No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2014
1 Musgrave, R. A. and Thin, Tun, “Income Tax Progression, 1929-1948” (Journal of Political Economy, vol. LVI, 1948, pp. 498–514).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Those with investment income over $3,000 did not enjoy the full 50 per cent abatement; rather, 50 per cent of the tax on such investment income was deferred until the taxpayer's death.
3 For a discussion of this and other measures of progression and references to other literature see Musgrave and Thin, “Income Tax Progression.”
4 It has also been called the “built-in-flexibility” of the income tax structure by Slitor, Richard E., in “The Measurement of Progressivity and Built-in-Flexibility” (Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. LXII, 1948, pp. 309–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar). This is perhaps not a good term since it does not show the elasticity of total tax yield from all taxpayers with respect to a change in rates.
5 For example, in 1949, the tax on $3,000 is $105 and on $4,000 is $269. For this income interval, the marginal rate may be taken as ($269 - $105) ÷ $1,000, or 16.4 per cent. Since the average rate on $3,000 in 1949 was 3.5 per cent liability progression at $4,000 is given 16.4% ÷ 3.5% =4.68.