Google
Friday 
April 18, 2014 

AmosWEB means Economics with a Touch of Whimsy!

AmosWEBWEB*pediaGLOSS*aramaECON*worldCLASS*portalQUIZ*tasticPED GuideXtra CrediteTutorA*PLS
Today's Index
Yesterday's Index
220.9

Help us compile the AmosWEB Free Lunch Index. Tell us about your last lunch.

Skipped lunch altogether.
Bought by another.
Ate lunch at home.
Brought lunch from home.
Fast food drive through.
Fast food dine in.
All-you-can eat buffet.
Casual dining with tip.
Fancy upscale with tip.

More About the Index
Favorite compass direction?

North.
South.
East.
West.

KUZNETS CYCLE: A cycle of economic activity lasting between 15 and 20 years that acquired the name of the first economist to study it, Nobel Prize laureate Simon Kuznets. The Kuznets cycle is attributed to investment in housing and building construction and is well know among professionals in the real estate market. This is one of four separate cycles of macroeconomic activity that have been documented or hypothesized. The other three are Kitchin cycle, Juglar cycle, and Kondratieff cycle.

Visit the GLOSS*arama


BENEFIT PRINCIPLE:

A taxation principle stating that taxes should be based on the benefits received. The benefit principle works from the proposition that those who receive the greatest benefits should pay the most taxes. The benefit principle is commonly used for near-public goods such as highways, libraries, college, and national parks. This is one of two taxation principles. The other is the ability-to-pay principle, which states taxes should be based on income or the ability to pay taxes.
The benefit principle states that taxes should be based on the benefits received, that is, those who receive the greatest benefits should pay the most taxes. On the surface, this principle is quite logical and easily justified. The people who benefit from public goods are logically the ones who should pay for their provision. Drivers should pay for highways, library patrons should pay for libraries, students should pay tuition, camping enthusiasts should pay for national parks, and the list goes on.

However, the benefit principle does not work well for the efficient provision of public (and near-public) goods. Due to nonrival consumption, such goods are efficiently allocated with a zero price. If those who benefit directly from a public or near-public good pay a price equal to the value derived, as would be the case for private goods, then the "quantity demanded" declines and so too does the overall level of benefit generated. This is not efficient.

From the Market Side

The benefit principle is consistent with the market side of resource allocation, and is thus quite appealing to both economists and the general public. If Duncan Thurly never uses the Shady Valley Municipal swimming pool, then why should he pay for it?

This principle of tax fairness is most often applied to near-public goods that are characterized by nonrival consumption and the ability to exclude nonpayers, such as turnpikes, college education, and public parks. Because nonpayers can be excluded from consuming near-public goods, tax payments (entrance fees, tuition, etc.) can be based on the benefits received. It seems reasonable and fair that if nonpayers CAN be excluded from consumption, then they SHOULD be excluded. It seems reasonable and fair that those who benefit most from government services, those who are willing to pay for government services, should be the primary source of paying for these services.

What About Efficiency?

There is, however, a major problem with the benefit principle. It does not work well for the efficient provision of either public or near-public goods. Due to nonrival consumption, both public and near-public goods are efficiently provided at zero cost, at zero price, to members of society. Just because governments CAN charge for near-public goods, doesn't mean they should. If those who benefit directly from a public or near-public good pay a price equal to the value derived, as would be the case for private goods, then according to the law of demand the "quantity demanded" declines and so too does the overall level of benefit generated. This is not an efficient outcome.

While the benefit principle is commonly used for near-public goods, taking this approach for public goods is exceedingly difficult. Due to the inability to exclude nonpayers from consuming public goods, identifying the benefits received, which would then be the basis for setting the amount of the tax, is virtually impossible. While everyone benefits from national defense, does everyone benefit equally? If not, then who benefits more? And can this be translated into different tax payments?

Ability-to-Pay Principle

An alternative to the benefit principle is the ability-to-pay principle, which states that taxes should be based on the ability to pay taxes, that is, those who have more income should pay more taxes. This principle also makes a great deal of sense, especially for the provision of public goods that are consumed by all. If everyone benefits from public goods, without exclusion, then everyone should pay. However, not everyone CAN pay, so those who CAN afford to pay, need to bear the burden.

Because taxes are a means of transferring the purchasing power of income to governments, the ability to pay is based on income. Those who have more income can afford to pay more taxes, that is, they have a greater ability to pay.

<= BEHAVIORAL ALTERNATIVESBILATERAL MONOPOLY =>


Recommended Citation:

BENEFIT PRINCIPLE, AmosWEB Encyclonomic WEB*pedia, http://www.AmosWEB.com, AmosWEB LLC, 2000-2014. [Accessed: April 18, 2014].


Check Out These Related Terms...

     | tax equity | ability-to-pay principle | taxation principles | taxation basics | horizontal equity | vertical equity | tax proportionality | proportional tax | progressive tax | regressive tax | tax effects | revenue effect | allocation effect | tax efficiency | tax incidence | tax wedge | deadweight loss |


Or For A Little Background...

     | taxes | government functions | efficiency | equity | distribution standards | public finance | allocation | normative economics | economic goals | public goods | near-public goods | consumption rivalry | nonpayer excludability |


And For Further Study...

     | public choice | good types | market failures | public goods: demand | public goods: efficiency | tax multiplier | personal tax and nontax payments | transfer payments |


Search Again?

Back to the WEB*pedia



State of the ECONOMY

U.S. Exports
January 2014
$192.5 billion
Up 0.3% from Dec. 2013: Econ. Stat. Admin.

More Stats

ORANGE REBELOON
[What's This?]

Today, you are likely to spend a great deal of time calling an endless list of 800 numbers hoping to buy either a velvet painting of Elvis Presley or a wall poster commemorating yesterday. Be on the lookout for strangers with large satchels of used undergarments.
Your Complete Scope

This isn't me! What am I?

The first paper notes printed in the United States were in denominations of 1 cent, 5 cents, 25 cents, and 50 cents.
"The best way to cheer yourself up is to try to cheer somebody else up."

-- Mark Twain

SIPP
Survey of Income and Program Participation
A PEDestrian's Guide
Xtra Credit
Tell us what you think about AmosWEB. Like what you see? Have suggestions for improvements? Let us know. Click the User Feedback link.

User Feedback



| AmosWEB | WEB*pedia | GLOSS*arama | ECON*world | CLASS*portal | QUIZ*tastic | PED Guide | Xtra Credit | eTutor | A*PLS |
| About Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Statement |

Thanks for visiting AmosWEB
Copyright ©2000-2014 AmosWEB*LLC
Send comments or questions to: WebMaster