Was Proposition 4 Really a Tax Reduction Mirage? A Correction and Reinterpretation of Earlier Findings

Richard Cebula ()

MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany

Abstract: An earlier study published in this Journal by Cebula and Chevlin finds that the passage of a tax-expenditure limitation (TEL) statute in all of the 50 states would not have resulted in a reduction in the per capita levels of both spending and taxes. The present study takes issue with this finding. In particular, using the same data as Cebula and Chevlin, it is demonstrated here that, by applying the formula for statistically significant means, the existence of Proposition 4 or its equivalent in each of the 50 states would have, in theory, resulted in a statistically significant reduction in both per capita nominal state plus local government spending and taxes.

Keywords: public spending; tax burdens; Proposition 4; tax-expenditure limitation legislation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: H24 H71 H72 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1985-10-12
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Published in The Americam Journal of Economics and Sociology 1.46(1987): pp. 107-108

Downloads: (external link)
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/53119/1/MPRA_paper_53119.pdf original version (application/pdf)

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:pra:mprapa:53119

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Joachim Winter ().