Vermont spends nearly 3 times New Hampshire's level per person. How is it that two states sharing a common border are so different in their desire to spend and tax? Some differences may exist in how education is funded in the two states. NH may fund education with more local dollars than Vermont and we also know that NH pays for some of it's transportation costs via tolls, but the stark difference clearly shows that Vermont is off-track in it's fiscal policies and philosophy compared to most other states.
6 comments:
You ask a really interesting question. I would be interested in knowing what does account for the difference in per capita expenditure between NH and VT. What are Vermonters getting for their tax dollars that NH sters do not or is the disparity caused by a threshold minimum fixed cost base supported by a lower population in NH or something else?
Note as well that states with lower populations generally pay more per person than those with more people, which I expect is a scale/efficiency issue. NH has twice the population of VT. AK spends its oil extraction revenues like drunken sailors. Also southern states aren't subvening the poor with heating fuel expenses. There's a lot of highly nuanced issues in this chart.
Bill Schubart
Bill's right to point out the nuanced character of state expenditures and Germain poses relevant questions about "fixed" costs.
The upshot, however, is that NH at twice the population of VT and roughly the same land area competes with New Hampshire for jobs and consumer spending (many Vermonters living near the border shop in NH which has no sales tax). Taxes overall are higher here because public spending is excessive. That's a matter of long term fiscal policy.
The data also reveal that NH has a per capita personal income level 11% higher than Vermont's. The net effect: Living in NH is less costly than in Vermont.
Came across this interesting piece from the Valley News. Census data show that towns on the NH side of the Connecticut River have gained population while towns on the NH side lost people or remained stagnant. Lots of reasons suggested, but taxes is high on the list.
http://www.vnews.com/03272011/7715697.htm
How do the levels of services between the two states compare? For example, if in Vermont there are fewer homeless on the streets than in NH because Vermont provides shelters and job training then the higher spending of Vermont might actually be cost effective over the long term in terms of social costs (I do not know I am just posing that as a hypothetical - similar questions abound in all social areas, jobs, education, infrastructure, health, etc). IN OTHER WORDS, the higher spending in Vermont must be due to either a higher cost structure and/or greater benefits.
@Germain, Vermont is well known for its generous social and health benefits and the high cost of preK-12 education. Vermont is typically at the top of the list nationally in cost per student. We have very small class sizes (high teacher/student ratio) in small rural schools and the Legislature and local school boards have been ineffective in controlling costs. http://blog.bestandworststates.com/2009/01/29/state-rankings-on-education-spending.aspx
In addition we incur a very high cost for incarceration in our corrections system >$45,000/person, due to small prisons and the high overheads to operate them.
Post a Comment