The Separation of State and Local Revenues

Charles J. Bullock

The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1910, vol. 24, issue 3, 437-458

Abstract: I. The advantages claimed for the plan of separation, 438. — II. First criticism: separation would not necessarily ensure a just distribution of state taxation, 441. — Second criticism: separation would not necessarily lead to a full valuation of property subject to local taxation, 446. — Third criticism: separation would not end diversity of local interests in tax legislation, 449. — Fourth criticism: local option in taxation is undesirable, 451. — Fifth criticism: it is undesirable to abolish direct state taxation, 453. — III. Conclusion, 456.

Date: 1910
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1885205 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:qjecon:v:24:y:1910:i:3:p:437-458.

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

The Quarterly Journal of Economics is currently edited by Robert J. Barro, Lawrence F. Katz, Nathan Nunn, Andrei Shleifer and Stefanie Stantcheva

More articles in The Quarterly Journal of Economics from President and Fellows of Harvard College
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().