Six-state review
Year-to-date revenues for the first four months of FY2003 were above their FY2002 level in most New England states. Hit hard by dramatically diminished tax receipts and/or increased spending pressures, all six states closed FY2002 with deficits that had to be eliminated by end-of-the-year fiscal measures. The improved revenue collections for the first four months of FY2003 were welcome. General revenues were up in Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Sales tax receipts, driven in large part by car purchases induced by manufacturers' offers of zero percent financing, were up in Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont; meals and rooms tax receipts were up in New Hampshire. Personal income tax collections were mixed; although higher in Maine and Vermont, they were down slightly in Rhode Island and sharply in Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Taking charge: should New England increase its reliance on user charges?
New England relies less on user charges for its state and local revenues than any other region of the country. As a result, some policymakers maintain that increases in user charges would correct an "imbalance" in the region’s revenue mix. However, the national mix of state and local revenues is not necessarily the best mix for the states of New England. The degree to which a state should rely on u. ser charges depends on the priorities of its policymakers among competing principles of taxation, the conditions under which each principle favors user charges over taxes, and the extent to which these conditions exist within the state. Since each state has its own distinctive values and traits, the role of user charges in financing state and local government should vary across states. ; This article explores the conditions under which user charges compare favorably to taxes according to the principles of efficiency, equity, and exportability. The author finds that, given conditions peculiar to New England, the region’s low dependence on user charges makes sense in terms of ~11 three principles. Moreover, in several instances where New England states do rely heavily on user charges to finance a particular public service, circumstances favor user charge financing.
Factors Likely to Influence Tort Litigation in the European Union
As the European Union moves towards harmonization in a variety of business, political, and regulatory settings, an opportunity exists to influence the form of tort liability found in these nations. The opportunity should not be missed, with rising concern that U.S. influences will set into motion costly litigiousness, particularly as EU member nations pull back on the level of social programmes available to cover costs typically included in tort claims. To assist policymakers in their deliberations about European Union tort directives, this paper provides discussion of the frequently cited key differences between the U.S. tort systems and what is found in most EU member nations. The discussion is focused on available evidence regarding the influences of these differences as well as important areas of future research. The most important areas seem to be (1) the need to enforce European Law when no defined regulatory body exists for this purpose; (2) the connection between government social programmes and the need for tort liability compensation; (3) and the influence of rules governing payment of legal costs and lawyer fees.