General equilibrium incidence analysis

McLure, Charles E.

doi:10.1016/0047-2727(75)90015-8

Cited by 81 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1 1 For example, see Brown (1939), Due (1942), Rolph (1952), Musgrave (1959), and Bishop (1968). For more general analyses of the theory of tax incidence, see Harberger (1962), Mieszkowski (1967), McLure (1975), Kotlikoff and Summers (1987), and Fullerton and Metcalf (2002). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perfect Competition, Urbanization, and Tax Incidence in the Retail Gasoline Market

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

"We use monthly gasoline price data for all 50 U.S. states over the period 1984-1999 to examine the incidence of state gasoline excise taxes. Our estimation results indicate full shifting of gasoline taxes to the final consumer. In addition, although we find that gasoline retail prices demonstrate asymmetric responses to changes in "gasoline wholesale prices", we find only limited evidence of such behavior for retail prices with respect to "gasoline excise taxes. "Finally, we find that gasoline markets in urban states exhibit full shifting, but those in rural states (with less competition) demonstrate somewhat less than full shifting". ("JEL "H22) Copyright (c) 2008 Western Economic Association International.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perfect Competition, Urbanization, and Tax Incidence in the Retail Gasoline Market

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our model, by concentrating on firm size, emphasizes the growth of firms and is therefore more dynamic. For a review of the original Harberger model and more recent extensions, see McLure (1975), Ballentine and McLure (1980), and Atkinson and Stiglitz (1980 4. The value of postponing these costs is enhanced by the fact that the firm has no guarantee of surviving.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Corporate Income Tax, Entrepreneurship, and the Noncorporate Sector

Ebrill

Hartman

1983

Public Finance Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Harberger's analysis of the corporate income tax depends on his assumption that the corporate and noncorporate sectors produce different goods. This article modifies that assumption while arguing that the distinguishing feature of corporations lies in their ability to raise capital in a large and well organized market. Once this modification is made, the imposition of the corporate income tax has effects markedly different from those described by Harberger. In particular, it induces firms to postpone the decision to incorporate and reduces the cost of capital schedule faced by some unincorporated businesses. The corporate income tax is, in effect, a tax on size. As such, the effect of the tax on the mix of goods produced in the economy is very uncextain. Previous authors have explored the incidence and excess burden of the corporate income tax from a variety of perspectives. Despite the diversity of the resultant literature, it appears that individual contributions can be classified by how they answer one or both of the following questions:(1) How does the corporate income tax affect the cost of capital?(2) Given that the corporate income tax does affect the cost of capital, what are the general equilibrium implications of such an effect?AUTHORS' NOTE: We wish to thank numerous colleagues who have given us their thoughts on earlier drafts. We also would like to acknowledge the invaluable efforts of the editors and reviewers of this journal, who are responsible for many improvements in the article, but, of course, for no remaining errors.

show abstract

“…The incidence of taxation is a well-developed area of study in public economics, and the incidence of a selective excise tax like the ticket tax has been examined at some length (Harberger 1962;Mieszkowski 1967;McLure 1975;Shoven and Whalley 1984;Pechman 1985;Kotlikoff and Summers 1987;Fullerton and Rogers 1993). There are features of the Boulder ticket tax that make much of this existing analysis of little use here.…”

Section: The Incidence Of the Ticket Tax: Some Possible Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Pays the Ticket Tax?

Alm

Kaempfer

2002

Public Finance Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 1971, the City of Boulder, Colorado, has imposed a tax of 5% on the price of admission to all public events, including movies, concerts, and theatrical performances. This admissions tax, or "ticket tax," is a relatively unimportant source of revenue for the city, accounting for less than 0.5% of total sales and use tax receipts in recent years. For example, in 1999 total sales and use tax receipts of the city were $76.8 million, whereas the ticket tax generated only $368,000. Nevertheless, the use of this ticket tax is consistent with the heavy use of sales taxes in Boulder. In 1999 total tax revenues from the retail sales tax, the business use tax, the construction use tax, the motor vehi-

show abstract

General equilibrium incidence analysis

Cited by 81 publications

References 25 publications

Perfect Competition, Urbanization, and Tax Incidence in the Retail Gasoline Market

Perfect Competition, Urbanization, and Tax Incidence in the Retail Gasoline Market

The Corporate Income Tax, Entrepreneurship, and the Noncorporate Sector

Who Pays the Ticket Tax?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About