Davis v. Department of Revenue of Kentucky: A Preliminary Impact Assessment

States with income taxes frequently exempt municipal bond interest from state taxation. Such exemptions, referred to as double exempts, are tax expenditures that reduce state revenues, but are viewed as a subsidy to the cost of capital for the state and its localities. All but a few states provide the income tax exemption for state based issues while taxing interest from municipal bonds issued by muni issuers in other states. A recent court case, Davis vs. Department of Revenue of Kentucky, declared state statutes limiting the state income tax exemptions to ”in-state” issues unconstitutional. This paper provides some legal background and context for the current case and addresses two key fiscal implications of this case. First, the paper presents a basic model that suggests that bonds issued by states with higher marginal tax rates would see the yields increase on their obligations while states with lower than average marginal tax rates would see their yields decline. The yields would converge at new market equilibrium due to the elimination of tax preferences across the states. Second, the preliminary estimates suggest a good deal of variance in how much tax revenue each state will lose if the case is upheld by the Supreme Court.

Letter, Merl Brainard to Virginia Brainard [November 14, 1949]

Letter, Merl Brainard to Virginia Brainardhttps://repository.stcloudstate.edu/brainard-letters/1139/thumbnail.jp

Letter, Merl Brainard to Virginia Brainard [March 29, 1949]

Letter, Merl Brainard to Virginia Brainardhttps://repository.stcloudstate.edu/brainard-letters/1119/thumbnail.jp

Letter, Merl Brainard to Virginia Brainard [November 10, 1949]

Letter, Merl Brainard to Virginia Brainardhttps://repository.stcloudstate.edu/brainard-letters/1138/thumbnail.jp

Letter, Merl Brainard to Virginia Brainard [December 12, 1949]

Letter, Merl Brainard to Virginia Brainardhttps://repository.stcloudstate.edu/brainard-letters/1141/thumbnail.jp

Letter, Merl Brainard to Virginia Brainard [July 5, 1949]

Letter, Merl Brainard to Virginia Brainardhttps://repository.stcloudstate.edu/brainard-letters/1125/thumbnail.jp

Letter, Merl Brainard to Virginia Brainard [November 6, 1949]

Letter, Merl Brainard to Virginia Brainardhttps://repository.stcloudstate.edu/brainard-letters/1137/thumbnail.jp

RULES OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION IN THE PRE-WAR SOVIET COUNTRYSIDE

Merl S. RULES OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION IN THE PRE-WAR SOVIET COUNTRYSIDE. RUDN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY. 2017;17(2):192-201.The author aims to debunk the Soviet official myth of local administration as being weak and not functioning effectively. The Soviet regime could not function in the way it pretended to, and the official picture of the economy was far from the reality though played a central role in the political discourse for the aims of legitimacy. The command economy actually functioned as a symbiosis of commands and threats 'from above' and corrupt practices of the majority of people including officials. However, this symbiosis worked quite successfully in industry ensuring impressive rates of growth, but not in agriculture and rural areas. Certainly, the kolkhoz system also combined severe control and treats with tolerance to corrupt practices condemned in the official slogans so as to save people from starvation. However, in the countryside the myth that rural administration was weak and wrong doing proved to be the strongest basis of the regime for it corresponded to the firm conviction of rural people and traditional expectations that Stalin would pursue the paternalist rule as a "good tsar" by punishing local officials (as scapegoats) and by removing them from office (after blaming them for regime's shortcomings as incompetent managers). To keep people from protests and rebellions the rural officials' task was not only to use force and intimidation during the campaigns, but also to look away allowing the kolkhozniki from time to time to betray the state as compensation. Thus, the Soviet rural administration fulfilled its functions set by the regime, such as ensuring political communication for the aims of the faith in the legitimacy of the political rule. The author also considers a vertical channel of communication between the people and the regime-petitions to the ruler. Soviet people were encouraged to write letters including complaints to "bargain" personal dissatisfaction. Soviet peasants considered such a communication as a privilege and a part of the paternalist rule. For the regime, the most important function of such letters was preventing local protests by the timely reaction so as not to let the dissatisfaction to reach a critical level. Peasant letters became an additional means of control over rural officials that put limits to their arbitrariness

Letter, Merl Brainard to Virginia Brainard [May 15, 1949]

Letter, Merl Brainard to Virginia Brainardhttps://repository.stcloudstate.edu/brainard-letters/1120/thumbnail.jp