|
'44::m.- _ yr`
<br /> Section II: State Rankings . . yF.
<br /> ;r r
<br /> This state rankings section is a new addition to Si nifica :i'''''17: -6,. '.'- .;
<br /> Features. It '�
<br /> t comes in response '.�,;`�~'.; :;-:
<br /> --� esponse to the numerous queries that ACIR staff ;'' = "i members receive in the course of the year. These rankings should as i,! 'fis'
<br /> those policymakers assist y,�rr,;_.:..-_:,
<br /> p ymakers and researchers who wish to know how their state ` '? +`+
<br /> compares on a number of revenue and spending measures.
<br /> Data for state and local governments were combined for each state . ....-.t.{
<br /> rather ;; ..- _ 3
<br /> than listed separately for a very a � ° % .' `-;,,
<br /> Y ry fundamental reason: -.a'�.,;; . ''
<br /> particular a,. .;. ,,t : w'- �r
<br /> functions of government are financed and delivered at the state level
<br /> ;.. -::-,
<br /> some states while in others those same services may financed and xn '`'' ` `
<br /> by local governments. I provided > 4? ;�, .;:T-
<br /> g In order to rank the states on a variety of revenue ' ?Mt ►-'_ ;,'. :_; '-;_
<br /> and expenditure items, one must first ensure that such comparisons are _' .._, ?'' ' - '- '
<br /> appropriate. The combining of state government data with local government f;�
<br /> data does this `'"�`
<br /> Simply because a state ,; 1;'..;i,;" '
<br /> P Y tate has a particularly high or low ranking on a ,r; _u' =: ,<.:?
<br /> specific revenue or spending item does not necessarily mean that a . , ' '`,
<br /> state is Y givep.�.~aa..:..... ,.. .:....:. .;
<br /> pursuing an inappropriate level of taxation or level of government y: .? ;.-.:.s-. .'.1
<br /> servic.e. Many would cite the diversity that exists between the states..ae ; `�{'`:R . . `:.�7
<br /> one of the virtues of the federal system of governance ' *-.. ',., ','��°
<br /> overnance in the United g�,� `_.;,=;;;; ,,� {:`a�
<br /> States. So, although these state rankings will be helpful to olic '`' ''''' ,.'-,ti
<br /> and -citizens...in- determining how the states;compare on a variety of 72•'` 1'^ '"'
<br /> f ina''nce, measures only norms Y Pubic .I' �,- .:
<br /> > y" normative. rather than absolute judgments can"- Y'1.
<br /> e ;ri; , .:. .
<br /> made regarding these rankings. .-�- %r�',
<br /> - These, state rankings
<br /> w ere produced using ACIR's Government Finance _; `'.._?� ;;�
<br /> Spreadsheet Diskettes for Microcomputers. These diskettes can be ordered;°''4 .° . :.._;
<br /> from the ACIR should policymakers and researchers desire access to the ;'' ' ' _
<br /> data underlying these rankings in microcomputer spreadsheet form. •In: : :, : F
<br /> addition, these diskettes allow researchers to look at state or local+ =r -`:_;? ::.:; .,..,,;
<br /> government data (aggregated at the state level) separately. ':'?
<br /> •
<br /> Guide to Interpreting the Tables ;,}�''4?-:-„` .
<br /> Each revenue or expenditure item '''' �'`'
<br /> P tanked from highest to lowest on:; " ` f
<br /> a per capita basis � �' 'q _°`'"�
<br /> P and a percentage—of—income basis. "``'ll'
<br /> ' To find the ranking,�, ;` � ;;� .;::: . ��'
<br /> of a particular state, first read down the column to find the Zip Code1, `F 0, ,.`
<br /> abbreviation for the state (see following page) then read across to thec;� � :C ,"
<br /> left--most or right—most to '"find the °x �"
<br /> i ht—most column t �'.��„:�:�
<br /> appropriate ranking. Fort*f ,..:;'';,. ;_. ':
<br /> example, to find the rank of Alabama for state-local per capita tax';',‘.3
<br /> revenue, read down the third bank of columns on Table 106. Note that �'':i'*-!;;.
<br /> Alabama raises $916 per capita in state—local tax revenue. Now look over %:''E't<? ';�
<br /> ;� '
<br /> to the right—most column to determine that Alabama ranks 48th among the: , : '
<br /> 50 states and the District of Columbia in state—local tax revenue. 4 '
<br /> tYi��4 .✓ '7
<br /> 4.180 ...,IT'''.
<br /> U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental ReU
<br /> .
<br /> INIMMEmmor
<br />
|