View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

For release at 10 a.m.
Eastern Daylight Time
Monday, August 10, 1964




State Sovereignty arid Fiscal Policy
Remarks of George W. Mitchell
Member, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
at the
Annual Conference of the
National Association of State Budget Officers
Atlantic City, New Jersey
August 10, 1S64

State Sovereignty and Fiscal Policy
The economic impact of changes in the Federal Government's
taxing and spending has been continuously in the foreground of politicaleconomic debate for nearly two years.

It took that long to convince a

majority of the public and the Congress that the axiom "taxation for
revenue only" had at least one corollary--namely, that taxation which
produces revenue also produces an influence, at times critical, on the
rate of economic expansion.
It now appears that the tax reduction enacted last spring has
been a significant factor in stimulating the national economy to some­
what higher levels of economic activity and one consequence of such
greater activity is that State and local governments--without any changes
in their, present tax laws--will have larger revenues.
That rising national income means increased revenue from
general and selective sales taxes, pay roll, personal income and corpo­
rate profits taxes is widely recognized; the response of these yields
to rising economic activity is usually obvious.

But in addition and in

the longer run, rising GNP can also be expected to affect taxes whose
yields have usually been assumed to have little or no income elasticity,
such as property taxes, and even estate and gift taxes.

Realization of

the increased yield potential from these taxes may depend on the aware­
ness which tax administrators have of current economic developments.
example, by how well assessment ratio levels for the property tax are
maintained.

One of the earmarks of good tax administration and alert

fiscal planning is the keeping of tax yields in step with changes in
the economy.




For

-2-

In spite of the higher yields at existing tax rates that will
be forthcoming from a growing economy, many States and localities will
need still more revenue.

Some projections for the coming year suggest

that State and local expenditures may rise by 5 billion (GNP basis) and
a significant part of this amount will be financed by taxation.

The

recent Federal tax reduction opens up some possibility of increasing
State and local yields by substituting State and local taxation for
Federal taxation.— ^ The extent to which sources can be transferred in
this manner is limited by the narrower range of revenue resources avail­
able to the States and localities and by the competition among the States
for business investment and residents.

Moreover, it may be contrary to

the current public policy to dilute significantly the stimulative effects
of a Federal tax cut.
The problem of financial planning that States and localities,
and more particularly their fiscal authorities, face, is one of charting
an expenditure--taxing course that recognizes the characteristics of
our economic society.

Implicit in these characteristics are practical

limitations on the range of fiscal sovereignty but there are opportuni­
ties, too, for broadening the choice of alternatives, particularly as a
consequence of Federal taxing--spending policies.
The States are nominally sovereign within the confines of
their existing constitutions or their constitutions as they may choose
to amend them.

JL/

But the notion that constitutional restraints are the

This possibility is in addition to the increase in the tax base in
income tax States which permit Federal taxes as a deduction in com­
puting taxable income.




-3-

only limits on the exercise of a State's fiscal sovereignty shows little
awareness of several life-sized facts.

Facts that, on the one hand, raise

expenditure levels and modify their patterns and on the other hold down
levels of taxation and exercise a conforming influence on the type of
taxes used.
These modifying and shaping influences on fiscal decisions arise
from the nature of the U. S. economy where freedom to move productive
resources of capital or labor is unrestricted and where individuals, with­
in their capabilities, are virtually unlimited in their choice of a place
to work or a place to live.
In my remarks today I am going to discuss the nature and extent
of these influences on the fiscal policies of our State and local govern­
ment.

First, however, I want to relate the volume of State and local

fiscal operations to national aggregates of economic activity in order
to evaluate the changing importance of these activities on the economy.
Increasing Importance of State and Local Expenditures aqri Receipts.
Since the end of World War II, the total expenditures of govern­
ment on a national income basis--Federal, State, and local--has nearly
quadrupled.

As a per cent of gross national product, total expenditures

have risen from 19.5 per cent in 1947 to over 30 per cent in 1963.

There

was, of course, the burst in Federal expenditures in the early 1950fs to
cope with Cold War developments and the Korean conflict.

However, with

the end of the Korean War, State and local expenditures began to move up
more rapidly and by 1963 accounted for more than one-third of total govern­
ment outlays.

Thus, more than 10 per cent of gross national product is

channeled through State and local fiscal operations.




-

4-

Assuming that national defense needs will not be of Korean or
World War II proportions,- the, recent trend in Federal expenditures, to
level off or even decline and for State and local expenditures to rise,
both as a proportion of GNP,' can be expected to continue.
has some major economic implications.

Such a trend

It implies a shift in the alloca­

tion of resources away from heavy-goods, defense-type industries and
towards services, such as education or medical care, and toward highway
construction and urban redevelopment.

It also implies a shift in revenue

source utilization from the Federal Government to State and local units.
Such a shift in utilization may be accomplished either by increasing the
volume of Federal aid to State and local governments or by reducing
Federal tax rates to make more head room for increased State and local
taxation.
Measures of State and Local Finance.
Turning now to the evaluation and comparison of State and local
fiscal operations, we should be aware of how complicated this task is
because of the multitude of taxing and spending jurisdictions in the
United States; for with the multitude .of jurisdictions goes a near multitude
of tax laws, of spending habits, and service needs.

It becomes necessary,

therefore, to use some technique for summarizing the extent and character
of State and local expenditures and the burden of their taxation.
For this purpose, it is necessary to draw on a different set of
bookkeeping records than the national income accounts to which I have
heretofore referred.

State-by-State data on State and local revenues,

expenditures and debt are available from the compilations of Governments
Division of the*U. S. Census.




-5In 1962, the latest year for which such detailed Census data
are available, State and local governments spent nearly $60 billion and
received in revenue slightly more than $58 billion.

Approximately 87

per cent of the revenue received by State and local governments was
derived from their own revenue sources and 13 per cent received as
grants-in-aid of various kinds from the Federal Government.
These aggregates have a meaning of their own but they have to
be transformed into some relative terms in order to bring to light
similarities or differences in fiscal policies among the States.

The

usual practice with respect to expenditures is to express them on a per
capita basis.

The practice is not wholly satisfactory because of dif­

ferences in price and wage levels in various parts of the country.
Ideally, per capita expenditures should be adjusted for these differences,
but we do not yet have detailed enough price-wage indices to make such
adjustments.

However, the price-wage differentials are probably not of

such magnitude to seriously and frequently impair inter-State comparisons
of the levels; of public services.
When it comes to comparing tax payments, it is customary to
convert these into per capita terms also.

It is clear, however, that

the real burden of providing public goods and services depends not only
on the tax rates and the number of people paying taxes but also on the
levels of income.

A $300 per capita tax revenue is a greater burden in

a State where per capita personal income averages $1,500 than in areas
where per capita personal income averages $3,000.

The burden of taxa­

tion would, with the same level of per capita revenue be equal to 20 per




-6-

cent in the first case ($1,500) and only 10 per cent in the second
($3,000).

Thus, it is the proportion of personal income which is taken

in tax revenue by the State and local governments which gives the most
useful estimate of the range in the burden or cost of providing public
goods and services.
Dispersion in State and Local Finance
Using these two measures--per capita expenditures and revenue
as a percentage of personal income--it becomes apparent that there are
significant differences, not only to the levels of State and local
expenditures and revenues, but also to the type of expenditures and taxes.
The differences in levels of expenditure and revenue would be
even greater if it wer$ possible to obtain data for various locations
within States.

Large intra-State disparities can arise because local

finance is at least as costly as State finance; they do arise because
local needs vary widely and local property tax resources often show
even greater variability both in potential and in use.

It follows,

therefore, that what can be said about the disparities in State-wide
averages could be said with even greater force and effect if intraState data were available.
In 1962, State and local expenditures for the United States
as a whole averaged $321 per person, of which $118 on the average was
spent for education, $56 for highways, $27 for welfare, and the remainder
$117 for other State and local functions.

1/




Aggregate expenditures range

Revenue as a per cent of income is arithmetically the same, of
course, whether it is computed on a per capita basis or using
the totals.

-

7-

from a high of $551 per person in one State to the low of $221 in another-the difference between the two being greater than the national average.
A less dramatic but more scientific way of summarizing the ex­
tent of differences in total expenditure patterns would be to compute
a measure of relative dispersion which would tell us how closely
clustered the various States were to the U. S. average.

And a less

elegant but possibly more revealing technique would be to show the
number of States (or the proportion of the U. S. population living in
States) that deviate by given percentages from the average.
I have chosen this last technique to try to bring into the
focus of judgment the degree to which the States' fiscal policies can
be said to be diverging or conforming.

And to give all of these

statistics a kind of '’
back home” feeling, I have appended to the circu­
lated copies of my remarks, a table and maps which show the relative
fiscal position of each State with respect to its (1) expenditure,
(2) revenue, (3) debt, and (4) personal income.
Income Brackets for States.
Nearly 16 per cent of the U. S. population live in States
where the average per capita personal income is more than 25 per cent
below the average for the entire country.

In contrast, nearly a third

of the population live in States where the average per capita income is
more than 20 per cent above the U. S. average.
As is apparent from both the maps and the tables, these
deviations have a discernible regional pattern.

Incomes in the North-

East areas of the country and in the Mid and Far West will sustain, at
a given tax rate, higher levels of public expenditures than will those




- 8 -

in the South and Southwest.

Or to be more specific, just to maintain a

comparable level of public expenditures, those States in the lower income
brackets would have to use tax rates roughly double those in the high
income bracket States.
Tax Revenues
In actual practice we do not find any such disparity in tax
rates between the low and high income bracket States.

On the contrary,

the striking fact is the narrowness in the dispersion from the Ü. S.
average*

While effective rates of tax show a tendency to vary inversely

to levels of income, over 80 per cent of the total population live in
States where the effective rate of total State and local taxation falls
within 15 per cent of the U. S. average.

In contrast, our measure of

taxable capacity-personal income shows that less than 50 per cent live
in States within 15 per cent of that U. S. average.
No doubt it is the mobility of persons, businesses and invest­
ment that maintains pressure on policy makers to keep the effective rate
of total State and local taxation rather closely aligned, not only with
adjacent States within an economically defined region, but also between
regions.
Although the rate of total taxation is not widely divergent,
the type of taxation does vary and often with significant incidence
implications.

In general, most States tend to rely primarily on one

of three major revenue forms, property taxes, sales taxes, or income
taxes.




In addition, most States utilize one of the other two as a

- 9 -

secondary source of revenue.

The choice.of the primary source shows

definite regional patterns but there is no obvious explanation for the
choice of the secondary source.
The property tax is the primary revenue for most States, except
in the South.

For those States which rely primarily on the property tax,

which, of course, is usually the main source of local revenue, income
taxes or sales taxes are apparently interchangeable as the main source
of State revenue.

In the South, where sales taxes are the major source

of revenue, property or income taxes are apparently interchangeable.
However, there is no State which has low rates of taxation for all three
major revenue sources and there is no State which levies high rates of
taxation on all three.
With the regional variation in the primary source of revenue,
and the wide dispersion as to the secondary source of revenue, it is
remarkable that the various combinations result in levels of effective
rates of total taxation which are so similar.

Such geographic patterns

as exist reveals that with some exceptions, those States in the NorthEast tend to have average to below-average tax rates; those in the South
are rather widely dispersed; and those in the West tend to have average
to above-average rates.
Expenditures.
The distribution of per capita expenditures by States about
the average for the United States more nearly resembles the distribution
of per capita income than that

of State and local taxation.

There is a

tendency for expenditures to be somewhat higher than would be expected




-10-

strictly on the basis of per capita income, probably reflecting the
influence of Federal aid.

But taxable resources and Federal aid are

not the only determinants of the level of expenditures.

State and

local governments are constantly subject to pressures to achieve
standards of public services available elsewhere.
On the demand side, State and local expenditures appear to
respond to three major factors:

(1 ) the size and composition of the

school population; (2 ) the degree of urbanization; and (3) the rate of
change or growth in the resident population.
Per capita expenditures for education with only minor excep­
tions are the largest single type of expenditures for State and local
governments.

Per capita expenditures for education depend primarily on

the proportion of the population which are of school age.

However,

other factors, such as the number of children in private schools have a
significant cost influence.

Nearly 20 per cent of the elementary and

secondary school age population in the North-East attend private
(including parochial) schools, compared to only 10 per cent in the Mid
and Far West.

If to this the proportion of the college age population

attending State supported colleges and universities is added, the reasons
for the relatively high levels of per capita education expenditures in
the West become more clear.
In the South, the level of per capita expenditures for education
is low, probably a dual reflection of the impact of low incomes.

Not only

do low levels of personal income restrict the size of State and local
revenues but low levels of average income also create the necessity for




-11-

young people to leave school earlier and probably reflect family conditions
which reduce the incentives for educational achievement.
The impact of the degree of urbanization on costs has been
pointed out many times.

The greater the density of population, the

greater the need for additional services and the greater the cost of
providing, under congested conditions, the conventional services of
police protection, water supply, sanitation and transportation facili­
ties in some form, whether highways or other forms of transit.
Parenthetically, per capita highway expenditures at the
present time are highly influenced by the Federal Inter-State program
and as a result, tend to be more nearly uniform throughout the country
then any other major category of State and local spending.— ^
The third major determinant of levels of public expenditures
is the rate of growth in the population.

Relatively static populations

with a usable stock of community facilities do not require anything like
the capital investment in schools, streets, roads, water, and sanitation
plants that are indispensable in areas with rapidly growing populations.
Among the major categories of State-local expenditures, the
pattern of health, recreation, and welfare spending is most difficult
to account for.

Not only does the greatest disparity between States occur

in spending for these functions, but there is also a lack of any apparent
regional or other geographic pattern.

Even States with roughly equal in­

come levels may show widely divergent levels of health and welfare spending.

JL/




Abstracting from levels reached in certain sparsely
with large areas in the public domain.

populated States

-12-

As I suggested earlier, it may be that if we look within the
broad geographic areas delineated by State boundaries, we would find
some explanation of the expenditure patterns which give the State averages
their inexplicable variance.

I strongly suspect that in major metropoli­

tan areas where average income levels tend to be more uniform, there
are markedly different levels of health-welfare need and community
reaction to that need.

After all, metropolitan areas are not as homo­

geneous as the average suggests and the intraregional disparities often
spill into adjacent States.
The metropolitan resident has to work where a job can be found
but the automobile and the freeway give him quite a range of choice for
his residence.

And it is at the place where he lives that health, welfare,

and educational costs must be financed.

Some States and local units have

chosen to minimize tax rates rather than to provide expanded public ser­
vices hoping to attract business and new residents with preferences that
fit these policies.

Other States and local units have chosen to expand

the quantity and quality of public services, even though it requires
higher tax rates to do so.

This policy attracts people who can afford

and are prepared to pay for a higher level of community services.

Thus,

the disparity in public fiscal policy tends to be self-reinforcing.
Basically, State and local governments like everyone else,
have to trade off a number of conflicting objectives.

Within the general

framework determined by their levels of average income, they are expected
to provide at least a minimum level of essential public services.

This

must be done without pushing effective total tax rates too far out of line,




-13-

especially with those of immediate neighbors.

Low income bracket States

frequently find that higher-than-average rates of total taxation are
required to even approach a competitive level of basic public services.
On the other hand, high income bracket States find that they can provide
desirable levels of basic public services with relatively low tax rates.
These are the States with the real alternative of lower tax rates or
expanded public services.
Need and Ability.
To roughly differentiate the limitations on the levels of public
expenditures which arise from lack of taxable resources from those which
reflect a conscious decision to minimize tax rates or to maximize public
expenditures, an expenditures-to-revenue ratio can be used.

To obtain

such an index, per capita expenditures were divided by revenue as a
per cent of personal income.

The ratio was then standardized to the

average for the United States which was defined as being equal to 100.
Using this device, those States having relatively high expendi­
tures and tax levels show an expenditure-to-revenue ratio of close to 1 0 0 ;
likewise, for those States with relatively low expenditure and tax levels.
A high value of the revenue-to-expenditures ratio indicates that fairly
high levels of public services are being provided with relatively low
tax rates.

A low values of the ratio indicate that high tax rates are

required to maintain expenditures.
It is not surprising that when this ratio is computed using
the revenue from the State's own resources, its distribution is similar




-14-

to that of the index of personal income.— ^ However, when
the ratio includes Federal grants in aid, significantly different
results are obtained.

The principal difference is that Federal aid tends

to even out the discrepancies resulting from variations in levels of
State income.

In a few States, usually the wealthier ones, the addition

of Federal aid cause the index to decline.
A quick look at the types of Federal aid programs available
reveals that most such programs require that some proportion of the total
cost be met by the State and local governments and frequently there is
some limitation as to the maximum amount of funds available. y

Therefore,

to qualify for Federal aid, State expenditure programs must be planned
so as to take advantage of the various forms of aid and some States
obviously are more successful at doing this than others.

Some of the

wealthier States, even though their programs may be geared to Federal
aid, are undoubtedly bumping against program maximums.
Borrowing.
The use of credit as a source of funds for State and local
governments is frequently overlooked in discussions of fiscal alterna­
tives.

State and local governments can arid do borrow money.

However,

the peculiarities and specific restriction which surround State and

1/

The index of personal income also defined the average for the United
States as being equal to 100. Standardizing the average per capita
income in each State to that of the U. S. simply expresses average
per capita income in each State as a per cent of the U. S. average.

2!

U. S. Senate, Committee on Government Operations, ’
’
Catalogue of Federal
Aid to State and Local Governments,” 8 8 th Congress, 2nd Session. Pre­
pared by Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress, April 15,
1964.




-15local borrowing are even more diverse than those associated with their
tax laws.

It is very difficult to separate out specific circumstances,

such as the public power debt in the Northwest and Nebraska., from debt
which has arisen because expenditures have expanded faster than revenue
or from debt which reflects a preference for borrowing rather than
increased rates of taxation.

From the standpoint of showing the extent of

differences among the States, very different results are obtained if the
change in total debt outstanding is used or debt relative to income is
relied on.

I have used total debt outstanding on a per capita basis

in both the charts and the tables mainly to complete the picture of
State and local fiscal operations.

The rather wide dispersion of total

debt outstanding does suggest that in some States a pay-as-you-go or a
pay-before-you-go policy has a firm hold on policy makers, whereas in
other cases there is a predelection, if not a ’
'weakness , 11 for using
time to stagger the impact of the huge public investment in community
facilities in urban areas.
Outlook for the Future
We have seen that the levels of State and local expenditure
and revenue are initially defined by the economic resources of the
States and modified by the distribution of Federal aid.

However,

States are not totally confined by their levels of income nor by
competition, either as to the types of taxes levied or the level of
services provided.

In a few cases there is a surprising range of

choice exercised as to the level of taxation and the level of expendi­
ture.




-16-

The trend of the post-War years has been toward greater uniformity
among States in the levels of per capita expenditures.

Despite the com­

petitive pressure for higher levels of public services, very few States
so far have found it necessary to exploit all three of the major forms
of State and local revenue.

But, if rising levels of general economic

activity do not provide revenue adequate to meet the continuing demands
for increased expenditures, it seems quite likely that more States will
find that they must either increase their reliance on the two forms of
taxation which they are currently using or begin to utilize the remaining
one.
I do not foresee the time when the States and localities will
lose their fiscal identities or idiosyncracies.
richer and others will be poorer.

Some will always be

They will shed their fiscal inheri­

tances reluctantly,,probably imperceptibly.

But the nation’s economy

is becoming more and more sensitive to differentials in costs.

And our

citiEens are more and more aware of differentials in public services
as well as taxes.

Unquestionably the mobility of our businesses and

people is such as to enable both to take advantage of substantial loca­
tion bargains.

As budget officers and the principal fiscal architects in

your States, you will in the future have increasingly to face the competi­
tive fiscal ingenuity of your counterparts.

As a citizen and taxpayer,

I can only say* keep the competition clean but make it vigorous.




Proportion of Total Population Living in States
Where the Deviation from the U. S. Average is:
:Mbre
:than
:25%

:Below

Per Capita Personal Income
North-East
South-Southwe st
Mid and Far West
U. S. Total

15.5
”
1575

:
:
:
:15-25^ : 5 - 1 ^
: Below : Below

:
:
2 Below :
2 to 5$ : 5-15%
: Above s Above

.5
2.9
0.4
..37B

.5
11.5
6.0
IB.I

19.0
2.3
5. 6
~2579

4.9
4.6

22.4
2.0
1.0
23.4

7.1
17.0

t
: More
\ than
t
: 15—25# i 29*
: Above t Above : Total

1.8

21.2

1.7

1.7
3.5

9.2
”3073

0.2
1.9

44.6
32.3
23.2
10070

10.2
4.3
17.1
31.5

2.0
5.0
770

2.4
0.2
2.5

44.6
32.3
23.2
10071

3.7
8.5
“T27I

100.0

Revenue as a Percent of Income
Total Revenue
Itoorth-East
South-Southwest
Mid and Far West
U. S. Total
Property Taxes
North-East
South-Southwest
Mid and Far West

9.5
6.4
1.8
19*4
3.6
.7
1.6
U. S. Total
“2675
6.9

“2471

2.9

12.8
5.5
.5
“18.8

1.4
1777

3.6
.8
10.6
13.0

3.2
5.5
0.4
9.0

11.1
2.3
1.4
14.8

6.6
1.8
9.8
18.2

3.0
8.9
3.2
“3572

4.3
11.3
2.2
“T77B

100.0

3.5

1.7

14.5
6.2
17.0
“3776

100.0

10.1
“1071

100.0

1.3
13.8
“1572

100.0

2.9

16.3

Sales Taxes
North-East
So uth -Southwe s t
Mid and Fa r West
U. S. Total

2.0
T O

2.3
4.3
6.6

Income Taxes
North-East
South— Southwe st
Mid and Far West
U. S. Total

30.1
11.2
3.5
44.8

6.3
1.2
775

3.3
1.5
4.8

3.5

Total
North-East
South— Southwe st
Mid and F ar West
U. S. Total

6.8

6.1
16.3

6.0

“227*

12.8
5.9
.8
“19.3

7.5
2.4
4.0
13.0

8.6
.8
5.4
14.8

3.0
“12715

Education
North-East
South— Southwe st
Mid and Far West
U. S. Total

7.7

.8
14.5

18.4
8.6
1.2
“2572

16.7

1.6

7.1

.4
“T771

5.6
7.2

2.2
9.3

5.5
11.5
9.2
“2572

6.0
4.1
2.1
12.3

2.5

9.9
1.8

16.3

—

— T77

Per Capita Expenditures

“1574

Highway
North-East
South —Southwe st
Mid and Far West
U. S. Total

3.9
.4
4.2

13.0

22.0
7.3
1.0
~3T7T3

Welfare
North-East
South— Southwe st
Mid and Far West
U. S. Total

8.0
16.5
1.5
"^570

.3
.8
1.5
“■
2.6

17.4
3.9
4.1
“2575

.7
2.7
2.5
6.0

9.4
5.4

.7
15.7
.8
“
1772

2.5
6.7
9.1

15.0
4.6
5.9
“2575

6.1

.5
19.0

6.X

“1975

6.2
.8
5.3
12.3

13.4
6.3
6.8
“2ET75

3.6
14.0
5.9
“2375

5.5
3.5
1.2
T072

4.8
7.4
3.1
“
1573

15.1
7.3
1.8
.24.1

10.1
2.9

9.7

1.1

2.5

10.5
11.6

100.0

”1177

5.5
2.3
1.9
■■9.7

2.8
4.1
11.8
“1575

100.0

7.1

20.1

1.7

.5
7.6

9.2
29.3

.2
1.9

21.2

2.0

1.4

1.2
“2273

9.6
11.6

.3
1.;

Index of Expend* to Revenue
Excluding Federal Aid
Mortii-East
South-South we st
Mid and Far West
U. S # Total
Including Federal Aid
North-Last
So uth—So u thwe st
Mid and Far West
U. S. Total
Per Capita Debt
North-East
South—Southwest
Mid and Far West
U. S. Total




15.7
—

9.7
”9.7

1.6
“1773

100.0

STATE AND LOCAL TAXES AS PER CENT OF PERSONAL INCOME: 1962
A B O V E 110% OF U S

V/:.::# W I T H I N 9 0 1 1 0 % OF U S

AVERAGE.

m

AVERAGE

□

B E L O W 9 0 % OF U S

AVERAGE

ABOVE 12.7
10.4-12.7 Ü 3
BELOW 10.4 I

ABOVE 1.

o.8-\.o%

pTTfTTn
U.S. AVERAGE 0.9

BELOW 0.8% □

*

LESS TH AN 0.1




* GENERAL AND MOTOR FUELS AND LICENSES ONLY

U.S. AVERAGE 11.5%
I




STATE AND LOCAL PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES 1962
|

A B O V E 110% OF U

S

AVERAGE.

W I T H I N 9 0 110% OF U S

AVERAGE

|

| B E L O W 9 0 % OF U S

AVERAGE

INDICES OF EXPEN DITURES-RE VENU ES, INCOME, AND DEBT PER CAPITA:I962




m

I A B O V E 120,

INDEX EXPENDITURE TO REVENUE EXCLUDING FEDERAL AID

___Kin?

,-..-.P^v>£3Si^l41
; v / . 97

■
■127
i l 17

ABOVE 120

n o -120 K88^1
90-110
80-90 1Z /M
BELOW 80 I

U.S. AVERAGE 100
I

INDEX OF PER C AP ITA PERSONAL INCOME

*117

'100

90-110 X Z M
80-90 ß g f l
BELOW 80

I

I

U.S. AVERAGE 100

□

B E L O W 80