(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. Cryothermal Energy Ablation Of Cardiac Arrhythmias 2005: State Of The Art2. MULTIMODAL SEMIOTICS OF SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCES: REPRESENTING BELIEFS, METAPHORS, AND ACTIONS
3. The name is absent
4. AGRICULTURAL TRADE LIBERALIZATION UNDER NAFTA: REPORTING ON THE REPORT CARD
5. Does Competition Increase Economic Efficiency in Swedish County Councils?
6. Ex post analysis of the regional impacts of major infrastructure: the Channel Tunnel 10 years on.
7. Insecure Property Rights and Growth: The Roles of Appropriation Costs, Wealth Effects, and Heterogeneity
8. The Importance of Global Shocks for National Policymakers: Rising Challenges for Central Banks
9. The English Examining Boards: Their route from independence to government outsourcing agencies
10. The Impact of Cognitive versus Affective Aspects on Consumer Usage of Financial Service Delivery Channels