Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taxation of the rich and wealth are among the hot topics of public interest. Using specific examples, the article highlights the latest initiative of a group of American multimillionaires to increase the level of tax rates for this super-rich category of taxpayers. Such an initiative can be considered a solidarity tax. Accordingly, the task was set to characterize the quantitative indicators of this initiative. The article is motivated by the striking fact that 400 American multi-billionaires possess a combined wealth worth 4.000 billion U. S. dollars! The role of the method of studying the problem was performed by the analysis of quantitative parameters and fiscal and administrative features of taxation of the rich. First of all, the results of the study consist in the interpretation of the multi-component concept of wealth as an object of taxation. The impossibility of a general income and property tax has been disclosed, such a tax exists only as an unrealized project. The fiscal and administrative reasons for the refusal of inheritance tax in 21 countries, including Austria, Canada, Sweden and Israel, are clarified. The arguments that property taxes harm the processes of creation of wealth and capital are presented, in connection with which in the United States the share of property taxes in the total amount of tax revenues has decreased from 42% to 14% compared to the beginning of the twentieth century. The most significant fiscal potential for strengthening taxation of the rich is found in taxes on income and profits. A quantitative and institutional analysis of existing wealth taxes in Norway and Switzerland is carried out. A serious fiscal-administrative problem with wealth taxes is the valuation of taxable assets. As for further research, wealth taxes have inexhaustible scientific and practical potential. The article substantiates the relevance of research on similar topics in Ukraine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".