(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. Social Cohesion as a Real-life Phenomenon: Exploring the Validity of the Universalist and Particularist Perspectives2. Determinants of U.S. Textile and Apparel Import Trade
3. Delivering job search services in rural labour markets: the role of ICT
4. Non-farm businesses local economic integration level: the case of six Portuguese small and medium-sized Markettowns• - a sector approach
5. Competition In or For the Field: Which is Better
6. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE ECONOMETRIC PACKAGES: AN APPLICATION TO ITALIAN DEPOSIT INTEREST RATES
7. The name is absent
8. SAEA EDITOR'S REPORT, FEBRUARY 1988
9. The name is absent
10. Neighborhood Effects, Public Housing and Unemployment in France