Suchergebnisse

Abstract.  Irving Fisher wrote a significant number of papers towards the end of his career on the design of the U.S. tax system. These writings culminated in a book that he wrote with his brother Herbert in 1942. Fisher thought that the double taxation of saving under an income tax was extremely harmful to the economy and he therefore proposed a "spendings" tax or what he referred to as a "real income" tax. Even though he disliked the terminology, he advocated what today would be referred to as a progressive consumption tax. Fisher's analysis was both theoretical and practical. His 1942 book contained a proposed tax return that implemented his ideas. His analysis is surprisingly modern and relevant today. This paper presents the Fisher proposal and examines the current U.S. tax system in light of his tax views. We argue that Fisher would find that the U.S. tax system lacks intellectual coherence, is economically inefficient, and unnecessarily complex.

This paper studies the implications of changes in the fiscal (spending-tax) policy mix when all categories of spending and taxes are according to their functional breakdown. In so doing, we build a general equilibrium OLG model which naturally incorporates the main functional categories of public spending and taxes as in the euro area. Departing from the crisis year of 2008, the main result is that an increase in public spending on education and health would have outperformed all other changes in fiscal policy that have either happened or have been debated in policy circles.

Cover -- Title -- Copyright -- CONTENTS -- INTRODUCTION -- CHAPTER ONE: Understanding Taxes -- The Progressive Tax -- The Proportional Tax -- The Regressive Tax -- Which System Is Best? -- The Argument for Lower Taxes -- The Argument for Higher Taxes -- CHAPTER TWO: What is Government Spending? -- Understanding Debt -- Impact on Future Generations -- Advantages -- The Bank Bailouts -- CHAPTER THREE: Budgeting -- Personal Budget Versus the Federal Budget -- CHAPTER FOUR: Fiscal Policy -- Problems with Fiscal Policy -- What Can We Do? -- Fiscal Discipline -- A Challenge -- Using Technology to Keep an Eye on Spending -- CHAPTER FIVE: How You Can Help -- Encourage Voting -- Raise Your Voice -- What You Can Do -- Using Social Media for Change -- GLOSSARY -- FOR MORE INFORMATION -- Web Sites -- FOR FURTHER READING -- INDEX -- About the Authors -- Photo Credits

The depth of the spending cuts now being implemented by Whitehall departments and local authorities across the UK is unprecedented in postwar Britain. With health, education and overseas aid protected, most departments' budgets are being reduced by around a fifth between 2010 and 2015-16. Local councils will see spending fall by over a third. A significant slice of the cuts is being borne by the non-pensions social security budget. Inevitably, this means that the poorest and most vulnerable are being dealt most of the pain. The 4 per cent real-terms cut in all benefits and tax credits over the next three years; the cap on individual benefits; the housing benefit penalty being applied to those with a spare room; the localisation of council tax benefit; the abolition of the social fund; the conversion of disability living allowance into personal independence payments with more restrictive eligibility criteria; the removal of legal aid for welfare benefits advice; the paring back by most councils of basic social care services -- the impact on the lives of those who already have least is desperately severe, and will only grow harsher over the next three years. Adapted from the source document.

- Foreword - Executive summary - Taxing consumption - Value added taxes: Rates and structure - Measuring performance of VAT - Selected excise duties in OECD countries - Taxing vehicles - Countries with VAT - Statement of outcomes on the OECD International VAT/GST Guidelines - Exchanges rates - Cigarettes - Most sold brands (MSB) in OECD Countries.

National announced its tax and spending plans this morning. You can read the full 29 page document. In the way of all parties and bureaucratic agencies these days, everything gets quoted as a four year figure: $14.7 billion sounds like a lot but it about $3.7 billion a year, which is about 0.8 per cent … Continue reading National’s tax and spending plan

MOST EFFORTS TO DEVELOP A THEORY OF TAX POLICY CHANGE HAVE EMPHASIZED INSTITUTIONAL, PROCEDURAL AND PARTISAN EXPLANATIONS. BY CONTRAST, VERY LITTLE ATTENTION HAS BEEN DIRECTED TOWARD THE BUDGETARY CONTEXT WITHIN WHICH TAX POLICY IS DETERMINED. THE LONG-TERM EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX POLICY, HOWEVER. DEMONSTRATES THE IMPORTANCE OF BUDGETARY CONTEXT AND CONSTRAINTS, AND THIS RELATIONSHIP IS PARTICULARLY EVIDENT IN THE CASE OF THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 1986. PASSAGE OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE REFORM MEASURE DEPENDED ON A REVENUE-NEUTRAL STANDARD THAT IGNORED THE TRADITIONAL NORMS GOVERNING AGGREGATE REVENUE LEVELS. STUDIED ARE: SPENDING AND DEFICITS; BALANCED BUDGETS AND STABLE TAX POLICY; THE DESTABILIZING OF TAX POLICY; FROM SUPPLY SIDE TO REFORM; AND TAX AND BUDGET POLICY.

Baroness (Pauline) Neville-Jones has issued a chilling warning about the 'growing' security threats and has called for the UK to spend 2.5% of GDP — even at the expense of tax cuts.It's a call to be taken seriously. She is a Conservative peer and former civil servant who chaired the Joint Intelligence Committee in the 1990s, served on the National Security Council, and was Minister for Security and Counter Terrorism in 2010-2011. She was also the first to argue that the UK needed to help Ukraine after Russia's 2014 attack on the Crimea. Ministry of Defence officials scoffed at the idea that Russia might have grander ambitions in the region. Now, the ongoing war makes that look recklessly optimistic.In addition to Ukraine, there is currently an active war in Gaza, which could even escalate to Iran and elsewhere, plus over 35 major armed conflicts in Africa (including Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Congo, Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan. . And China is throwing its military weight around in the South China Sea, the Pacific and the Indian Ocean.Things are now striking very close to home. UK and European supply chains are being disrupted in the Red Sea and Straits of Hormuz. The UK's National Cyber Security Centre has warned that the threat to vital UK internet systems is 'enduring and significant', with a rise in aggressive state-sponsored cyber-terrorism. And other western nations face the same threats.It does indeed look like a very dangerous world. So are we doing enough about it? The international comparisons suggest not. For the first time in its history, the Russian government's 2024 budget will set military and defence spending at 6% of GDP — more than goes on social spending. At the 14th National People's Congress last month, China announced it would be raising its military budget by 7.2%. Not only does the world look very unsafe, it looks increasingly unsafe.And all this is coming at the worst possible time. Donald Trump, who looks set to re-enter the White House at the end of the year, has already announced that he would turn off US support to Ukraine, and he has hinted that the US will not even suppose NATO countries unless they start spending more on their own protection. Meanwhile, the UK (like many other European countries) is deep in debt, thanks to a string of governments (including Conservative ones) that have put tax-and-spend and costly regulation ahead of entrepreneurship and economic growth,Given the geopolitical and military threats around, that is not a great position to be in. And now, senior Conservatives like Neville-Jones are talking about strengthening defence even if it means sacrificing any growth-stimulating tax cuts. If only our governments had listened to the pro-growth, low-tax, balanced budget arguments much earlier.

Most efforts to develop a theory of tax policy change have emphasized institutional, procedural, and partisan explanations. By contrast, very little attention has been directed toward the budgetary context within which tax policy is determined. The long-term evolution of federal income tax policy, however, demonstrates the importance of budgetary context and constraints, and this relationship is particularly evident in the case of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Passage of this comprehensive reform measure depended on a revenue-neutral standard that ignored the traditional norms governing aggregate revenue levels.