Printer Friendly

Tax policy and the federal budget.


Theoretical economics has been concerned with the study of the economic behavior of individuals in response to changes in tax rates and structure. Unfortunately, few of the findings are directly relevant to resolving tax issues in the United States economy. An analysis of the federal budge reveals only a minor contribution towards this end when comparing the coverage of receipts as opposed to outlays. Outlays are identified according to priorities, national needs, benefit cost analysis, functional or agency and account classifications and the use of a credit budget. On the contrary, the reporting of tax revenues is brief and fragmented throughout the document.

The following pages will furnish information concerning tax reporting in the budget and recent tax legislation: Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA), Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), and Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA). Then, major objectives of these acts such as fairness, simplicity, growth, and tax neutrality together with other criteria will be used as the basis for an evaluation of four taxes in a Tax Report Card. Other means for improving revenue decision making will be discussed including a more detailed tax resolution at the outset of the congressional budget process and a new structure for reporting budget receipts that encompasses tax expenditures and offsetting collections in a single statement.

Tax Reporting in the Federal Budget

"Federal Receipts by Source" are discussed for eighteen pages in the Budget of the U. S. Government FY 1990. "Federal Programs by Function" (Outlays) compose 182 pages and the "Federal Program by Agency and Account (outlays) compose 191 pages of the same budget. These proportions have been typical of federal budget documents since the introduction of the unified budget in FY 1969.

Federal revenues are composed mainly of income tax collections. In FY 1990, income taxes are estimated to account for 55.1 percent of total revenues, down from 59.7 percent of estimated receipts in FY 1980. Payroll taxes, next in importance, are estimated at 37 percent in FY 1990, up from 30.5 percent in FY 1980. Excise taxes account for 3.3 percent and estate and gift taxes 4.6 percent of the balance of total revenues in FY 1990.

Explanation of federal revenues in the budget has included discussion of their composition, enacted legislation, effect of major legislation enacted on receipts, receipts proposals and estimates of the effect of enacted and proposed changes. However, coverage is brief and there are two important aspects of federal revenues that are not a part of the "Federal Receipts by Source" section: tax expenditures and offsetting collections. Both of these receipts-affecting categories appear in the outlay sections of the budget.

Offsetting Collections

Offsetting collections consist of two categories: those that are credited to appropriation accounts and those deposited in receipt accounts. Both categories result from business-type and intragovernmental activities. Those collections which are credited to appropriation or fund accounts include the revolving funds. They are business-type enterprises that are authorized by law to use the proceeds from the sale of their products and services to finance the provision of additional products and services. Among the federal enterprises operating under such laws are the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Crediting these collections to an appropriation account results in reducing outlays in advance of budget reporting.

The second type of setting collection which is deposited to the receipt accounts may augment a general fund, special fund or trust fund. There are two ways in which the credit may appear in the budget: as "undistributed offsetting receipts" where the adjustment is made at the total budget authority and outlay level or as "offsetting receipts by type" which can be deducted at the subfunction and agency levels.

Although there is no economic difference between the two offsetting collections described, there is a difference in terms of legal status. Legislation is required to support the practice of offsetting collections were to be reported in the revenue section of the budget, it would require "grossing up" of budget outlays and receipts. The size of the deficit would remain unchanged but budget totals would rise.

There is a listing of Offsetting Receipts by Type in the budget (FY 1990: 10-22 to 24) that includes, also, adjusted "undistributed offsetting receipts" as explained above. The total of offsetting receipts for FY 1990 is reported at $237 billion of which $191.1 billion represents intragovernmental transactions and $45.9 represents proprietary receipts from the public.

However, there are many other collections that do appear in the budget, namely, collections credited to an appropriation account. Amounts in individual accounts of this type can be found in the "Program and Financing" Schedule of the Budget Appendix; no summary of them is provided (Cuny 1988: 99-100).

The practice of offsetting collections currently used derives from the recommendations of the Presidents Commission on Budget Concepts in 1967. The Commission devoted an entire chapter (chapter 7) to "Offsetting Receipts Against Expenditures' in which they stated the reasons for their recommendation. Mainly, the Commission was concerned with presenting an overview of governmental activity that reflected its nonmarket concerns by recording "a total of the free service supplied by government on a collective basis, and financed by use of its sovereign powers to obtain general revenues" (President's Commission 1967: 67). Any business-type enterprise such as the Post Office is market-oriented and, therefore, its receipts should be offset against outlays so that only a net deficit will be included in budget totals (President's Commission 1967: 67).

In theory, it may be convenient to separate market from nonmarket activities but, in practice there are overlaps. All the activities of the U. S. Post Office probably could not be replaced satisfactorily by the private sector and this would be true to an even greater extent for those of the FHA and the FDIC. Furthermore, the recommendation does not account for the substantial resources committed to the public sector and, accordingly, unavailable for private purposes.

Most economists would not quibble with the use of offsetting receipts or "netting" in the case of intragovernmental transactions and no change is suggested. Intragovernmental transactions are payments into receipt accounts from governmental appropriations or fund accounts. They include interest received by trust funds and agencies' payments as employers into employee retirement trust funds. In the other cases, identifying public sector command over resources and the total impact of governmental programs necessitates reporting gross outlays. Moreover, and towards the purpose of this paper, a comprehensive account of total revenues and their sources may improve the revenue decision-making process (Meyer 1989: 116-117, 143).

Tax Expenditures

Tax expenditures modify the tax system by allowing certain exclusions, exemptions, deductions, special credits, preferential tax rates or deferral of tax liability that reduce private tax liabilities and, therefore, lower government revenues. Tax expenditures are used to achieve objectives similar to those of direct outlays (Budget FY 1990: 7-10).

Tax expenditures are identified by comparing the actual law with some selected baseline tax structure. Deviations from the baseline cause tax expenditures. At present, there are no exact legal specifications for the baseline. As the baseline is not a comprehensive income tax and some provisions may be arbitrary, tax expenditures calculated may or may not be desirable. For example, the investment tax credit was a tax expenditure but the decrease in the corporate income tax rate was not (Budget FY 1990: 7-11).

Estimating tax expenditures entails calculation of the revenue loss resulting from the deviation of the actual law and from the baseline structure. Whether it is a revenue loss or gain in income, it is estimated by multiplying that amount of the loss (gain) by the tax rate applicable to the change in income (Meyer 1989: 135-137).

Tax expenditures may be estimated, also, as outlay equivalents. The revenue loss for the tax expenditures is transformed by seeking that amount of outlays necessary to provide the taxpayer with after tax income equal to that provided by the special tax provisions including an equal (same) incentive. Required outlays under this measure may exceed the revenue loss because taxpayers need to pay taxes on the higher income resulting from the outlays (Special Analysis G FY 1990: G-12).

Although both types of estimates are offered in the budget only the outlay equivalent estimates are used for program analysis. The size of each tax expenditure depends on the tax provisions and its relation to the tax structure. A change in the rate of tax increase or decreases revenue losses derived from tax expenditures.

Tax expenditures appear in each functional category of the budget as contained in "Federal Program by Function". There is further discussion of the concept, its measurement, and the "tax expenditures budget" in Special Analysis G. In FY 1990, tax expenditures for the Corporate Income Tax (CIT), the Individual Income Tax (IIT), and estate and gift taxes are included. It is planned to include the excise and payroll taxes, also.

The concept of tax expenditures continues to remain significant on the expenditure side of the budget. They are viewed as alternative outlays but only secondarily as lost revenues. Unfortunately, because of their interdependence and complex measurement, it is not possible to estimate their total size accurately in either role. Now the TRA and its accounting changes "Have added an additional layer of ambiguity and complexity to the tax expenditure estimation process" (Neubig, R. S. and D. Joultaian 1988: 20).

Criteria for Taxation in the 1980's

Taxation has three main objectives: (1) shift revenues from the private to the public sector, (2) distribute the costs of government fairly according to income class and within income class (vertical horizontal equity) and, (3) to promote growth, stability and efficiency (Pechman 1987: 5).

The major tax legislation of the 1980's included the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA), the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), and the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA). The 1981 and 1986 acts were promoted as beneficial to growth while the 1982 act was more concerned with equity and closing of loopholes. All three acts aspired to greater capital formation although only the 1981 and 1986 acts had reduced tax rates as a central feature.

The major elements of the 1986 reform were (1) reducing IIT and CIT rates to a maximum of 28 and 34 percent respectively, (2) doubled personal exemption and increased standard deduction, (3) taxation of realized capital gains as ordinary income, (4) elimination of the investment tax credit, (5) stiffer alternative minimum taxes for corporations, (6) slower depreciation schedules, (7) unemployment benefits fully taxable and deduction of state/local sales taxes ad consumer interest eliminated, and (8) reduction in the deductibility of IRA's (Boskin 1988: 89; Pechman 1987: 11).

All of these decisions can be traced to Treasury 1, Tax Reform for Fairness, Simplicity and Economic Growth, and Treasury 2, the President's Tax Proposals to the Congress for Fairness, Growth and Simplicity.

Charles E. McLure, the chief architect of Treasury 1, claimed the main objectives of the tax reform were (1) fairness with respect to horizontal and vertical equity criterion, (2) elimination of distortions affecting the allocation of resources, (3) elimination of the complexity of tax forms and tax preferences, and (4) greater economic incentives (McLure 1985: 30).

Donald R. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury, in his accompanying letter of Treasury 1 dated 27 November 1984, noted that the study followed the presidential mandate to design a comprehensive tax reform. The study committee had worked on four possibilities: a pure flat tax, a modified flat tax, a tax on income that is consumed, and a general sales tax including a value added tax and a retail sales tax. Treasury I proposed a modified flat tax.

After the congressional hearings and analyses of Treasury II, policy makers would have gained information by the systematic recording of the intensity, frequency and variety of reactions of participants. The tax report card, demonstrated below, is one possible variant of this approach.

As a starting point, evaluation of taxes will be undertaken for two income taxes, the individual income tax (IIT) and the corporate income tax (CIT), and two consumption based taxes, the value added tax (VAT) and the expenditure tax (EXP). Essentially, the difference between the two groups is the treatment of saving which the latter exempts from taxation. Each of the four taxes will be rated according to their success in meeting the following criteria: (1) efficiency -- minimum interference in individual decision making (2) fairness in terms of vertical and horizontal equity and tax burden or incidence, (3) flexibility -- ability to respond appropriately to economic growth, (4) simplicity -- simple to administer and for taxpayer to understand and comply, and (5) awareness -- taxpayer's conscious knowledge of personal share in cost of government services. The five criteria are further identified as follows:


The economic efficiency of taxation is concerned with minimizing the welfare loss from taxation. The choice of tax or taxes should cause the least change in individual economic behavior. The lump sum tax fulfills this prescription but it violates equity considerations. If an optimal tax structure is desired, society should maximize social welfare while expressing its choices between efficiency and equity at the same time.

To say that an efficient tax causes the least change in individual economic behavior refers to that portion of any price change (caused by a tax, for example) attributed to the substitution effect. It is observed that individuals faced with a higher price (including tax) for one good relative to another will tend to want more of the cheaper good. If the taxed good is wages, a rise in the wage tax may cause the individual to reduce work hours and increase leisure hours as the higher marginal tax rates make work relatively less rewarding. The outcome has been shown to be highly sensitive to income level and individual preferences.

Earlier economists praised the placement of taxes on goods with inelastic demands because individuals demonstrate the least reaction to a price change for such goods. Today, economists argue that sometimes we prefer to change economic behavior on efficiency grounds in order to move society closer to an optimal position (e.g., Blinder 1985:92-98). Therefore, the modern policy actions to satisfy efficiency are more complex.


Equity or fairness in taxation involves several concepts: the relationship of taxes to the individual's valuation of government services (benefit), and its corollary, the designation of tax payments to particular objectives (earmarking), the capacity of individuals to pay taxes (ability-to-pay), the distribution of tax payments among individuals of similar and dissimilar circumstances (horizontal and vertical equity) and the final burden of the tax as opposed to where it is initially imposed (shifting and incidence), among other considerations.

Economists have recognized the practical limitations of general benefit taxation (Musgrave and Musgrave 1989: 220-21). They note that it is useful wherever government goods and services have the characteristics of private goods such that licenses, fees, user charges and tolls may be applied. Actually, most discussions of fairness in taxation center on fulfilling the conditions of horizontal and vertical equity.

The earmarking of revenues is particularly appropriate when the benefit approach is applicable. Knut Wicksell recommended long ago in his interpretation of the benefit approach that whenever votes are cast for a particular government activity, that its financing should be decided simultaneously (Wicksell 1967). More recently, Musgrave and Musgrave (1989: 222) support this idea for any tax regime by commenting that the choice of expenditure and tax payment at the same time might "establish a clearer link between expenditures and tax rates ... and thus improve decision making" (222). Of course, the practice of tailored revenues has the advantage today of preventing additions to the general fund deficit (Rivlin 1939: 113-117). However, at other times, earmarking has been rejected because it tied up revenues, supposedly, for less valuable uses.

Building a tax system on the basis of the distribution of tax incidence is not possible because, to date, there is little agreement on who bears the burden of many important taxes. For example, the burden of the CIT has been found to shift, under different analyses, from the stockholder (the point of imposition), onto the consumer (forward shifting), or onto the firm's suppliers (backward shifting). These outcomes may vary depending primarily on assumptions concerning the elasticities of demand and supply, the degree of market competitiveness and the length of the time period investigated.


A major criticism of the tax system before 1986 and again, after the reform, has been the complexity of its administration and difficulty of taxpayer understanding and compliance. Both of these problems cause taxpayers to incur direct and indirect costs in order to correctly calculate their tax liability. They may encourage, also, the growth of unreported transactions in the "underground" economy (tax evasion) and the growth of demand for tax shelters (tax avoidance).


Flexibility of the tax system (and the federal budget) becomes more important as the share of the public sector in the economy grows. On the basis of the actual budget receipts and gross national product for 1980, the federal share in the economy was 19.4 percent. On the basis of the short range estimates of GNP and the budget for 1990, the federal share will be approximately the same at 19.3 percent.

The flexibility of the federal tax system is dependent on discretionary changes by the Congress subject to the rules and timing of the budget process and the inherent features (built-in flexibility) of the budget system. By far, the most important of the "built-in stabilizers" has been the individual income tax for two reasons: (1) it is the largest revenue getter, and (2) the progressivity of the tax. The advantage of the progressive IIT includes its ability to maintain spending when income drops and to curb spending when income attempts to rise above the full employment level. On the other hand, such a reaction would not be as desirable if the government concerned were not willing to absorb the shock of changing total income by allowing revenues to shrink or expand to maintain private spending.


The category of tax awareness is not only controversial but difficult to appraise. In a capitalist economy devoted to a free individualistic market system, the citizen should be able to distinguish the personal cost of governmental services. With an income tax, this is more clearly set out than if we relied upon, as the European Economic Community does, the value added tax. Thus, if one prizes knowledge of costs and possibly, greater control and participation by the individual, the income tax is preferred. If however, concern is more with collectively determined total costs and greater stability of revenues, then such a choice may be irrelevant.

Other categories not considered here include the cost per dollar of revenue yield, transitions from one tax to another or from one rate to another for the same tax, the dependence of new tax choices upon the existing tax structure, and the extent to which more than one tax instrument may be necessary in a system with multiple objectives.

The Tax Report Card

In Table 1, the Tax Report Card compares the performance of the two income taxes, the IIT and the CIT as defined after the TRA in the United States, the Value Added Tax, VAT, as employed in the European Economic Community, and the Expenditure Tax, EXP, as recommended by Nicholas Kaldor in 1955 but never adopted in a developed capitalist economy. Each tax is graded on the basis of an A through D scale although no category received the top grade of A. The last column represents the average grade for each on the basis of the five criteria. Explanation for the subjective evaluation of the four taxes is given at the end of the table. [Tabular Data 1 Omitted]

There is no allowance in the tax report card for other national goals. If economic growth is desired, both VAT and EXP will receive higher rankings than the income taxes and the averages change in their favor. Macroeconomic objectives need to be prioritized and weighted. The comparison of new with existing taxes should account for transitional costs and unpredictable problems that might arise by the use of a risk factor or other device. Nevertheless, the report card system for evaluating tax choices permits subjective values to influence the grading.

The original report card which influenced the present study was contained in a staff report of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families in August 1985. The report card analyzed and compared current law, Bradley-Gephardt, Kemp-Kasten and Treasury 2. The Staff of the Committee ranked the four proposals by letter grades for seven family related categories. Treasury 2 received the highest average grade of 2.86 (House Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families 1985: VII).

Tax Resolution

The presentation of tax information in the budget should be modified to enhance understanding and better convey the importance of the role of taxes in the budget process. On the expenditure side, there are policy guidelines which include priorities, national needs and functional classifications, zero base budgeting, cost benefit analysis and the use of the credit budget. The tax side needs a policy framework, also, that clarifies tax choices in view of the several economic objectives and social goals.

A case can be made for presentation of priorities with respect to tax types, tax rates, and tax structures, generally. A cost-benefit analysis could be developed on the basis of cost per dollar of revenue collections or estimated effects on income distribution could be constructed from Internal Revenue Service tax files. Taxes could be compared in terms of the size of the tax base and the sources of income contained therein.

Another refinement might be to include in the budget resolution at the start of the congressional action phase, the division of revenues into separate categories by source even as outlays are divided into separate functional categories. However, in the case of revenues, instead of dollar estimates for each category, a range with an upper and lower limit might be specified and/or priority ranking in the employment of the tax. Pechman (1987) has suggested that a related possibility might be to let Congress approve broad outlines of tax policy and let the Treasury work out the details. In the interests of avoiding additions to the deficit, any new outlays proposed would be permitted only if the method of tax financing is stipulated. Furthermore, to the extent that actual spending exceeds the initial estimate, prior specification should indicate the source of the needed financing.

Adjustments to Tax Receipts

In the presentation of revenues in the budget, a new structure should spotlight the significance of tax policy. Existing taxes should be explained with respect to their relative advantages and disadvantages compared to each other and newer alternatives. Any activity that has a direct impact on the size or composition of revenues should be included in the tax receipts category. Then, tax expenditures could be analyzed and their direct effects on revenues estimated. If that is not possible, it may be more appropriate to confine the analysis to discussion only. In either case, the tax expenditures should be cross referenced to the appropriate outlay categories. Then, with the adoption of tax expenditures under the revenues listing, the present outlay discussion could be reduced accordingly. The reasons why tax expenditures cannot be interpreted as an estimate of the increase in federal receipts or the reduction in the budget deficit if the given provision were repealed are: (1) income and rates of economic growth might be affected by the repeal, (2) individual tax expenditures are interdependent, (3) values of tax expenditures in individual and corporate tax accounts are interrelated and interdependent and, (4) annual value of tax expenditure for tax deferrals are time-dependent (Budget FY 1990: G-11 to G-12).

Table 2, Receipts by Source and Adjustments, is an arrangement of actual receipts by source for FY 1987 with adjustments for offsetting collections. Tax expenditures, although listed, are not totaled because of present difficulties of measurement. As a temporary expedient, instead of a single estimate total, a range might be considered with an upper and lower limit. Before this would be possible, receipts by source totals must contain tax expenditures so that the revenue loss is revealed.
Receipts by Source and Adjustments
(In Billions of Dollars)
Individual Income Tax $392.6
Corporate Income Tax 83.9
Social Insurance Taxes &
 Contributions 303.3
 On-budget (89.9
 Off-budget (213.4)
Excise Taxes 32.5
Estate and Gift Taxes 7.5
Customs Duties and Fines 15.2
Miscellaneous Receipts 19.3
 Total Receipts (A) $854.1
 On-budget (640.7)
 Off-budget (213.4)
Additions to Receipts (B) $158.1
 Offsetting Collections-Deposited
 to receipts Accounts(*):
 Proprietary Receipts from the
 Public ( 35.5)
 Offsetting Collections-
 to Appropriations(**) (122.6)
 Subtotal (A) & (B): $1,012.2
Deductions from Receipts
 Tax Expenditures by Source(***)
 Total Adjustments and Receipts $1,012.2(***)
Source: Budget of the U.S. Government and Special Analyses for FY 1989 and 1990
and T.J. Cuny,
"Offsetting Collections" Public Budgeting and Finance 8 (Autumn 1988): 96-100.
(*)Intragovernmental transactions are not included on the grounds the budget sho
uld reflect public
sector impact upon the private sector.
(**)This type of offsetting collections is not summarized in the budget although
 its economic
nature is the same as offsetting receipts.
(***)Because of measurement difficulties, no total for tax expenditures appears
in the budget or in
this table. If their total were listed, all receipts by source estimates in the
table would require
"grossing up".

The table does not demonstrate the change in outlay totals that will occur as offsetting collections are eliminated. Certain outlay programs such as energy, natural resources, environment, commerce and housing credit will increase in size relatively more than other categories because of differences in the use of this technique. Therefore, all categories will reflect more accurately the scope of government in resource allocation on the outlay side. On the revenue side, a more comprehensive view of government's receipts may improve accounting practices and facilitate better revenue choices.

In the FY 1991 Budget, transmitted to the Congress on 5 February 1990 and after preparation of this paper, there were alternative budget structures presented for the first time since FY 1969. All of them included "offsetting collections converted to receipts". For example, the GAO Federal Budget presentation includes GAO total revenues of $1,359.6 billion. Total revenues include total receipts of $1,170.2 billion and offsetting collections converted to receipts of $187.3 billion. Offsetting collections are composed of $43 billion for proprietary receipts and $146.3 billion for reimbursements to appropriations. Offsetting collections are estimated to raise total receipts by 17 percent in FY 1991 while they raised total receipts by 18.5 percent in FY 1987. Overall, total revenues, $1,359.6 billion, are estimated to be 34.3 percent higher in FY 1991 than actual figures, $1,012.1 billion, reported for FY 1987. No attempt to include tax expenditures was recommended.

Concluding Remarks

Major emphasis in this paper has been on consideration of new ways of restructuring the process and presentation of revenues in the budget in order to improve decision making. Until the process and the budget reveal a comprehensive view of the composition of receipts in terms of economic impact on individuals, there will not be a tax reform that attains desired goals. In addition to the employment of a tax report card, a congressional tax resolution and a complete tax syllabus, additional time should be given to continuous review of existing tax legislation to weed out unneeded provisions. Sunset legislation has had only minor impact in this direction. Every effort should be made to give the revenue side of the budget as much attention and careful scrutiny on an ongoing basis that has so far been reserved for outlays.


Aaron, H. J. "The Impossible Dream Comes True: The New Tax Reform Act". Brooking Review 5 (Winter 1987): 3-10. Blinder, A. S. "Discussion of J. B. Slemrod's "The Effect of Tax Simplification on Individuals". In Economic Consequences of Tax Simplification, Conference Proceedings at Melvin Village, N.H.: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, October 1985. Boskin, Michael. "Tax Policy and Economic Growth: Lessons from the 1980's". Journal of Economic Perspectives 2 (Fall 1988): 71-97. Budget of the U. S. Government FY 1980 to 1990. Office of Management and Budget. Washington, D.C.:USGPO. Cuny, T. J. "Offsetting Collections in the Federal Budget". Public Budgeting and Finance 8 (Autumn 1988): 96-110. Department of the Treasury. Tax Reform for Fairness, Simplicity and Economic Growth. Vol. 1, Overview. 3 vols. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Treasury, Nov. 1984. House Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families. A Family Tax Report Card. A Staff Report. Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1985. Kaldor, Nicholas. An Expenditure Tax. London: G. Allen, 1955. McLure, C. E., Jr. "Rationale Underlying the Treasury Proposals". Economic Consequences of Tax Simplification. Conference Proceedings at Melvin Village, New Hampshire: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Oct. 1985. Meyer, A. E. Evolution of United States Budgeting: Changing Fiscal and Financial Concepts. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1989. Musgrave, R. A. and P. A. Musgrave. Public Finance in Theory and Practice. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1989. Neubig, T. S. and D. Joultaian. The Tax Expenditure Budget Before and After the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Treasury, Oct. 1988. Pechman, J. S. Federal Tax Policy 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1987. --. "Tax Reform Theory and Practice". Journal of Economic Perspectives 1 (Summer 1987): 11-28. Report of the President's Commission on Budget Concepts. Washington, D.C.: USGPO, Oct. 1967. Special Analyses: Budget of the U. S. Government FY 1990. Office of Management and Budget. Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1989. Wicksell, Knut, "A New Principle of Just Taxation". Translated by J. M. Buchanan in Classics in the Theory of Public Finance, pp. 72-118. Ed. by R. A. Musgrave and T. T. Peacock. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1967. Annette E. Meyer Associate Professor of Economics at Trenton State College.
COPYRIGHT 1991 Omicron Delta Epsilon
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1991 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Meyer, Annette E.
Publication:American Economist
Date:Sep 22, 1991
Previous Article:Effect of interest rate on consumption under alternative expectations hypotheses: evidence from Pakistan.
Next Article:The link between the rate of growth of stock prices and the rate of growth of GNP in the United States: a causality test.

Related Articles
CBO issues policy options on balancing the budget.
The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, Process.
Lobbying for flexibility in tax-exempt financing: GFOA and the Public Finance Network are working to introduce a bill in Congress that will ease some...
A note on government budgets.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters