including the unfunded pension and benefits information would seem, from an accounting standard, to be the more honest, accurate and frightening figure. Also certainly makes me concerned as a condo owner in NYC!
geak78 t1_jbl36yf wrote
I'd like to see it adjusted for the minimum wage in the city.
Amerikanen t1_jbnt8qv wrote
If you click through to OP's source link you'll see it scaled by average income per capita in the city, which is similar to what you're asking.
https://app.openaxis.com/data/5076
It moves SF from #2 to #10.
pocketdare t1_jbkwoa6 wrote
That looks quite a bit different from this chart published by Forbes which is "municipal debt per taxpayer". I assume that's the same metric but I may be wrong.