This chapter discusses and unifies some uncoordinated parts of the theory of optimal taxation. It includes a discussion on the development of methods of analysis that can be quickly and easily applied to all kinds of optimal tax problems. The analysis does not include minor points of rigour, and a number of important details are treated in depth.
Despite this, Jorgenson’s theory has been a key determinant of economic policy. During the recession of 2001, for example, the U.S. government introduced a measure that significantly increased the tax benefits to firms that purchased new machines. This tax “subsidy” to the purchases of machines was meant to stimulate investment at precisely the time that it would otherwise have plummeted. This countercyclical investment policy follows significant precedent. In 1954, accelerated depreciation was introduced, allowing investors to deduct a larger fraction of the purchase price of a machine than had previously been allowed. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy introduced an investment tax credit to stimulate investment. This credit was enacted and repealed numerous times between then and 1986, when it was finally repealed for good. In each case, the Jorgenson model provided a guide to policymakers of the likely impact of the tax change. Empirical studies have confirmed that the predicted effects occurred.
Kevin A. Hassett is the director of Economic Policy Studies and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He was an economic adviser to the George W. Bush campaign in the 2004 presidential election and was the chief economic adviser to John McCain during the 2000 primaries. He is also a member of the Joint Committee on Taxation’s Blue Ribbon Dynamic Scoring Advisory Panel and its Estimating Review Panel.
The goal of this course is to provide a fundamental understanding of the principles of taxation and tax planning as they relate to personal income taxes and considering an individuals financial position. Traditional business courses analyze an array of factors affecting business decisions but provide little systematic consideration of the role of taxes in individual financial planning decisions. By contrast, tax accounting courses traditionally concentrate on technical legal and administrative issues while ignoring the environment in which taxes enter an individual's decision-making. This case-based course intends to bridge this gap by discussing how taxes affect a variety of personal financial planning decisions.
The goal of this course is to provide a fundamental understanding of the principles of business taxation and tax planning, which will be relevant and valuable even as tax laws change - over time, across borders, and by taxpayer type. The role that taxes may play in business decisions are presented within an "all taxes, all parties, all costs" framework, from the tax issues at start-up (e.g., the choice of organizational form for a new venture), multistate and multinational operations, financial accounting implications, and mergers and acquisitions. We will use cases to gain hands' on experience analyzing business tax strategies and refer to financial statement disclosures as appropriate so that you can learn how taxes affect the financial reporting for transactions. A recurring theme will be linking the tax strategies that we learn with concepts from corporate finance, financial accounting, business law, and economics.
Wind farms benefit the whole population by increasing the amount of renewable energy available; so should some compensation be paid out of taxation revenues?
This class is devoted to recent developments in the empirical corporate finance literature. Topics include: financial contracting, liquidation and renegotiation, taxation and capital structure, the role of labor markets, leveraged buyouts, executive compensation, the causes and consequences of the financial crisis, and implications of finance for the public sector. The class is very interactive. Many of the sessions will consist of student presentations about the papers from the reading list. We will also further explore empirical methods relevant for applied research in corporate finance, with a focus on identification and panel data issues.
One of every four dollars in the American economy will be spent by the federal government this year. This course will examine how federal spending, taxes, deficits and debt affect the U.S. economy and global financial markets, and how the economy affects the federal budget. We will look inside the federal budget to understand entitlement spending, what causes it to grow so fast, how it could be reformed, and why that's so hard to do. We'll understand where the money goes -- how much goes to infrastructure, education, housing, health care, energy and the environment, parks, scientific research, national defense, and other needs. We'll look at the stimulus vs. austerity debate, both within the U.S. and between the U.S. and Europe. We'll look beyond partisan battle lines and explore various fiscal philosophies that sometimes split the political parties. We'll cover the federal budget process from developing the President's budget to enacting individual spending and tax bills, and discuss process reforms including spending and deficit reduction targets, a balanced budget amendment, and line item veto. We'll cover the major players in the budget debate and understand where the big and small budget decisions are made. We'll look at federal taxation, where the money comes from, how it affects the economy, and how it might be restructured. We'll examine the recommendations of the President's budget commission and see if we can predict what will become of its recommendations. And we'll see if we, as a class, can solve our nation's fiscal problems as Washington has so far been unable to do.
"[That] positive and negative affectivity are normally distributed. This means that some people, no matter what their subjective experiences, will not feel much. These people are low in feelings and may be low in satisfaction as well; they are systematically undercounted and discriminated against by any theory or public policy (heaven forbid!) that merely totes up the amount of positive emotion and the amount of satisfaction to decide if a given life is happy or a given policy worth spending tax money on" (Jayawickreme, Pawelski, & Seligman, 2009, p. 22).
Franco, Z. E., Blau, K., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2011). Heroism: A conceptual analysis and differentiation between heroic action and altruism. , (2), 99 –113. doi:10.1037/a0022672. Heroism represents the ideal of citizens transforming civic virtue into the highest form of civic action, accepting either physical peril or social sacrifice. While implicit theories of heroism abound, surprisingly little theoretical or empirical work has been done to better understand the phenomenon. Toward this goal, we summarize our efforts to systematically develop a taxonomy of heroic subtypes as a starting point for theory building. Next we explore three apparent paradoxes that surround heroism—the dueling impulses to elevate and negate heroic actors; the contrast between the public ascription of heroic status versus the interior decision to act heroically; and apparent similarities between altruism, bystander intervention and heroism that mask important differences between these phenomena. We assert that these seeming contradictions point to an unrecognized relationship between insufficient justification and the ascription of heroic status, providing more explanatory power than risk–type alone. The results of an empirical study are briefly presented to provide preliminary support to these arguments. Finally, several areas for future research and theoretical activity are briefly considered. These include the possibility that extension neglect may play a central role in public's view of nonprototypical heroes; a critique of the positive psychology view that heroism is always a virtuous, prosocial activity; problems associated with retrospective study of heroes; the suggestion that injury or death (particularly in social sacrifice heroes) serves to resolve dissonance in favor of the heroic actor; and a consideration of how to foster heroic imagination.
Aristotle’s illustration does succeed in showing that there isconceptual space between mere family resemblance and pureunivocity. So, he is right that these are not exhaustiveoptions. The interest in this sort of result resides in itsexportability to richer, if more abstract philosophical concepts. Aristotle appeals to homonymy frequently, across a full range ofphilosophical concepts including justice, causation,love, life, sameness, goodness, andbody. His most celebrated appeal to core-dependent homonymycomes in the case of a concept so highly abstract that it is difficultto gauge his success without extended metaphysical reflection. This ishis appeal to the core-dependent homonymy of being, which hasinspired both philosophical and scholarly controversy. At one point, Aristotledenies that there could be a science of being, on the grounds thatthere is no single genus being under which all and only beingsfall (SE 11 172a9–15). One motivation for his reasoningthis way may be that he regards the notion of a genus asineliminably taxonomical and contrastive, so that it makes ready sense to speak of a genus of being only if onecan equally well speak of a genus of non-being—just as amongliving beings one can speak of the animals and the non-animals,viz. the plant kingdom. Since there are no non-beings, thereaccordingly can be no genus of non-being, and so, ultimately, no genusof being either. Consequently, since each science studies oneessential kind arrayed under a single genus, there can be no scienceof being either.