Search results

The fundamental problem of designing a wide scope general revenue tax can be reduced to the selection of the base used for administering the tax. Our current personal income tax is a hybrid version of a tax assessed on the basis of a tax unit's annual income receipts. An alternative to an income‐based tax that has received much theoretical treatment but little actual application is an expenditure‐based tax. An expenditure tax (also called a consumption tax or cash flow tax in the context of this paper) differs from an income tax in that it exempts net saving and investment from the tax base. Though the details of a consumption tax design are discussed more fully elsewhere in this paper, the tax base of an expenditure tax is roughly determined by subtracting net savings from gross receipts (including wages, tips, salaries, income from investments, interests, etc.). Withdrawals from savings constitute dissavings and are appropriately included in net savings. The cash flow tax, with wealth transfers deductible to the donor and included in the tax base of the recipient, would be a tax on an individual's standard of living. Similar to the present income tax standard deduction, some universal credit or exemption for a small level of consumption could be allowed.

Primary teaching trainees were given a 1‐week placement in environmental science centres, to learn about teaching children in non‐school contexts. The placements were mainly in the South West of England, and included both residential and day‐visit centres. Evaluation was through written and oral feedback from hosts and students, against a set of criteria. The article provides a rationale for such placements within a PGCE programme, describes how they operated in practice and analyses the feedback to make recommendations for future operation of the programme. It recommends provision of more documentation on placements at the planning stage, and proposes a more structured programme for working with children and materials development. The article makes recommendations for further research into the logistics of such placements, the impact of materials developed by trainees, their role and status during placement, and potential benefits of negotiating their own placements. It concludes by discussing the implications for placements more generally.

Firstly, I must point out to the reader that this article differs a little from the speech actually given at the conference. My second explanation is the inevitable statement that any views expressed here are entirely my own and do not necessarily represent official Cheshire County Council views.

I start this talk with two acknowledgements; the first, to my colleagues on the recent Library Association Working Party on Community Information Services. Our report is due to be published by the LA in the new year and I have based a lot of this talk on our conclusions. Secondly I must acknowledge many discussions with Alex Wilson, Director of Libraries for Cheshire, and the freedom that he has given me to pursue ideas in this field.

The education voucher is a method of financing education which allows parents to select suitable schools for their children. It gives each child of school age a voucher or grant equal to his or her appropriate share of State education. The parent takes the voucher to a chosen school, which encashes the voucher with the Local Education Authority. The school then has its own income to spend as the Head and Governors decide.

Alvin Hansen and John Williams’ Fiscal Policy Seminar at Harvard University is widely regarded as a key mechanism for the spread of Keynesianism in the United States. An original and regular participant, Richard A. Musgrave was invited to prepare remarks for the fiftieth anniversary of the seminar in 1988. These were never published, though a copy was filed with Musgrave’s papers at Princeton University. Their reproduction here is important for several reasons. First, it is one of the last reminiscences of the original participants. Second, the remarks make an important contribution to our understanding of the Harvard School of macro-fiscal policy. Third, the remarks provide interesting insights into Musgrave’s views on national economic policymaking as well as the intersection between theory and practice. The reminiscence demonstrates the importance of the seminar in shifting Musgrave’s research focus and moving him to a more pragmatic approach to public finance.