Truth in Government: Beyond the Tax Expenditure Budget

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Julie Roin
{"title":"Truth in Government: Beyond the Tax Expenditure Budget","authors":"Julie Roin","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.350981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The tax expenditure budget recently has come under renewed attack. Some argue that its conceptual and implementational flaws justify discontinuing its publication. This paper points out the generality of these supposedly \"fatal\" flaws: all the sources of information we have about government spending suffer from problems similar if not identical to those identified in the tax expenditure budget. Take, for example, the absence of an agreed-upon baseline of a \"normal\" tax system against which to measure \"tax expenditures.\" A central theme of the paper is that the same baseline problem exists for several clear substitutes for tax expenditures, regulation and the non-enforcement of across-the-board rules. Even the seemingly obvious baseline of zero expenditures for determining the amount of cash subsidies can be challenged as incompletely theorized and misleading. The breadth and depth of the baseline and other problems identified in the tax expenditure budget throw into question the wisdom of excoriating it in particular. If improving the utility of information distributed about the direction and function of government is the desired end, the paper contends, one must focus on the interaction between the various information sources rather than the merits or demerits of any particular source of information. And once we do that, the argument continues, it becomes clear that the better path involves the publication of more, rather than less, information. In particular, the paper contends that it would be helpful to publish an admittedly flawed regulatory budget to serve as a companion to the tax expenditure budget.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2002-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"200","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.350981","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 200

Abstract

The tax expenditure budget recently has come under renewed attack. Some argue that its conceptual and implementational flaws justify discontinuing its publication. This paper points out the generality of these supposedly "fatal" flaws: all the sources of information we have about government spending suffer from problems similar if not identical to those identified in the tax expenditure budget. Take, for example, the absence of an agreed-upon baseline of a "normal" tax system against which to measure "tax expenditures." A central theme of the paper is that the same baseline problem exists for several clear substitutes for tax expenditures, regulation and the non-enforcement of across-the-board rules. Even the seemingly obvious baseline of zero expenditures for determining the amount of cash subsidies can be challenged as incompletely theorized and misleading. The breadth and depth of the baseline and other problems identified in the tax expenditure budget throw into question the wisdom of excoriating it in particular. If improving the utility of information distributed about the direction and function of government is the desired end, the paper contends, one must focus on the interaction between the various information sources rather than the merits or demerits of any particular source of information. And once we do that, the argument continues, it becomes clear that the better path involves the publication of more, rather than less, information. In particular, the paper contends that it would be helpful to publish an admittedly flawed regulatory budget to serve as a companion to the tax expenditure budget.
政府的真相:超越税收支出预算
最近,税收支出预算再次受到抨击。一些人认为,它在概念和实施上存在缺陷,因此有理由停止出版。本文指出了这些所谓的“致命”缺陷的普遍性:我们所拥有的关于政府支出的所有信息来源都存在着与税收支出预算中发现的问题相似(如果不是完全相同的话)的问题。举个例子,缺乏一个公认的“正常”税收制度的基准来衡量“税收支出”。这篇论文的一个中心主题是,对于税收支出、监管和不执行全面规则的几个明显替代品来说,同样的基线问题也存在。即使是用来确定现金补贴数额的看似明显的零支出基线,也可能被质疑为不完全理论化和误导。基准线的广度和深度,以及在税收支出预算中发现的其他问题,都让人质疑对其进行严厉批评是否明智。文章认为,如果提高有关政府方向和职能的信息的效用是期望的目标,那么就必须关注各种信息来源之间的相互作用,而不是任何特定信息来源的优缺点。一旦我们这样做了,争论就会继续,很明显,更好的途径是发布更多而不是更少的信息。特别是,该论文认为,公布一份公认有缺陷的监管预算,作为税收支出预算的伴侣,将是有益的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Hastings College of the Law was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California, and today is one of the top-rated law schools in the United States. Its alumni span the globe and are among the most respected lawyers, judges and business leaders today. Hastings was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California and is one of the most exciting and vibrant legal education centers in the nation. Our faculty are nationally renowned as both teachers and scholars.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信