First-place Alaska ranks 50th in tax revenue reliability - that is, its tax revenue fluctuates more unpredictably than any state, creating the worst longterm budgeting challenge for any state. 45th-place Kentucky ranks 2nd by this measure.
Many of Mercater’s top ten states, including South Dakota, Wyoming, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Montana, are far above the national average for reliance of federal funding. Bottom ten states like Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Connecticut are below the national average.
Alaska has a higher percentage of citizens on food stamps than New Jersey, and Ohio’s percentage is twice as high as California’s. In Mercater’s formula, this lack of in-state spending helps to make Alaska and Ohio winners, while pushing New Jersey and California down the list.
And so on. Choose the five categories of comparison, and you choose the list. The Mercater Center’s advocacy preferences are well known, and they have made their choice. But does anyone really believe Utah’s economy is stronger than Texas’, or that Tennessee’s fiscal future dominates New York’s?
I suspect Alaska's unpredictability is related to the enormous revenues from oil companies, the same that provide for personal tax rebates for all Alaskans.
You're right about Alaska's up-and-down oil revenue. That is the reason Alaska keeps much more "cash on hand to cover its short-term bills" than any other state... which just so happens to be the first of the Mercater Center's five categories of measurement.
Switch the desired attribute from "ready for any crisis" to "calm and steady reliability," and the standings change, too.
4 comments:
First-place Alaska ranks 50th in tax revenue reliability - that is, its tax revenue fluctuates more unpredictably than any state, creating the worst longterm budgeting challenge for any state. 45th-place Kentucky ranks 2nd by this measure.
Many of Mercater’s top ten states, including South Dakota, Wyoming, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Montana, are far above the national average for reliance of federal funding. Bottom ten states like Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Connecticut are below the national average.
Alaska has a higher percentage of citizens on food stamps than New Jersey, and Ohio’s percentage is twice as high as California’s. In Mercater’s formula, this lack of in-state spending helps to make Alaska and Ohio winners, while pushing New Jersey and California down the list.
And so on. Choose the five categories of comparison, and you choose the list. The Mercater Center’s advocacy preferences are well known, and they have made their choice. But does anyone really believe Utah’s economy is stronger than Texas’, or that Tennessee’s fiscal future dominates New York’s?
I suspect Alaska's unpredictability is related to the enormous revenues from oil companies, the same that provide for personal tax rebates for all Alaskans.
Where do you get the stats for federal funding?
From the Pew Charitable Trusts.
You're right about Alaska's up-and-down oil revenue. That is the reason Alaska keeps much more "cash on hand to cover its short-term bills" than any other state... which just so happens to be the first of the Mercater Center's five categories of measurement.
Switch the desired attribute from "ready for any crisis" to "calm and steady reliability," and the standings change, too.
That is the reason Alaska keeps much more "cash on hand to cover its short-term bills" than any other state
*Proportionally
Post a Comment