(A14)
∂v [ z *( w )] + ∂L [ w, z *( w )]
∂z
∂z
<0.
s=ds,t+dt,T +dT
Assuming that the second order conditions are satisfied, for any ability level, w, the
individual is optimally reducing the level of charitable contributions in response to the
suggested perturbation in the tax system. This implies that for every w,
(A15) -δ∙(1 -1) λzw-zz'z' + δ-T-d^-<0.
∂t ∂s ∂T
Substituting into the right-hand side of (A9), recalling that by virtue of (A3) it follows
that the termμ1 - μ2 > 0, yields:
∂L
(A16) 7- ,=o < 0.
∂s
Thus, starting from a zero tax on charitable contributions, a small subsidy is socially
desirable. This concludes the proof.
Note that when α → 0, the term (μ1 - μ2) → 0, by virtue of (A3), hence the
optimal tax on charitable contributions converges to zero, due to the redundancy of
commodity taxation.
25
More intriguing information
1. Midwest prospects and the new economy2. Convergence in TFP among Italian Regions - Panel Unit Roots with Heterogeneity and Cross Sectional Dependence
3. GENE EXPRESSION AND ITS DISCONTENTS Developmental disorders as dysfunctions of epigenetic cognition
4. Name Strategy: Its Existence and Implications
5. Palkkaneuvottelut ja työmarkkinat Pohjoismaissa ja Euroopassa
6. Olfactory Neuroblastoma: Diagnostic Difficulty
7. International Financial Integration*
8. The Veblen-Gerschenkron Effect of FDI in Mezzogiorno and East Germany
9. Willingness-to-Pay for Energy Conservation and Free-Ridership on Subsidization – Evidence from Germany
10. TINKERING WITH VALUATION ESTIMATES: IS THERE A FUTURE FOR WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT MEASURES?