Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T08:55:56.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Effects of Intersectoral Income Transfers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Andrew A. Duymovic  and
Raymond O. P. Farrish
Andrew A. Duymovic
Affiliation:
Marketing Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA
Raymond O. P. Farrish
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As dissatisfaction with existing welfare programs has become more widespread, increased attention has been given to various income transfer plans that would gurantee all U. S. citizens a minimum annual income. One alternative which is being given serious consideration is the negative income tax (NIT). The negative income tax has been proposed in various forms, most notably President Nixon's family assistance plan.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , July 1972 , pp. 59 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Bawden, D. Lee, “Income Maintenance and the Rural Poor: An Experimental Approach,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 52: 438–441, Aug. 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Duymovic, Andrew A., “The Effect of Intersectoral Income Transfers on the Distribution of Income in the United States,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut, 1970.Google Scholar
[3]Klein, L. R. and Goldberger, A. S., An Econometric Model of the United States, 1929-1952, North-Holland Publishing Co., 1955.Google Scholar
[4]Meyer, Charles W. and Saupe, William E., “Farm Operators under the Negative Income Tax,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 52: 255–262, May 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar