D Depreciation rules: the U.S. Tax Reform Act of 1986

2013 ◽  
pp. 373-374
Keyword(s):  
Tax Reform ◽  
The U.S

Preferences, Tax Structure and Tax Reform: Theory and Evidence

1975 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shlomo Maital
Keyword(s):  
Tax Reform ◽  
Tax Structure ◽  
Indirect Taxation ◽  
Tax System ◽  
The Past ◽  
Pure Public Good ◽  
Indirect Taxes ◽  
Current Shift ◽  
Optimal Tax Structure ◽  
The U.S

When the structure of tax revenues–the proportion of revenues earned by income, consumption and wealth taxes–is treated as a pure public good, a useful framework emerges for analyzing interrelationships among taxpayers' preferences, tax structure and tax reform. The “optimal” tax structure is defined and used to outline several conjectures about the current shift from direct to indirect taxation, evident particularly in Europe. Attention is then focused on the U.S. tax system. The structure of the tax system is shown to have changed very little in the past two decades. In contrast, interview surveys carried out over the past thirty years indicated a long-standing shift in taxpayers' preferences toward indirect taxes. Implications are drawn regarding tax reform.

Tax reform initiated by D. Trump: Economic and social aspects

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 693-720
Author(s):  
Elena Yu. MAKUSHINA ◽  
Dar'ya M. KARMANOVA ◽  
Aleksei S. KUCHER
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Tax Reform ◽  
The United States ◽  
Subsequent Increase ◽  
Tax Revenues ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Macroeconomic Indicators ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The U.S

Subject. The article addresses the tax reform of 2017, initiated by D. Trump. Objectives. The aim is to determine the relationship between the total volume of tax revenues to the budget of the U.S. Government and the growth of U.S. GDP in the long run. Methods. To identify the impact of the tax reform on the investment climate in the country and the subsequent GDP growth, we formulate a hypothesis and propose a regression model. The quarterly data from 04.01.1960 to 07.01.2019 serve as a statistical sampling, published by financial departments of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The study rests on the econometric analysis enabling to identify the impact of the volume of tax revenues from the corporate income tax and individual income taxes on the level of the GDP of the United States. Results. In the short term, we observe a decrease in tax revenues and a subsequent increase in the budget deficit, in the long term – an increase in business activity of the country, a growth in foreign direct investment, and, consequently, an increase in the GDP. The paper offers a model for assessing the economic growth of the GDP of the United States, in which tax predictors were used in combination with macroeconomic indicators. Conclusions. The experience of the United States and the results of this study may be used by the governments of developing countries and experts in the field of taxation for tax policy development.

scholarly journals The Corporate Pyramid Fable

2010 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven A. Bank ◽  
Brian R. Cheffins
Keyword(s):  
New Deal ◽  
Tax Reform ◽  
The United States ◽  
Business History ◽  
American Business ◽  
The Public ◽  
Holding Company ◽  
Corporate Organization ◽  
Dividend Tax ◽  
The U.S

Although corporate pyramids are currently commonplace world-wide and although there have been “noteworthy pyramiders” in American business history, this controversial form of corporate organization is now a rarity in the United States. The conventional wisdom is that corporate pyramids disappeared in the U.S. when New Deal policymakers began taxing dividends paid to corporate shareholders. This version of events is more fable than truth. The introduction of the intercorporate dividend tax did not foster a rapid dismantling of corporate pyramids. Instead, pyramidal arrangements were already rare in the U.S., other than in the utilities sector, and the demise of utility pyramids was prompted by the Public Util- ities Holding Company Act of 1935 rather than by tax reform.

scholarly journals The Mindsets of Political Compromise

2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 1125-1143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Gutmann ◽  
Dennis Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Tax Reform ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Political Polarization ◽  
Democratic Process ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
Permanent Campaign ◽  
The Status ◽  
Political Compromise ◽  
The U.S

Political compromise is difficult in American democracy even though no one doubts it is necessary. It is difficult for many reasons, including the recent increase in political polarization that has been widely criticized. We argue that the resistance to compromise cannot be fully appreciated without understanding its source in the democratic process itself, especially as conducted in the U.S. The incursion of campaigning into governing in American democracy—the so called “permanent campaign”—encourages political attitudes and arguments that make compromise more difficult. These constitute what we call the uncompromising mindset, characterized by politicians' standing on principle and mistrusting opponents. This mindset is conducive to campaigning, but not to governing, because it stands in the way of necessary change and thereby biases the democratic process in favor of the status quo. The uncompromising mindset can be kept in check by an opposite cluster of attitudes and arguments—the compromising mindset—that inclines politicians to adapt their principles and respect their opponents. This mindset is more appropriate for governing, because it enables politicians more readily to recognize and act on opportunities for desirable compromise. We explore the dynamics of these mindsets by examining the processes that led to the compromises on tax reform in 1986 and health care reform in 2010.

THE RESPONSE OF OTHER INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES TO THE U.S. TAX REFORM ACT

1987 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-355
Author(s):  
VITO TANZI
Keyword(s):  
Tax Reform ◽  
Industrial Countries ◽  
The U.S
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document