Tax Perception and Sample Selection Bias: Microeconometrics

Amaresh Das; Adnan Omar

Authors

Amaresh Das
Adnan Omar

Keywords:

fiscal illusion, probit model, sample selection bias, censored model, mills ratio

Abstract

This paper econometrically compares the perceived marginal tax rates and the actually computed marginal tax rates and tries to find out if consumers could accurately perceive the marginal tax rates. Econometrically, the paper highlights that sample selectivity operates through unobservable elements and their correlation with unobservables influencing the variable of primary interest. Sample selection bias will not arise purely because of difference in observable characteristics. Although our paper is illustrative, it highlights the generality of the issue and its relevance to many economic examples.

Downloads

How to Cite

Tax Perception and Sample Selection Bias: Microeconometrics. (2015). Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 15(25), 1-7. https://journalofbusiness.org/index.php/GJMBR/article/view/

Download Citation

Author Biography

Amaresh Das

Dr. Amaresh Das is an academic researcher affiliated with Southern University at New Orleans and the University of New Orleans. His work spans econometrics, financial time series analysis, and mathematical finance, with notable contributions including studies on Markov switching heteroscedasticity, Kalman filtering, and the Chebyshev inequality. With 35 publications and over 60 citations, his research has been recognized with an h-index of 5 and an i10-index of 2. Dr. Das's scholarly output reflects a deep engagement with both theoretical and applied aspects of economics and finance.

References

C. Breeden, W. Hunter (1985) Tax Revenue and Tax Structure. 13, 216-224.

J. Buchanan, R. Wagner (1977) Democracy in Deficit: The Political Legacy of Lord Keynes, New York.

R. Chetty, A. Looney, K. Kroft (2009) Salience and Taxation: Theory and Practice. 99, 1145-1177.

Amaresh Das, Adnan Omar (2014) Fiscal Illusion - Does it Exist? An Econometric Evaluation, International Journal of Economics. 3(3), 136-140.

Anthony Downs (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York, Harper and Row.

W. Feller (1971) An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications. 2.

Greene William (1983) LIMDEP, New York Graduate School of Business Administration.

James Heckman (1979) Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error. 47(1), 153. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912352

N. Johnson, S. Kotz (1972) Distributions in Statistics: Continuous Multivariate Distributions.

Gregg Lewis (1974) Comments on Selectivity Bias in Wage Comparison. 37-61.

G. Maddala (1985) Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics.

j. Payne (2003) A Survey of the International Empirical Evidence on the Tax-Spend Debate. 31(3), 302-324.

C. Romer, D. Romer (2007) Do Tax Cuts Starve the Beast: The Effect of Tax Changes on Government Spending. http://elsa.berkeley.edu-cromer/draft1007pdf

James Tobin (1958) Tobin, J (1958] Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables' Econometrica. 26(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.2307/1907382

Geoffrey Turnbull (1998) The Overspending and the Flypaper Effects of Fiscal Illusion: Theory and Empirical Evidence. 44(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.1997.2056