Source: U.S. Census Bureau, StatisticalAbstract of the United States.
2. HFI of State Revenues BeforeIntergovernmental Transfers
Table B6 provides data on per capita staterevenues excluding transfers from the federal government as a percentage of thenational average. Differences across regions arise due to differences inpreferences and in the ability to raise revenues. With regard to the latter,there is a wide variation among states in types of revenue sources. Forexample, several states levy no personal or corporate income taxes or salestaxes. Some states levy property taxes at the state level, the local level, orboth.
The data shows that New England, theMid-Atlantic, and the Pacific regions have been consistently above the nationalaverage in revenues per capita.27 As was true for percapita expenditures, the East and West South Central regions are considerablybelow the national average. The New England and West North Centralregions have witnessed a considerable increase in revenues per capita comparedto the national average whereas the Pacific and Mountain regions have seen aconsiderable decrease.
3. HFI of State Revenues AfterIntergovernmental Transfers
In Table B7, we provide data on state percapita revenues including transfers from the federal government as a percentageof the national average. By comparing this data to that of Table B6, weare able to determine whether intergovernmental transfers have had any effecton reducing HFIs on the revenue side. A comparison with Table B6 showsthat there has been a slight equalization of revenues per capita because ofintergovernmental transfers. One striking anomaly is the Pacific region.In that region, transfers have increased revenues per capita even more abovethe national average. If we ignore the Pacific region, the equalization amongthe other regions would likely be more pronounced.
The extent of equalization of revenues canbe measured by the coefficient of variation. Tables 2 and 3 in theAppendix provide measures of the coefficient of variation of revenues acrossstates for selected years from 1970 to 1995. As is evident in the tables,the variation in revenues is reduced because of intergovernmental transfers forall years except 1975, where it is slightly higher after transfers.
The data in Tables B6 and B7 show that theNew England, Mid-Atlantic, and East and West North Central regions are netcontributors to redistribution among regions. Note that the latter twoare net contributors despite being below the national average. Alsonoteworthy is the fact that the East and West South Central regions continue tobe well below the national average despite intergovernmentaltransfers.
Table B7: State Governments Per CapitaRevenues, After Intergovernmental Transfers, as a Percentage of the UnitedStates Average
Материалы этого сайта размещены для ознакомления, все права принадлежат их авторам.
Если Вы не согласны с тем, что Ваш материал размещён на этом сайте, пожалуйста, напишите нам, мы в течении 1-2 рабочих дней удалим его.