LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND TAXATION 155 



a difference of considerable magnitude for the sample of 100 rural 

 towns. Tlie dilTerence in the average amount of assessed valuation 

 was somewhat less relatively, and therefore the average taxable 

 wealth per capita was somewhat higher for the group of 27 towns 

 below median average in the five factors. The Group B towns had a 

 greater population in 1940 than either in 1910 or in 1880, whereas the 

 1940 population in the Group A towns had consistently declined since 

 1880. Town expenses averaged only $8,749 for the Group A towns 

 compared with $24,466 for Group B towns, a ratio of approximately 

 one to three. The expenses per capita, in the case of the Group A 

 towns, averaged nearly 50 percent more than for Group B. Differ- 

 ences in the amount of property taxes per town and per capita were 

 less marked. Property taxes as percent of the assessed valuation— 

 the town tax rate — amounted to 1.59 and 1.26, respectively, for the 

 A and B groups of towns. 



The distribution of expenses for the two groups of towns are 

 compared in Table 11. Highway expenses averaged $4,906 for the 

 27 towns below average in the five factors compared with $9,718 for 

 the 28 towns above average. This amounts to $148 and $196, respec- 

 tively, per mile of town roads, but highway expenses constitute a 

 much larger percent of total expenses than in the case of the Group B 

 towns. With the exception of expenses for roads and general govern- 

 ment, all other town expenses comprise a larger percent of total ex- 

 penses among the Group B towns than for Group A. 



Thus it is normal that towns with a small, sparse, and declining 

 population, and with a small amount of taxable wealth, spend more 

 per capita, levy more property taxes per capita, and experience a high- 

 er tax rate. Furthermore, the roads in these towns consume a much 

 larger proportion of the tax money even though the expenditures 

 per mile are relatively small. 



