Normative analysis.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 1, Problem 1.3.7PA

To determine

Normative analysis.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

In his State of the Union address in 2003, President Bush supported the idea of changing from the use of internal combustion engines to fuel cells based on hydrogen as a way of reducing air pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases. Fuel cells are nonpolluting because they only emit water vapor. President Bush proposed having the government subsidize research and development of hydrogen fuel and fuel cell technology. The president did not propose raising taxes on gasoline as a way of encouraging the use of fuel cells and reducing greenhouse gases. Currently, hydrogen is more expensive than gasoline. Would an increase in the tax on gasoline encourage the development of hydrogen-based fuel cell technology for automobiles?

When John F. Kennedy became President of the United States in 1961, he brought to Washington some of the brightest young economists to the day to work on the council of Economic Advisers. One of the Council’s first proposals was to expand national income by reducing taxes. This eventually led to a substantial cut in personal income taxes in 1964. When a reporter asked Kennedy why he advocated a tax cut, Kennedy replied,“To stimulate the economy. Don’t you remember your economics 101?” Elaborate Kennedy’s reply as much as you can (To support your argument, you can use graph or equations...).

In 1989, Senator Bob Packwood asked Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation how much extra revenue the government would raise if it just started taxing 100% of all income over $200,000 per year. The Joint Committee crunched some numbers and reported an answer: $204 billion per year. a. What is wrong with this answer? In 1989, very few people made over $200,000 a year, so the estimate of the tax revenue is far too high. Increasing government spending by $204 billion each year would have generated economic growth, and subsequently even higher amounts of tax revenues. The Joint Committee on Taxation did not have the tools needed to make such an estimate accurately. No one would have an incentive to work once they had earned $200,000, so much of the taxable income would disappear.