免征石油进口费用

James L. Sweeney
{"title":"免征石油进口费用","authors":"James L. Sweeney","doi":"10.1016/0165-0572(90)90032-E","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper reviews and quantifies arguments for and against oil import fees. It concludes that expected exemptions from the fee imply that net economic costs to the U.S. of a fee would exceed economic benefits. In addition, welfare losses from a large fee would greatly exceed losses normally associated with instruments designed to raise tax revenues. Coupled with the noneconomic assessment, the economic analysis suggests that the adoption of an oil import fee would be poor public policy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101080,"journal":{"name":"Resources and Energy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1990-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0165-0572(90)90032-E","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Oil import fees with exemptions\",\"authors\":\"James L. Sweeney\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/0165-0572(90)90032-E\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This paper reviews and quantifies arguments for and against oil import fees. It concludes that expected exemptions from the fee imply that net economic costs to the U.S. of a fee would exceed economic benefits. In addition, welfare losses from a large fee would greatly exceed losses normally associated with instruments designed to raise tax revenues. Coupled with the noneconomic assessment, the economic analysis suggests that the adoption of an oil import fee would be poor public policy.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101080,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resources and Energy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1990-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0165-0572(90)90032-E\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resources and Energy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016505729090032E\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resources and Energy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016505729090032E","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文回顾并量化了支持和反对石油进口费的论点。它的结论是,预期的费用豁免意味着,一项费用对美国的净经济成本将超过经济效益。此外,高额费用造成的福利损失将大大超过通常与旨在增加税收的手段有关的损失。加上非经济评估,经济分析表明,采用石油进口费将是一个糟糕的公共政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Oil import fees with exemptions

This paper reviews and quantifies arguments for and against oil import fees. It concludes that expected exemptions from the fee imply that net economic costs to the U.S. of a fee would exceed economic benefits. In addition, welfare losses from a large fee would greatly exceed losses normally associated with instruments designed to raise tax revenues. Coupled with the noneconomic assessment, the economic analysis suggests that the adoption of an oil import fee would be poor public policy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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