FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 23 
TasLE 6.—Range of functional distribution of expenditures by States, 1929 } 
Maximum Minimum 
Function Ratio to Ratio to 
State total ex- State total ex- 
penditures penditures 
Percent Percent 
i ghwaiyseoee oer ea oe Se Vermonts22 74.4 | New York------------ 22.9 
HW) GUCALION= wes essen eee Delaware-_-__---------- 49.4 | Vermont__...--.-__-_- 6.3 
Social welfare_.__.....-...-_--- Massachusetts-__._---- 38.1 | Arkansas__._.-.-.-___- 3.0 
IRTOLECHION] ae soe eee ee ee (OSI RS 13.5 ermont.o 28 oe ee 4.4 
General government-___.-_---_- Rhode Island_-__------ 21 5a Mhichigan® 22522222 3.0 
Bublicutiliticss ses North Dakota_____---- 2A 5y) ZOE CALCS eee ee 0 
Economic development-_-__--_- Ploridavs cee ni eae 9.6 | Tennessee___---------- 1.8 
Miscellaneous=.- 2-22-2222 222 Fdahoe Seeoe ia iat aes 1.8 | Mississippi__._---.--_- (3) 
1 Source of data: National Industrial Conference Board, Inc. (3, pp. 24-25). 
3 Less than 0.05 percent. 
GRANTS BY THE STATES TO THEIR SUBORDINATE GOVERNMENTS 
The financial relationship between the States and their minor civil 
or local governmental units is very complex. There has grown up a 
system of State aid or grants to the counties, towns, townships, and 
school districts for the purpose of education and highway operation 
and maintenance. Every one of the 48 State governments grants a 
considerable sum to the local governments to aid in the maintenance 
of the school system. As noted above, education constitutes the 
second largest functional item of State expense. Yet, as a matter of 
fact, in 1929 slightly over 60 percent of State educational funds were 
distributed among the minor civil divisions, on the basis of number 
of teachers or pupils or average daily attendance, or assessed valua- 
tion back of each teacher or some other measure, and were expended 
by local officials, though generally under some State supervision 
(5, pp. 90-91). There are still other taxes collected by the States 
for school purposes in which the States act merely as agents for the 
local governments. 
At least 16 of the States grant some aid to their minor civil divi- 
sions for the repair and upkeep of their highways. In these 16 
States slightly over 10 percent of the total expenditure for highways 
out of State revenue is turned over to the minor civil divisions to be 
spent by them for the upkeep of roads. These amounts are in addi- 
tion to certain taxes, such as 4 portion of the gasoline or automobile- 
license tax, which go directly to those minor civil divisions on the 
basis of the amounts collected there. The importance of this form 
of State aid varies greatly. In Vermont and Wisconsin a little more 
than 94% percent of all State road maintenance funds are expended 
through the local government officials, but in Connecticut and Utah 
only 0.4 and 0.3 percent, respectively, of the State road maintenance 
funds are so spent. Expressing this contrast in another way, the 
ratio between the State aids to the local governmental units for high- 
way maintenance and the total State expenditures for highway pur- 
poses, both in the form of capital outlay and repair and upkeep, was 
44 percent in Vermont, 21.1 percent in Wmeangn and 0.1 percent in 
Connecticut and Utah (5, pp. 86, 87, 100-101). 
As has been pointed out previously, the larger share of the Federal 
expenditures for education and highways is in the form of aid to the 
