Tax Reform and the Cost of Capital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tax reform movement that swept the U.S., Great Britain, and most other industrialized nations during the last decade has focused attention on international comparisons of the cost of capital. More recently, international comparability has become a critical issue of tax harmonization. This is a vital concern in the European Community, as well as between Canada and the United States. This volume provides international comparisons of the cost of different types of capital for nine major industrialized countriesAustralia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Statesfor the period 1980-1990. In the early 1980s the introduction of tax incentives for saving and investment gradually shifted the tax base from income toward consumption. By 1990 most of these special tax provisions had been reduced or repealed in order to lower tax rates and equalize the tax treatment of different forms of capital income. Income was firmly reestablished as the most appropriate basis for taxation. Separate chapters for each of the nine countries, written by leading experts in public economics, provide detailed accounts of tax policy changes over the decade. Each chapter contains a quantitative description of these tax policies and summarizes this information in the form of effective tax rates. The book thus serves as an indispensable reference for comparing capital income taxation in industrialized countries during a period of rapid policy change.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".