The Welfare Cost of Distortions in the United States Tax System: A General Equilibrium Approach

Using a general equilibrium model of the United States economy,we examine the combined welfare cost of all taxes in the U.S. revenue system.We find that the welfare losses caused by distortionary taxation can be very large, both on average and at the margin.The marginal welfare loss to consumers from raising an additional dollar of revenue is in the range of 34 cents to 48 cents, depending on certain elasticities. This has very important implications for cost-benefit analysis.If a public project must be financed by distortionary taxes which cause dead-weight loss, this excess burden must be taken into account when we decide whether to undertake the project. Our calculations indicate that the marginal deadweight loss is between one-third and one-half of marginal revenues. This large wedge could cause us to approve many fewer projects than we would approve if we were to use the simple condition that the sum of the marginal rates of substitution should equal the marginal rate of transformation.The average deadweight loss per dollar of revenue is smaller than the marginal deadweight loss, but it is still substantial. We estimate that the present value of the gain from replacing the distortionary tax system with certain lump sum taxes would be in the range of $1.8 trillion to$3.1 trillion,or 13 cents to 22 cents per dollar of revenue. The gains would be about 60 percent as great if the existing system were replaced with a proportional income tax. Replacing the existing system with a consumption-type value-added tax would give even greater gains than those from switching to a proportional income tax.

Review of graduate coursework: a report to the Graduate School of the Australian National University

In response to a proposal from the Dean of the Graduate School the Vice-Chancellor in June 1996 provided an allocation from the University's Strategic Initiatives Fund for a Review of Graduate Coursework Degrees. In September the Dean proposed the following terms of reference: To review graduate coursework degrees and diplomas within the ANU and comparator universities, in particular: 1. To identify examples of good practice. 2. To determine the extent of undergraduate content in such awards, and to assess the desirability or otherwise of such content. 3. To report on the extent to which graduate coursework is targeted to particular professional groups. 4. To recommend areas in which the ANU should develop new courses, particularly having regard to the implications of the recent federal budget. 5. To consider how the ANU's offerings might be rationalised, eg by reducing the proliferation of named awards. 6. To consider ways in which the ANU's graduate coursework offerings might be made more attractive to international students. The Graduate Degrees Committee, at its meeting of 5 December 1996, referred to the Review an additional term of reference: 7. To examine explicitly the relationship of graduate diplomas to honours degrees and to the possible introduction of professional Master degrees as outlined in Professor Poole's memorandum of 25 November 1996 on re-naming of graduate diplomas

Issues and alternatives

"Are there alternatives for organizing government at the local level? Yes, no, and perhaps. One or more options are permitted by current law for a small number of governments. Many now have no options offered to them. Numerous options thought to have merit have been proposed as enabling legislation but failed to gain adoption. In addition, among the few alternatives legally permissible, some have political liabilities rendering them unusable. To consider alternatives, it is probably best to begin with those available legally."--First paragraph.John Ballard (Local Government Specialist, University of Missouri Extension)Revised 1978 3

Preliminary estimate, Missouri land in public ownership, 1974-1976

"Governmental Affairs Program, UED 39, 12/76 /1M"It is impossible to determine the amount of land in public ownership in Missouri, though this information is often sought. The Missouri State Library cites public land questions among inquiries most frequently received and least frequently answered, since the information does not exist. This publication is an attempt to assemble and correlate from literally hundreds of separate sources such data as can be found. Some, itemized below, were not attempted. Some of the data are approximations, these being all that are available. There may well be errors and omissions, and the reporting of these would be appreciated. The time gap in figures (1974-1976) was retained since no official figures of later date were available