Proposition 4, Reply

Richard Cebula () and Linda Chevlin

MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany

Abstract: In this Reply, we concede that our assumption that per capita expenditures will grow by the maximum permitted under Proposition 4 is arbitrary. How "unrealistic" this assumption is (would be) cannot be known. Nevertheless, we viewed the assumption under debate as necessary to the undertaking of our exploratory analysis of the effects of Proposition 4 because it provided the analysis with a parameter, and a reasonably plausible one at that. The second issue raised concerns our use of the services price index (SPI) to measure inflation. It is argued by ours critics that the consumer price index (CPI) would have been a better choice. We argue the issue is trivial since the percent change in the SPI is nearly identical to that of the CPI over the study period.

Keywords: tax burden; government expenditure growth; tax-expenditure limitation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: D78 H29 H30 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1982-01-10
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 1.42(1983): pp. 122-124

Downloads: (external link)
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/53775/1/MPRA_paper_53775.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:53775

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 ().