Search results

(168,001 - 168,020 of 184,081)

Pages

CRS84586Epage04
Title
CRS84586Epage04
Page from
info:fedora/mu:84019
Text
CRS-2 TASLE A. State Government Tax Revenue by Type of Tax Amount Percent ($ millions) of Total Total 1 , $171,370 100.0% General sales and gross receipts 53,627 31.3 Individual income 49,789 29.1 Selective sales and gross receipts 3] 30,213 17.6 Corporation net income 13,153 7.7 License taxes b/ 10,651 6.2 Severance taxes 3/ 7,397 4.3 Property v ,_ 3,281 1.9 Death and giftl 3 ‘“2,545 1.5 Other
CRS84586Epage22
Title
CRS84586Epage22
Page from
info:fedora/mu:84019
Text
CRS-20 TABLE 5. Total State Property Tax Revenues of Individual States with an Estimated Distribution of Taxes Derived from Selected Property Categories Fiscal Year l983 ($ in millions) (continued) if A new levy effective July 1, 1979, was imposed State-wide on public utility companies as a replacement tax for locally-levied personal property taxes. gf tThe State levy set at 0.00233 percent
CRS84586Epage01
Title
CRS84586Epage01
Page from
info:fedora/mu:84019
Text
--- —- \.m=- .~ . .r k':. : T i ‘- d,‘ ~‘." ‘5:_;¥ Vt“ » . . .. 3; ‘x z‘ ‘ .__- . Nv 161989 '3 3 '.’.‘ I.’ , \ T‘'''‘»x., 14 fim-.31 )2 ‘lg. 3 ‘-.1; 33 ‘*4 Q3 ' an r m i r 9 :>.«'vv-"' $_ wa-' Washénggtnn University "5'. .4 . SOURCES OF STATE TAX REVENUES IN INDIVIDUAL STATES BY MAJOR TYPE AND RATE OF TAX AS OF JANUARY 1, 1984 Lillian
CRS84586Epage18
Title
CRS84586Epage18
Page from
info:fedora/mu:84019
Text
(9) 21 9.7(f) 6.50(h) Fla. Ga. 12, 7.5 3.79(e) Ga. Hi. 4(1) 40% W.P. 8.5 20% W.P. Hi. Ida. 4.5 9.1 .14.5 -- ' Ida. I11. 5 4 12 11" 2.00 111. Ind. 5(3) 10.5 11.1 2.68 Ind. Ia. 4 18 13 ~~ . Ia. Kan. 3 16 11 ‘2.50 Kan. Ky. 5 3.1 10(k) 1.92 Ky. La. 3 11 8 2.50(e) _ La. Me. 5 20 14 -~ ._ V Me. Md. 5 13 13.5 1.50(e) Md. Mass. 5 26 p 11 4.05 Mass. Mich. 4 21 15 ~~ Mich. - Minn. 6(1) 18 17 4.39(e
CRS84586Epage21
Title
CRS84586Epage21
Page from
info:fedora/mu:84019
Text
. Tennessee. .N .4 State property tax is not levied in Tennessee Texas p 1.1 1/ 1.1 -.0. S +- ) -p ,3 , -+ Utah 0.4.“ 0.0 0.4 N 0.4 g_/ -- Vermont 0.5 80.0 1 0.5 _ -+1 . 0.5 - Virginia 0535.9 1 10.0 535.9 --7 -- 35.9 Washington i ,691.4 432.5 258.9 207.1 51.8 - West Virginia 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.3 -- Wisconsin 0 109.3 23.6 85-7 85.7 - Wyoming 46.0 32.2 13.8 1 -- 13.8 -- 3] An undetermined (but believed
CRS84586Epage07
Title
CRS84586Epage07
Page from
info:fedora/mu:84019
Text
CRS-5 Oklahoma and Utah to 11.5 percent in Connecticut. Fifteen States have graduated levies ranging from 1 percent (Alaska and Hawaii) to 12 percent (Minnesota). (The 15 States are Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont, and West Virginia.) A count based on table 2 indicates that 12 States
CRS84586Epage12
Title
CRS84586Epage12
Page from
info:fedora/mu:84019
Text
. Nebraska - 34 7. Virginia 50 30. Hawaii I I 32 8. Wisconsin 48 31. Kentucky 32 9. California 47 32. Indiana 30 10. North Dakota 1 46 33. Arizona 31 11. Maryland 45 34. Alabama ' 29 12. Georgia 45 35. Oklahoma 29" 13. Kansas 43 36. New Hampshire 25 14. Iowa 43 37. West Virginia 24 15. Rhode Island 42 38. Connecticut 21 16. Idaho 41 39., Louisiana 18 17. Colorado 41 40. - Mississippi 18 18. South
CRS84586Epage26
Title
CRS84586Epage26
Page from
info:fedora/mu:84019
Text
.rr*< - W ........ LIBRARY 0%.: WA8H!N€.’§'TON U'N!W2~'.§2Si'T‘Y ST. Louas - mo.
CRS86796ENRpage12
Title
CRS86796ENRpage12
Page from
info:fedora/mu:72802
Text
CRS-8 registration for a minor crop use (EPA estimates this cost at approximately $50,000). Although each pesticide formulation requires a separate registration, formulations made by different firms are often identical. Once a product is registered. a later registration can be granted to another firm seeking to register the same formulation, assuming there are no problems with data sharing
Pesticide regulation
Title
Pesticide regulation: 1986 amendments to FIFRA
Date
1986
CRS84749EPWpage11
Title
CRS84749EPWpage11
Page from
info:fedora/mu:81575
Text
;............... 7 _ 1 B. Social Security and Medicare 306131-Security oooooooooooooooooooooooo O '22 '15 "15 ‘I5 ‘14 . ‘81 Medicare . HI ...........................o....... 13 ‘ ‘Z88 ‘60l -727 "818 ”908 “3,329 SME oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo “84 ‘l,O46 ‘1,2S6 ‘1,466 “1,43O ‘1,567 ‘6,849 SMI premiums E! oooooooooooooooooooooo —Q 187 -138 ' ‘S96 5786 -839 g -2,172 Medicare total
CRS84749EPWpage21
Title
CRS84749EPWpage21
Page from
info:fedora/mu:81575
Text
V ‘ ‘ .._..-.~_——;_ .137. mi. .... .,_,—,_.,..__,_ _ CRS-14 D. Aid to_Families with Dependent Children* 1, Amendments to Liberalize Eligibility and Increase Benefits for AFDC Recipients who Work and their Families The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35) included several amendments to the AFDC program that affected working recipients. The 1981 Act imposed a gross income
CRS84749EPWpage29
Title
CRS84749EPWpage29
Page from
info:fedora/mu:81575
Text
I CRS-22 III. SELECTED CHANGES MADE TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE BY THE DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT ’ A. Targeted Jobs Tax Credit (Section 1041) Employers who hire eligible individuals may take a tax credit of 50 percent in the first year and 25 percent in the second year of the employee's first $6,000 of wages. A tax credit is provided for employing certain economically disadvantaged youths
CRS84749EPWpage14
Title
CRS84749EPWpage14
Page from
info:fedora/mu:81575
Text
CRS-7 version of H.R. 4170, the Tax Reform Act; The next day, the House approved changes to spending programs in a new budget reconciliation bill, H.R. 5394. The Senate considered the Finance Committee package, containing changes to the tax code and spending programs, for 19 days. It approved this measure on May 17, passing the package as a substitute amendment to the House-passed Tax Reform Act
CRS86796ENRpage23
Title
CRS86796ENRpage23
Page from
info:fedora/mu:72802
Text
CRS-l9 review if it met or exceeded one or more of certain "triggers" -- hazard criteria which identified pesticides which deserved priority review. Triggers included evidence of carcinogenicity in laboratory animals, or extreme toxicity to other animals such as fish or birds when used to control target pests.5 This information can be discovered as part of a reexamination of data already submitted to EPA, or might be new data which is brought to the attention of EPA, such as data developed by the registrant, academic researchers, or other Federal agencies. In its first years, many pesticides were identified as RPAR candi- dates (e.g. it was once believed that as many as one-third of all insecticides would trigger one or more of the RPAR criteria). Often, EPA had little information about the pesticide, except for the RPAR evidence. Although there may have been some evidence of hazard which WOUld_iHiCiaC€ can RPAR, the final decision often continued the use of the pesticide (perhaps with some restrictions). Registrants and users of the product complained that this unfairly "blacklisted" these compounds, which caused customer confusion about the safety and desirability of the product while EPA reached a decision. As EPA usually had little initial information about the pesticide, it could take years to develop the information needed to make a decision about the pesticide. The necessary information included data about exposure to the pesticide, as well as a review of the existing data about possible hazards. (Decisions based on a risk analysis always need both hazard and exposure data. ilnformation about 5 40, Part l62.3. These criteria are found in the Code of Federal Regulations in Volume
CRS86796ENRpage13
Title
CRS86796ENRpage13
Page from
info:fedora/mu:72802
Text
CRS-9 five-year basis, and required a review of all then-registered products to reassess the safety of continued registration of those products. This was called "reregistration," and was originally required to be completed by 1975. This deadline was first extended by one year, and later (in 1978) dropped altogether. The reregistration process completely broke down in l976 due
CRS86796ENRpage02
Title
CRS86796ENRpage02
Page from
info:fedora/mu:72802
CRS85755EPWpage02
Title
CRS85755EPWpage02
Page from
info:fedora/mu:71972
CRS85755EPWpage53
Title
CRS85755EPWpage53
Page from
info:fedora/mu:71972
Text
1-31 1-1% 1959 109.8- 5.4% 9 5.7% 7.0% 5.9% 5.7% 1-3% 1-9% 1-5% 11-3% 1970 115.3 5.9% 7.4% 7.3% 5.5% 5.5% 1-42 1-4% 0-9% 0-5% 1971 121.3 0 4.3% ' 2% 15.7% 4.5% 4.4% 1.9% V 1.4%. 0.2% V 0.1% 1972 125.3 3.3% ‘ 5.2% 5.7% 14.7% 4.1% 2.9%. 2.4% % 1.4% 0.8% 1973 133.1 5.2% ’é.BZ 1 7.0% 7.2%1 ‘ 7.0% Oeéx 0-71 1-0% 0-8% .1974 .147.7 11.0% 7.5% 7.8% 1 57.9% 7.9% -3.4% -3.1% -3.0% -3.1% 1975 151.2 9.1
CRS85755EPWpage13
Title
CRS85755EPWpage13
Page from
info:fedora/mu:71972
Text
CRS-3 profit-sharing plan or a thrift plan providing an employer contribution of up to three percent of pay. dd I ‘Since the survey findings as to prevailing practices are similar, the predicted benefits at retirement are also similar. As shown in section IV, when presentational differences are removed, both surveys show that the range I of net replacement income for career workers with 30 years service varies, ,depending on salary, from 85 to 92 percent of post-tax income at the time of retirement, to between 65 to 80 percent at age 80. The two surveys do show some differences in the relative cost of the retirement systems. While overall private sector employer costs are similar, there is some disparity in employer costs associated with public sector plans, CSRS, and social security§ The differences are partly explained by differences in methodologies and economic assumptions. This is discussed further in sec- tions III and V. In addition to the differences in economic assumptions, there are differ- fences in the demographic assumptions, such as the assumed retirement and disa- ability rates. dSince the effect of these differences is very complex, CRS did not attempt to quantify their result. However, as noted in the discussion in section VII, the net effect of these differences may well explain any remaining difference in the findings of the two surveys. “V

Pages