Los Angeles, CA vs Tucson, AZ
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Los Angeles, CA outspends Tucson, AZ by a wide margin per resident — $85,432 versus $15,759, a 442% difference. A gap this size usually reflects a structurally different service mix or accounting scope rather than a single line item.
Tucson, AZ holds the stronger Fiscal Health Score, 55/100 (grade C) against 47/100 (grade D) for Los Angeles, CA — a 8-point spread that puts the two in different grade territory.
Los Angeles, CA reports no outstanding debt per resident in its Census filing, while Tucson, AZ carries $1,540 per resident. Their budgets diverge on where the largest per-resident dollars go: Los Angeles, CA leads with police at $4,111 per resident, while Tucson, AZ leads with parks and recreation at $1,229.
They also fund themselves differently: other revenue is the largest single revenue source in Los Angeles, CA at 51% of total revenue, whereas Tucson, AZ relies most on intergovernmental transfers at 100%.
Summary
Los Angeles spends 442.1% more per capita than Tucson ($69,673/person difference). Tucson, AZ has the stronger Fiscal Health Score (C, 55/100).
Fiscal Health Score
Key Metrics
Per Capita Spending by Department
Revenue Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Property Tax | $64 | $5 |
| Sales Tax | $77 | $309 |
| Income Tax | $307 | $1,107 |
| Intergovernmental | $134 | $23,276 |
| Charges & Fees | $459 | $4,534 |
| Other | $9,048 | $952 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Police | $4,111 | $0 |
| Fire Protection | $1,057 | $330 |
| Highways & Roads | $503 | $0 |
| Education | $829 | $0 |
| Public Welfare | $1,286 | $1,181 |
| Health | $409 | $0 |
| Hospitals | $2,135 | $1,314 |
| Parks & Recreation | $1,347 | $1,229 |
| Housing | $6,325 | $3,091 |
| Sewerage | $34 | $0 |
| Utilities | $21,992 | $3,555 |
| Interest on Debt | $630 | $1,735 |
| General Admin | $11,586 | $0 |
| Other | $33,189 | $3,322 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.