<%BANNER%>

A General Equilibrium Analysis of Property Tax in Florida

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021430/00001

Material Information

Title: A General Equilibrium Analysis of Property Tax in Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (99 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Oconnell, Mike H
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Food and Resource Economics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food and Resource Economics thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This dissertation uses a General Equilibrium Model to analyze the effects of property tax policy on various industrial sectors of the economy and on the distribution of income. A General Equilibrium Model is an established methodology used to evaluate the impact of tax policy. The empirical basis for the model is a Social Accounting Matrix that includes a production section transforming intermediate inputs, labor and capital factors into commodity output for the domestic and export market. The domestic commodities are allocated to intermediate inputs and final consumption by household groups, government and the investment sector. The behavior of producers and consumers is described by the optimization of profit and utility functions subject to technological and income constraints. There are nine household groups distinguished by income and twelve industry sectors which include owner-occupied housing. The dissertation research consists of running counterfactual scenarios with the model. Each scenario represents an alternative treatment of the ad valorem property tax. The General Equilibrium model formation with multiple economic agents and institutions permits the estimation of the detailed and systematic impacts of public policy. As with any positive economic approach, the evaluation of policy presents an objective assessment that gives support to decision making. An important conclusion of the research is that the total consumption by household groups as a welfare measure of the change in public policy indicates a clearly neutral impact. There are differences across income groups as to their consumption of owner-occupied housing. Another conclusion of the research is that there are significant differences in the productive output and use of factor inputs of the various industrial sectors. The change in tax policy also has a positive effect on the housing sector which is composed of owner-occupied housing and real estate which includes rentals.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Mike H Oconnell.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Emerson, Robert D.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021430:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021430/00001

Material Information

Title: A General Equilibrium Analysis of Property Tax in Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (99 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Oconnell, Mike H
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Food and Resource Economics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food and Resource Economics thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This dissertation uses a General Equilibrium Model to analyze the effects of property tax policy on various industrial sectors of the economy and on the distribution of income. A General Equilibrium Model is an established methodology used to evaluate the impact of tax policy. The empirical basis for the model is a Social Accounting Matrix that includes a production section transforming intermediate inputs, labor and capital factors into commodity output for the domestic and export market. The domestic commodities are allocated to intermediate inputs and final consumption by household groups, government and the investment sector. The behavior of producers and consumers is described by the optimization of profit and utility functions subject to technological and income constraints. There are nine household groups distinguished by income and twelve industry sectors which include owner-occupied housing. The dissertation research consists of running counterfactual scenarios with the model. Each scenario represents an alternative treatment of the ad valorem property tax. The General Equilibrium model formation with multiple economic agents and institutions permits the estimation of the detailed and systematic impacts of public policy. As with any positive economic approach, the evaluation of policy presents an objective assessment that gives support to decision making. An important conclusion of the research is that the total consumption by household groups as a welfare measure of the change in public policy indicates a clearly neutral impact. There are differences across income groups as to their consumption of owner-occupied housing. Another conclusion of the research is that there are significant differences in the productive output and use of factor inputs of the various industrial sectors. The change in tax policy also has a positive effect on the housing sector which is composed of owner-occupied housing and real estate which includes rentals.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Mike H Oconnell.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Emerson, Robert D.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021430:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101206_AAAACS INGEST_TIME 2010-12-06T13:55:02Z PACKAGE UFE0021430_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 53401 DFID F20101206_AABGSE ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH oconnell_m_Page_78.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
5784448d3b295663369a4610b5d749a1
SHA-1
862e7c8ddf7e3b33733e70938eb6f95287219838
54285 F20101206_AABGRQ oconnell_m_Page_50.pro
cc70396561d704dd4f41367e8e1ff966
d2faa5cb01a0a7eb84f1562eca9690be72d09e22
44853 F20101206_AABGSF oconnell_m_Page_79.pro
24a1eb3e3f86915d343477b9347f3504
5b975dfd90aba81713158d48c3b170531a88514c
53664 F20101206_AABGRR oconnell_m_Page_51.pro
aa877f1b66799c94b22d16fe3d3b3bcb
168dae6e3a2bfcc8023a4bfdb92a4839d3bf5847
25802 F20101206_AABGSG oconnell_m_Page_80.pro
018e682b756430c76cc00fd4f92952a5
09bcc5ff6487075ffb663d4dce48c3c39957f80f
56112 F20101206_AABGRS oconnell_m_Page_52.pro
1f2035b937931726c30add2ff84f7696
9a3eba45ec9be3869aa22c99e4901a72d938fbb8
14656 F20101206_AABGSH oconnell_m_Page_82.pro
5a30dfbce8dd7ae25445fe4517c892d3
e5a93c50d4c3a576aa56b7c384ec3cda0ed43885
12785 F20101206_AABGRT oconnell_m_Page_54.pro
cff1b57fe8f6ce494c2dfe9413483c07
2b65ce576916c05f1e1b68bf4e5fb4a9551962f4
50162 F20101206_AABGSI oconnell_m_Page_83.pro
816b5b32655d4bc441d1fc1c402e5067
f1e8e988c12840981ff8e2357b1c4708edeb6442
44314 F20101206_AABGRU oconnell_m_Page_56.pro
a57b7fb5cf14b54f660c5bf568866a7f
1248b44c1f976fb6e36a847583d8bd6f0a643d5a
10159 F20101206_AABGSJ oconnell_m_Page_86.pro
e813dd16805c33a1e7bfce662c184bb4
e687993a0f43e20755df193b8c2bb5a23572b136
45182 F20101206_AABGRV oconnell_m_Page_59.pro
81b89157d508a5117107eeeed4dfdb16
b3e7fce550ef8185229fdb6aa60e3f672ed95508
89547 F20101206_AABGSK oconnell_m_Page_87.pro
eca0716085702f359996f47a54b88749
f0a9303b4beda233dd46b802589c63f8407c3f02
42148 F20101206_AABGRW oconnell_m_Page_60.pro
ce36ea2a12770063c92af8cf91f18e0b
b5afb3a52be53c697b5ae251c0baf503f7dad5ad
24260 F20101206_AABGSL oconnell_m_Page_89.pro
84b3ecd5d13c1b8886d269cd494dec8d
a793d76aa9a391f2ea6a9afd269bd440ab5eee78
2068 F20101206_AABGTA oconnell_m_Page_21.txt
06140f158076aa0713c2b3770d48559b
9d5c7e0c59668ee0beb6487e53aa3805a20c511a
15431 F20101206_AABGSM oconnell_m_Page_90.pro
4aa3705b43a4a4ad6ec904816c46a670
0c1ea90fcee95060a7468a4c0926e17ea5088d1b
43162 F20101206_AABGRX oconnell_m_Page_65.pro
4c353eaed6f16f4074608a301b1ed07b
2bd7c4226e866da008fbb852b29c4ee4f35ed82c
2018 F20101206_AABGTB oconnell_m_Page_23.txt
f9f3b2e261d230c950cc2a3de87a1a02
1b57254580195d63cc91c3e15721e8836b2a9d6f
32738 F20101206_AABGSN oconnell_m_Page_93.pro
934348f2f4289b8f1185f50aad6b0c2a
bfbdaa5a113afeee1044906251feca305965101a
37739 F20101206_AABGRY oconnell_m_Page_68.pro
c863e559febef0e70aba03cca0bc3882
6c028b02186d9b4e2594f27cbccc28af9113ca25
2079 F20101206_AABGTC oconnell_m_Page_24.txt
dfa5e8fd76a2d247e9962d249db6c8d4
d2da42ffdea58ab1fba2311f7956f5d4cbc7b86e
51746 F20101206_AABGSO oconnell_m_Page_95.pro
b101191301400783888b9820e179eb67
3045d74a0df1d73dfef04911f7acafa97cca2f69
49198 F20101206_AABGRZ oconnell_m_Page_69.pro
e3d3fa9a914d963ee21c3c16b888eee9
8cba65658a2ecf1c316c39fd0d1491d6ccf31252
2053 F20101206_AABGTD oconnell_m_Page_25.txt
2bd5e40aa8ed09f55f8eaec4cfc1c2dd
b73f07405ec491cd605c8d73025f80f4602480b5
54811 F20101206_AABGSP oconnell_m_Page_97.pro
b57cd16add0e49a8eac395cead0e35d9
1a8015d0a3e4f41f04c9212b3a70f2bfec8c59d6
2076 F20101206_AABGTE oconnell_m_Page_26.txt
e7f9b761d0da9bb13f55502308e440b1
08c65bcc99e62725d093529d7f2fed2a21ad1850
107 F20101206_AABGSQ oconnell_m_Page_03.txt
428f4fb36086dba804c89ac161186ce9
b67c22388fdbe2abb9f207576e67e8774b823326
1738 F20101206_AABGTF oconnell_m_Page_29.txt
3df7a1fb8f3fa94a2cca82b54308d620
14544844f94778f06c4abd08efe7c87b58f9fce2
215 F20101206_AABGSR oconnell_m_Page_04.txt
da4003b5d6a5aae218dc9a848cea2d8e
ba78b5fc5ced62a0194a3f21339432e5713a153e
2052 F20101206_AABGTG oconnell_m_Page_30.txt
b9493db31cb21b47dea167e3f56bc6a2
ec08b09dfa25ce435c41045e4904db3f64d8f862
2389 F20101206_AABGSS oconnell_m_Page_08.txt
de71880c0dd35d37ad3e5e8b62de56e0
3436d624533b6a1bbd31994b062d1929ad14c007
908 F20101206_AABGTH oconnell_m_Page_31.txt
551850b8f266b0e182c443c1f3d71ad5
07c078f84e51bad82aa0375c92985624ea6277ed
146 F20101206_AABGST oconnell_m_Page_09.txt
0d9fd4677ac2aa2e9f2c40255578dfef
6a9c0a0c67aa5ed7c70edf8a8e17bc65ac2fb16d
2000 F20101206_AABGTI oconnell_m_Page_32.txt
a1f061bd389274bb25740d3e3360575d
5f3f3f813abf9a3e3e5bf7c6dbcedb0bf347cf38
2044 F20101206_AABGSU oconnell_m_Page_10.txt
b16492879ea6c12a80aed9aea58922b6
2368c5692d19a79dccedc944a5b15a399cd03cfb
2133 F20101206_AABGTJ oconnell_m_Page_33.txt
edfb3d11149d0669eb824220c848a3bd
7aa671f879d1e5d4cb748511077f10f97a0f489a
2119 F20101206_AABGSV oconnell_m_Page_12.txt
9edcde5e8311d19e1ed9d973e4eb8214
cd387af93fafd44a8cf1d83d95da87b2ffb506b0
2273 F20101206_AABGTK oconnell_m_Page_34.txt
11bdbeb730f0fcfd0d59f3c34e7c9edb
856927c548e594ace462fcd6f04935e4ffccf0f4
2047 F20101206_AABGSW oconnell_m_Page_14.txt
abb52010e7d72a8cc15c0573e80b78ae
a0e47db6ab4d6df4bc889050c074717391ce97f3
2073 F20101206_AABGTL oconnell_m_Page_35.txt
1aae1ec77c180fec9cdadcbcb3211970
473babf96a7ea19e781396f9c1d4340ddc29c33c
2103 F20101206_AABGSX oconnell_m_Page_15.txt
7068c62101cb9d37005f0b17c8684e58
7132de2488337555ae07a81367f8c40f4e2d30f1
1908 F20101206_AABGTM oconnell_m_Page_37.txt
818bb5192efa90c0ccd21dfaf5e719ed
635df869774f887707fbd02fb4f2c8411373b8d8
1856 F20101206_AABGUA oconnell_m_Page_63.txt
98cd62711074e0e24a17cce1b974c1a8
810339b007fbbccc7f9f7f2cd1be68264363b485
1825 F20101206_AABGTN oconnell_m_Page_38.txt
38aad5371d7107c031505313b55f2247
54f1ef2757cd500c4ef4ea26538e010f68792c3a
2163 F20101206_AABGSY oconnell_m_Page_16.txt
c24f91ff41967ce470a9854349eace42
097487575d654f61d01c478f44cd4b74e620a5e9
1528 F20101206_AABGUB oconnell_m_Page_64.txt
555d9fe51484b6f39f39bfa0d4c18731
2e814c6d3af36271e8c6066be03fb9322849cbfa
2173 F20101206_AABGTO oconnell_m_Page_40.txt
c856c19046445db41df890436de5d176
ad26402ca19662bf487e9aa34196206ee53928cd
1987 F20101206_AABGSZ oconnell_m_Page_18.txt
bad5eb4e64ac520135381d66fd1fe7bc
b97cc06be581fb14e508d18ebc1c394649562348
2263 F20101206_AABGUC oconnell_m_Page_65.txt
1ad526e406fe17ea31608da1fa0354e0
cc6f73aa118181948d0c75bb7a379531995ef86f
2400 F20101206_AABGUD oconnell_m_Page_66.txt
dc0afd72e472f17edb17fa8cd5fcfdeb
f661b169e12c39e271bbb1b527b49ef51f4ab04e
1570 F20101206_AABGTP oconnell_m_Page_42.txt
f30f43b27e127304db1d546026992015
5f4bf94cde65967a6dd69d183fb334b09e7a2223
800 F20101206_AABGUE oconnell_m_Page_67.txt
e7362344bfb7e9bd83c04bea5707e9f8
e31c7378621d9eb93fcab57c76ced355eabd8790
2071 F20101206_AABGTQ oconnell_m_Page_43.txt
9d363253e1529bd85bc8c58369235502
11d5dd2ea5a3c02052d8b94f0f5ab7c41a617f8a
1715 F20101206_AABGUF oconnell_m_Page_68.txt
c92b4f01dd0bf50755c75295e5e6aff5
2a4ed8df5cf82566a9b5eb6130fa35da49e905f3
2155 F20101206_AABGTR oconnell_m_Page_48.txt
051debe7e432db74affb1032a4307f3a
773f5812452e4e51ce1336085f73791da2ec7e07
F20101206_AABGUG oconnell_m_Page_72.txt
1ed4ca19fc3125f86c7c6da8fd15a661
6e4535becd6a055fd9237e8eb6876bc578abacc6
2145 F20101206_AABGTS oconnell_m_Page_50.txt
0958705818941117680a0b16d1b1dcaf
559228f344c9006a6d36b5107672bb99e254f96d
2129 F20101206_AABGUH oconnell_m_Page_74.txt
db8baa134813a4585e5b741ac78fc17b
42e6560c24432a097259873e0ac2006412976787
2201 F20101206_AABGTT oconnell_m_Page_52.txt
b039d2c312eb8dff4c2f61eee62c09cd
449bbec9a7e2c8564b5740d50830b56370a7df75
2104 F20101206_AABGUI oconnell_m_Page_76.txt
a4957b0e52f0a63d0c2eb9dcd76f92f4
22e7b006f0c6b5e972baab4d9b5c781e64d97a96
809 F20101206_AABGTU oconnell_m_Page_53.txt
8eb19ec96aa6f91f6f4e0856ae23eaa1
acb5c3e717dcc78de7a9bcab315210ca2035d837
F20101206_AABGUJ oconnell_m_Page_77.txt
7fce990403638c76ea6d94c53beb4259
5a1d9a27975dcacdec2f41cb749170540fa93b73
1331 F20101206_AABGTV oconnell_m_Page_55.txt
3197e2d82eebbf60942c6493829a7645
4c8dc1ba989b246181ebf104d4806216e1d2349c
F20101206_AABGUK oconnell_m_Page_78.txt
2054671fe61d44efd5ddec7c15d7951e
25bebd2034ed9567fa61327eff14acf3b480a65f
968 F20101206_AABGTW oconnell_m_Page_57.txt
5a3650b20d52ca3e4b062be7c2db69b4
2fb2554f3df8ca699354fc462f7477bc26f152cc
1781 F20101206_AABGUL oconnell_m_Page_79.txt
0fa4ebd2802776dc08bf1b4a9f42c638
7ca78cb201fd6a426bf96c8642d2f0f9d551c1fb
1366 F20101206_AABGTX oconnell_m_Page_58.txt
a69a9fa68df43474ed48cb64c815d72e
5c06273a6f05425c2e596550f5bc24e638762b74
1202 F20101206_AABGVA oconnell_m_Page_02.QC.jpg
cf6493ddd4fde38884a5f3563827e526
253a975c3c374152186c2233c0bd3acf2fe57fa1
1314 F20101206_AABGUM oconnell_m_Page_80.txt
3c26cb1f3fa0f36964f94711042cad1e
3ec8ad0c767ffc6b4e845e9cfe373a143a8db08e
1999 F20101206_AABGTY oconnell_m_Page_60.txt
63ce39467c568d030904990081687b24
5fb8c5ed8a528494d2141c2f4c2981ee02806146
1465 F20101206_AABGVB oconnell_m_Page_03.QC.jpg
c850178b26c9b2877fe759e8464d4df6
d3b5df761ea8cb0738b2de2c21f0b9e6125e921a
782 F20101206_AABGUN oconnell_m_Page_82.txt
7f98d99779e9badca10a62c6c4f42ace
1e63ea7bbbf86e4ef12ecb9edc16ae9b4284da9b
1308 F20101206_AABGVC oconnell_m_Page_04thm.jpg
c7bed4ed885251246f73a180637bd3ac
e7a1a511ad45dacaddb7a58af6d3cedd2314b652
2372 F20101206_AABGUO oconnell_m_Page_83.txt
28161f29a7403ba94b5f3740df7b63ec
bd8d0f316fd0387facd3a598a289e1bcf59fb356
2290 F20101206_AABGTZ oconnell_m_Page_61.txt
9defa89c7be836bcee04dafde81c6e70
ad025a3ab8fb1a14b8d28307849c86adf2b1ba0c
6039 F20101206_AABGVD oconnell_m_Page_05thm.jpg
c80ab13762f49239e62c3525005f06e7
82ef9d5a23968f6b4934d67168fe2d53be0d4ad2
1083 F20101206_AABGUP oconnell_m_Page_84.txt
c45cb1424f4e3a1e365fe5f89781a5e1
71e5f911b8cafe0b3206c25d5a10b3df07c07f23
9321 F20101206_AABGVE oconnell_m_Page_06.QC.jpg
c298810fa2e5cbb6c8b9a35cb03f0b20
e9286d76f0fa668d53b99f8e92263c2c84eab8a9
610 F20101206_AABGUQ oconnell_m_Page_85.txt
32faacbf143d82a27149c8a414ccd631
28f81c1720cef1a72070a39b6bd6885a55180abc
7181 F20101206_AABGVF oconnell_m_Page_08thm.jpg
8c5c0ef2a944fd6033b7248fb43a4d7f
f29b7c3048f14fd165a36c4ceb8d5d93962a5b23
1143 F20101206_AABGUR oconnell_m_Page_89.txt
7f7d64cf86a64809fdd8e1bd97907f31
05bafb265c02ba6cbde2e81228899a1d25db9bba
2969 F20101206_AABGVG oconnell_m_Page_09.QC.jpg
cb39468b77d6bcc095919a58b66bf33c
3da0aac8a96de8c5decf27fcbbfdfb42963ec315
1257 F20101206_AABGUS oconnell_m_Page_91.txt
1ff7c20c34a4f7a16903cf1d82a70391
e97ad0801f2d7ffcfeb9a06c18e0edc5c7ea54c4
2632 F20101206_AABGVH oconnell_m_Page_11thm.jpg
fe5bebb7b7c240026b07b1c48faca39e
d0cf294ed3ca3a902d944bef5f100b470abd0784
1449 F20101206_AABGUT oconnell_m_Page_92.txt
3227fc748c6403b8d443aa2fcfc95a0a
901b6237defc7905216bf34e79ad3585b95afab9
10736 F20101206_AABGVI oconnell_m_Page_11.QC.jpg
852e9771065428d6631e21eef3c8a280
efc552d01b54ba8e22be5023cdff8cea89d5848c
1364 F20101206_AABGUU oconnell_m_Page_93.txt
cd842ba8aa4429190509ac683a91cac3
954116492889466164b7e97ee77fd6c47e0d8995
33327 F20101206_AABGVJ oconnell_m_Page_12.QC.jpg
659766ac8b0e109df9858c8df5125924
8bfc837850f3e1904109b7df64a38d48210650e6
455 F20101206_AABGUV oconnell_m_Page_94.txt
11b573371fa08e6bff17d03fcaa8b21e
e75ad0c8a943ac596599849b35a4f21b67fb0130
8676 F20101206_AABGVK oconnell_m_Page_13thm.jpg
057d1c900cbc076e61c8b13096a78647
9cf8a0d99e98f8b8185ae0219e29b6ba8e5268b1
2090 F20101206_AABGUW oconnell_m_Page_95.txt
239a732bc69c7abbf7b5568a30ef4b28
4fa0bbb8c8427cf601f371c8e4f847f094666036
35624 F20101206_AABGVL oconnell_m_Page_13.QC.jpg
f4482a01e57ea811fceda951997c3484
145c16d6dd2d5f7346465f8ddb9a9ee5a92e222e
2225 F20101206_AABGUX oconnell_m_Page_97.txt
2563bee9197a4892bf67e4742cc59806
87f9be5c611335090f568a05cff7f4592acaff5e
8655 F20101206_AABGVM oconnell_m_Page_14thm.jpg
98cb35efd39b793c76e52964671c375d
7446f9cdf1c368b4edffff85048ebf23ff75b952
1443 F20101206_AABGUY oconnell_m_Page_99.txt
c6fc4b3f7cc74fc000be519127b03eee
7753fcfe3182b816c4a64df7d4032f8c67a872fd
8651 F20101206_AABGWA oconnell_m_Page_25thm.jpg
367b798c5cf1d7102ec65fb4a1bc60b8
82d1429d03a99258d733310dac69f5f90a8fbe6a
7717 F20101206_AABGVN oconnell_m_Page_15thm.jpg
2c2c687c8c462ff3c246f008af243369
6b76ba9722b2460ec503d6860b326132035a9815
7677 F20101206_AABGUZ oconnell_m_Page_01.QC.jpg
c02ed3755cd34ac51922e88b2b185a07
3fcbbf5284cff37b0a9dfd52b40ac1fa647fc093
8224 F20101206_AABGWB oconnell_m_Page_27thm.jpg
2c8f69a846333b781f4b29a30e024127
cf88edc13fee6967ab5a8538590d326c891814af
15700 F20101206_AABGVO oconnell_m_Page_17.QC.jpg
51f139419907540ec127234c1da2edc2
fa5b525a18db1ce02468aa80350b09f32181b60a
2442 F20101206_AABGWC oconnell_m_Page_28thm.jpg
dfdf67215b740e9760e4b4babcf90d99
70cb4b403e43eb4ec9e258357dace2aca79ab577
7758 F20101206_AABGVP oconnell_m_Page_18thm.jpg
e39680e47eb5f01e7f2758e3024a8c72
bf46dafaea2899fe661b22af49c5e135a07debf7
9495 F20101206_AABGWD oconnell_m_Page_28.QC.jpg
83fd9f1a1bc26c9dc0c71c23c3ba7a46
8ffa74183dde196be2d7d034d858049b8531afe8
32344 F20101206_AABGVQ oconnell_m_Page_18.QC.jpg
e0d7d19a005d75be47e01ffb1145a8ed
74efbbca6a1a4982abda2268b56e9419e1907fe5
6718 F20101206_AABGWE oconnell_m_Page_29thm.jpg
00857980254f8cbf6272fdccb5463260
bc306bc6b95ec3098888f0514ff9c0c7647a7422
33349 F20101206_AABGVR oconnell_m_Page_19.QC.jpg
82517ee6ea7dd990284a12c489c727e6
4bdc9c421e5f859463187b0362af8ed42a588e98
8020 F20101206_AABGWF oconnell_m_Page_30thm.jpg
cda26fd449dcb8f0bc8248a317fb1fa0
3eabf169eb8d50fd57676099e6bbb42e66c11552
8820 F20101206_AABGVS oconnell_m_Page_20thm.jpg
7612160d37e9b09bfa4819d302859e0f
d6a07cc674a908d570f7f3cfe95563f5dc8af4cb
8170 F20101206_AABGWG oconnell_m_Page_32thm.jpg
f9664953e10b2664ebf525244691aee3
33f253d3ca199ee0a8a97fb1828d4ebe40e359f5
35937 F20101206_AABGVT oconnell_m_Page_20.QC.jpg
af63f7cba5b4ef2da31678aabf2129eb
685a76ff85397fd9174056b82a66ffd814b7ff6e
33608 F20101206_AABGWH oconnell_m_Page_32.QC.jpg
c44b9a839af7ba6c80d03bc9c8254ac4
4ab05ad2452e16d56dd6892b5c0f16d1704c0165
9162 F20101206_AABGVU oconnell_m_Page_21thm.jpg
04d2682ae75503a5209ac1082f2a08de
2b86f928332d4dd76d71579bf73eff555da82284
8841 F20101206_AABGWI oconnell_m_Page_33thm.jpg
1f265e07917e74595dcd0fb98f1b02c0
cbdc6a75eaac803f5a63b7382b973b6a328d4cdd
36241 F20101206_AABGVV oconnell_m_Page_21.QC.jpg
b3fd9b52181eb51629d08892f73b9128
d21ba7054dbca848425e66af19a5ccbbf178c9a3
8982 F20101206_AABGWJ oconnell_m_Page_36thm.jpg
578e28f953af2f12f63719769bc1c4a6
6839ec18b91f8063b77162e2995d766ee21a724e
8334 F20101206_AABGVW oconnell_m_Page_22thm.jpg
04d0ea17ef8ead98a526c4c4bedabcb2
cbbbfe1d452ac2b82fdb3b7b72f2324a1007c35d
8298 F20101206_AABGWK oconnell_m_Page_37thm.jpg
3c921a5b16d05ff56ac9a46298173e21
3bb30055bebb4e955e014e7d32f8174d1c5bf73a
33792 F20101206_AABGVX oconnell_m_Page_22.QC.jpg
cf3fbbe956418010038f6777891faac5
e57724a04647ebcd9e2eded249e7c76ce58b0ef6
32887 F20101206_AABGWL oconnell_m_Page_37.QC.jpg
b6b874935d10452ad8af20e2d397982f
0f090602a03b7e679d284cbca8aa99ee3936b8f3
8972 F20101206_AABGVY oconnell_m_Page_23thm.jpg
aa2bd194c4654c3825396628081b9f36
fc52b6e4f94e65e6f6b0dedb31f12c4e95a4bf9b
8699 F20101206_AABGXA oconnell_m_Page_51thm.jpg
3f47479619f5b8f772cd50e0da8740b2
c3ead710b9e0ff59aabb3f136c6a9c532aec1bc1
30226 F20101206_AABGWM oconnell_m_Page_38.QC.jpg
5c08274b9b435a5c90c0f084636f23d6
a76d41a240a98e69329ac23ee4575a7020a455ab
34508 F20101206_AABGVZ oconnell_m_Page_23.QC.jpg
b43c7aeb1e4be0f6d7f144d9f7f78f22
5515a73b77aa02b7b2622e932e723557b76a17e0
35621 F20101206_AABGXB oconnell_m_Page_51.QC.jpg
2d0a34b723ffe85dcce467df30787139
2778150a5846ea2a0216609ed6de23337f0bdd60
5692 F20101206_AABGWN oconnell_m_Page_40thm.jpg
d92286b60a84733107a029ad251ddae9
45a9326b2a5415446278788bcf155af64260ffba
1693 F20101206_AABGXC oconnell_m_Page_54thm.jpg
f39a8394f2ea2e03227131a92d4638e7
11c6b76978f695ebb49b0af6f4bfe22d813f3241
3750 F20101206_AABGWO oconnell_m_Page_42thm.jpg
ac39a0418e3f6369e85922f8770fe998
1da50bff933791ddf85ce5cec53e41f4ec40d1f8
5683 F20101206_AABGXD oconnell_m_Page_54.QC.jpg
eed417bee094c0330ecd3d58738264b6
c13750109defe616b8b49ae0fca831217cf341c8
14185 F20101206_AABGWP oconnell_m_Page_42.QC.jpg
d3f4feaa9fc2a9e229d360534f1bc3c8
1dca2ee01653a6800df39f1ff99f28e5d4f4a351
3148 F20101206_AABGXE oconnell_m_Page_55thm.jpg
ada3b5c329526948f94b8b91e87466d8
f5264767f26e7df2909e05c908fb87c64673634d
8715 F20101206_AABGWQ oconnell_m_Page_44thm.jpg
f24c26b88a3aa4ad5da68e8d97a9a96a
7759220d66359496d1984fbdcfaaa4db116d4f64
9851 F20101206_AABGXF oconnell_m_Page_55.QC.jpg
478483d0bf766f3b42d2ad1071902539
65732b9bffb03c3c41dad026fbdff63d89c8ff0c
33811 F20101206_AABGWR oconnell_m_Page_46.QC.jpg
296247d7721a8c6016e9f4623c82ca00
cf21bb0c12ad210fd70dc4e90c0759d27565b1af
13804 F20101206_AABGXG oconnell_m_Page_56.QC.jpg
802929a8b4433f47dc77d777a0df710d
062deadde354b7e467c7c5c95491b75810caf39c
8811 F20101206_AABGWS oconnell_m_Page_47thm.jpg
f88cb4d27240501146678968dc03268d
6df6453f4094042f55bc125dd0dfb03594e669b9
1955 F20101206_AABGXH oconnell_m_Page_57thm.jpg
38355f77256f3f593905d440124dc67c
ea270f566372005fd57bce35bb9caeec4b6d2f98
36761 F20101206_AABGWT oconnell_m_Page_47.QC.jpg
f82e5f2a35853941100bd693cf27ab19
dbf96105849f9182b413a33d9bc4d9190a97814a
19346 F20101206_AABGAA oconnell_m_Page_72.pro
6cfecced1f38081d9a4e400ebf276b80
d5eb300882278519ffac06d8f1409038cafbc642
9139 F20101206_AABGXI oconnell_m_Page_58.QC.jpg
d60ed8990459f673c5126f5adef1de2c
0e150f85634f88ca55c43212f6b71b5744e9aa70
9155 F20101206_AABGWU oconnell_m_Page_48thm.jpg
bb61bd5047426359f5fac143bc437fdb
bc0c2dc3346907d8c17976395930db36d60d61b2
2167 F20101206_AABGAB oconnell_m_Page_44.txt
a100c2303943ba628b9bc1a8f98b244d
1a059696172a29b13da1d911cdf789b5608786b2
3879 F20101206_AABGXJ oconnell_m_Page_59thm.jpg
5bd7720aa4c0e1674a84e7989f22f0b8
cec185397fefb047ebcdc156c5acb0f14b2ba709
35991 F20101206_AABGWV oconnell_m_Page_48.QC.jpg
9cdb124a4835cff9b169fdeac9e85eac
5c08c527d39c9ba6d9ba4ebcdb6efb84c0dd6dbf
37500 F20101206_AABGAC oconnell_m_Page_40.pro
4def37d79e361c387227140cbf9da93a
ddff0be7eb368821c19e5ed757cf2fe75f264876
14538 F20101206_AABGXK oconnell_m_Page_59.QC.jpg
c6d2df74ac171b5a03181c1ca95320ef
57091faa4a0920827631172be16b56f3259ce20f
8134 F20101206_AABGWW oconnell_m_Page_49thm.jpg
aa9e60f8935ea46dd40555211bf8e4db
a27e2a3b980934d0e421831b9e3607ad8b23aa18
1053954 F20101206_AABGAD oconnell_m_Page_29.tif
56f1d403d5ca413c21ee8208d4869ab0
b7dcb6eb40b5883b7e20d9554a8e86827685c330
F20101206_AABGXL oconnell_m_Page_62thm.jpg
a264baa45a4d2701f627413b991b4759
4ccba7fde116faf8b2ce1c59e21377eb9facb15d
33790 F20101206_AABGWX oconnell_m_Page_49.QC.jpg
ae841b0fa53e503722fbaea6dfde3e83
30c54b60b9e3eb534b6a2c80580d1b5d85f04336
32813 F20101206_AABGAE oconnell_m_Page_06.jpg
cb1bfbc293c73c9c20947cdfc2a0c69a
f642ea5556e2cdffc55607a2d300122e22256440
30345 F20101206_AABGYA oconnell_m_Page_79.QC.jpg
81c11957987650d78dd400f9f398f10d
a9da36f10a5e83598ceba79e5fb5f359e04d5379
14205 F20101206_AABGXM oconnell_m_Page_65.QC.jpg
ca0a7c6d9f3e9192b2e7f1c3b0eb06fe
6d9e2371f5c0424145e13f0fbfde00c5eb7be742
8649 F20101206_AABGWY oconnell_m_Page_50thm.jpg
60385fe15be44c705e833f2b711b7ff3
fe0083ebc64d7fb2cfab4ba33f4123d9aef8926a
F20101206_AABGAF oconnell_m_Page_81.tif
e4f3ce26e13f23570a1e9382c2168250
470971757107f4d75648a12d7fa886de46d126fb
5786 F20101206_AABGYB oconnell_m_Page_81thm.jpg
958823706022a183dfcc83879c244bb6
cbd207eced1d38f4a2ec9dde199a2bed06051c43
3887 F20101206_AABGXN oconnell_m_Page_66thm.jpg
931534c19cab4dc9b301be1e60e87252
90fc45015d3fbb3d839e107e0b51587d583da232
34692 F20101206_AABGWZ oconnell_m_Page_50.QC.jpg
3ff44e18629525808c96a3269785b224
9397e8fa0f6dc1e66f98dd5744202f6d5a16e26e
9093 F20101206_AABGYC oconnell_m_Page_82.QC.jpg
07ac0115c4d2d2e706360a20f1654596
373cbd2c1359e9d6e495bbf4148702ac79a78ea7
13741 F20101206_AABGXO oconnell_m_Page_66.QC.jpg
c9b692fdb31b7f21ff3e455faa5f11ee
62358282ceea24191ce15d328c29bf4cc92a1e23
49224 F20101206_AABGAG oconnell_m_Page_66.pro
d39d455274fd7641956b37473bfad0cd
15108451713a247a94e9b2934fb121d55906a70c
6361 F20101206_AABGYD oconnell_m_Page_83thm.jpg
057d80e0447623bee4c318d9011699a4
c0bdc04598937fd1f795f82e1072fe2f1258048a
12410 F20101206_AABGXP oconnell_m_Page_68.QC.jpg
84d737599d9aebde5bbee0547c176d71
a341894302d0e854b992cc2076bb514fea16ef0b
49587 F20101206_AABGAH oconnell_m_Page_32.pro
b7595e2f4f99aedbddba34b36afbbff5
d961713a050714d969642ba1f0140d98ba25dd39
7412 F20101206_AABGYE oconnell_m_Page_85.QC.jpg
ac25a4e52131e1f22c7a0c875bad31e7
755253bdf51f72749ca9f03c02557b81055ff316
4007 F20101206_AABGXQ oconnell_m_Page_69thm.jpg
09bacfe99ad8d0dde6be163fca56d31c
45f15ea818a865c70c59575776b7ca5c2f4568ed
24235 F20101206_AABGAI oconnell_m_Page_05.QC.jpg
b042142c951b6caaa6260e6b4369b4d5
83e8344f1d506d789153aae3966446397f8299c6
7306 F20101206_AABGYF oconnell_m_Page_86.QC.jpg
938043b48f8ffe821fd9bbf8a4214d03
9b4003b0861451eee7565075b06b0aba3e9926fd
9918 F20101206_AABGXR oconnell_m_Page_70.QC.jpg
9d1fd0705595f9a2a8bfccec183ac763
a2e35ed6fd044d26c00f845d6b91f1012b9e3afe
37245 F20101206_AABGAJ oconnell_m_Page_36.QC.jpg
e9eb60bf65cf200f9d4cd5e412cb793c
326d0c1cc17748d0c08090605a5b41d21b2e8ab3
7330 F20101206_AABGYG oconnell_m_Page_87thm.jpg
fed2a7844bd87198b03eaadbba7cdba2
fdc8a2be546228d121fb8d32ec5e9a11f0943b49
14499 F20101206_AABGXS oconnell_m_Page_71.QC.jpg
65243fdb03b694def832fcf17b76c1ef
c67fd16b5095aa1e0813d2247b9e88e1e88b192a
6107 F20101206_AABGAK oconnell_m_Page_99thm.jpg
90f9cabf2d04cda45678d923cf0cdd22
23c2a61a5cfbab65db984f075c70f3fb9ed0a069
2704 F20101206_AABGYH oconnell_m_Page_90thm.jpg
11019fb30b08b091a60d41b3efad72ee
465f32d518e82aef0f87ee056823c5896a214f7e
1802 F20101206_AABGXT oconnell_m_Page_72thm.jpg
4cb9373713a125262baeea7e3a643417
c119150c272a072dad257189abf2301690b0996d
9458 F20101206_AABGBA oconnell_m_Page_89.QC.jpg
6a2c2bfae00688f1b273ad5e635ce152
39783085b9792bfa5e5a62f08074a189ff4f79df
33570 F20101206_AABGAL oconnell_m_Page_64.pro
53c0867d8ee0535ba1fb610e8f8d2d44
af040a679e1b2c1a07693944ad2dccf7094cbf6c
6201 F20101206_AABGYI oconnell_m_Page_93thm.jpg
a2058a5523fcdbf664bfbb35fe611d95
0d0e9c08257d9ff3aa9e356a12d32a525a4110d1
5621 F20101206_AABGXU oconnell_m_Page_72.QC.jpg
b76e141f861f1e72558d4ff071fe174b
195a395f94f3f42f1ed28bb9af124fe783bb4d71
64596 F20101206_AABGBB oconnell_m_Page_63.jp2
191be9adda85a76ab30d7d9e63ae1af8
bcb07421110725e24a4fd70f9ee5806375f85085
23012 F20101206_AABGAM oconnell_m_Page_01.jp2
eb2923801bcc33397481defaadffae2b
66f7faf3ab7659c3f374aca55387461b1fd9e656
23988 F20101206_AABGYJ oconnell_m_Page_93.QC.jpg
33b2426933c2a26ac5697cee7a92254e
5b83f58a9c00c8e1bbbd996e381b12c29f619785
33788 F20101206_AABGXV oconnell_m_Page_73.QC.jpg
f413f1c4462821a2536a5a6d4c7cbdb4
cfbd9e55f055daff84e077fb9d9264a1f4aeffa4
1902 F20101206_AABGBC oconnell_m_Page_98.txt
6a0ccee984fb0a8d12c47d3101d54053
c34eef31c8f3fa0331aaa6db1040f13be8bd49c1
24927 F20101206_AABGAN oconnell_m_Page_85.jp2
fc05b18018e35a4de06f1f26ececf116
e25be87feacc45000f410c3ef773f4ada6bc64b7
33100 F20101206_AABGYK oconnell_m_Page_95.QC.jpg
e281a40a4dcfe48e77dbb326c04592e7
068d298dec72dc05d0dddbe7e57cc70703987b9f
34461 F20101206_AABGXW oconnell_m_Page_74.QC.jpg
38ef420a85a7ad7e386baebccc45a3db
48f6b68496475de8ffde6473b958a695c7f654ec
20215 F20101206_AABGBD oconnell_m_Page_53.pro
4aea0f3aa9c40a7da1651ba7caa125f2
26873e27b83d70898da8b6bc74c3b23f4dfd53a1
53198 F20101206_AABGAO oconnell_m_Page_76.pro
d12d63ffe8c3492444af5194d4306baa
f96c86a7ff069ee53f72ea5d758f3428a2f2ca83
7748 F20101206_AABGYL oconnell_m_Page_98thm.jpg
b81276b44b9195eddcf9121d0b164338
f96984b406cc6fca70959da7b1bf01cd6e634726
34486 F20101206_AABGXX oconnell_m_Page_76.QC.jpg
a6a36a46087998e55897d9d23e03eb56
ed43161baed382b76eccafcaffaa32e4024dfa7a
111293 F20101206_AABGBE oconnell_m_Page_73.jp2
03acf4c68c37c3b6ee70edfb683e3efb
57e1ffd56a1c43134196b8c584dccee6e66269e2
2573 F20101206_AABGAP oconnell_m_Page_07.txt
964f4f9ab50ae257e7da189767ed0f92
b579ba9286c7f18082df268edf14c3164c2b8dcb
8967 F20101206_AABGXY oconnell_m_Page_77thm.jpg
8e5b7c037ca022809b39d1878d91be57
36a330d9eba16851657ed59be0d64f3933fae101
54069 F20101206_AABGBF oconnell_m_Page_55.jp2
89989224e33f945a30b5fd441579255f
b51e5b4542f27eb1c16bd7512a3fb03df27b63c5
667 F20101206_AABGAQ oconnell_m_Page_86.txt
f8a89539c63275f6dbe540fb671883ea
7e543ffa8c7a9f7c33fd291ef3078ed5714b520b
24721 F20101206_AABGYM oconnell_m_Page_99.QC.jpg
499bd4b8c9f1356179102594d7cba478
90ee3f6d131f997e6ba703144df09c7b08c1bdd0
33579 F20101206_AABGXZ oconnell_m_Page_77.QC.jpg
b4ed14262789f0c053dddbef9e846609
1c220f1eb6153afa011d52ff3ac03d04bcd6d284
8222 F20101206_AABGBG oconnell_m_Page_12thm.jpg
9aa8545ca07a9f96c5da503460f723a0
7e9fd9b180bce07e1a22b6a2405917f66b756b66
2131 F20101206_AABGAR oconnell_m_Page_13.txt
1c8aeb6c8254549c9e53073208f3657b
2f746dd6acc34169f92e5ddf672feaca5eaf851e
115742 F20101206_AABGYN UFE0021430_00001.mets FULL
6e542036e7f51093777e53770f1f3875
26d913b67b7cd339bf9dd876e431b0c58c9c405e
25271604 F20101206_AABGAS oconnell_m_Page_09.tif
d6f096c2e3e00a4cee45c6ba95608856
9566ce3a216045dbcab42cc60ff30d087e24b923
29472 F20101206_AABGBH oconnell_m_Page_08.QC.jpg
4154acf362de241e1e3c738fc7d62b91
6d7cd6f1f0ebe4b9873db396141266c4889ae070
14735 F20101206_AABGAT oconnell_m_Page_84.pro
1612e48b0b3aef24bc5c0c48c17f010f
1a374aab8292e6aa640d4cb93c6991e2a9d50463
8673 F20101206_AABGBI oconnell_m_Page_16thm.jpg
08c816efc742d5d6b8e18276187bfba2
45fbca3bb6452619fb9c6602fa4965727d3b47cb
F20101206_AABGAU oconnell_m_Page_73.tif
29b8b99214ad0ea612ae2014d6d13dc4
176869bbbd668f158755ee3804cc7d352e9e146f
44651 F20101206_AABGBJ oconnell_m_Page_56.jpg
864b1e9d4d92ce3190134c4587eb6a53
6ccaa5234b704f81bc019da27f110d26960c4d17
51687 F20101206_AABGAV oconnell_m_Page_12.pro
b87bbf2888bbf9063ba1f16e28e25dcf
98efcbb7cfceb5b792c091e95708bca65d406da6
81232 F20101206_AABGBK oconnell_m_Page_99.jp2
38dea82b62bf18f0e551e58e5d79a64b
e570ff903e5269664db45d8d4641d88242e0e396
2166 F20101206_AABGAW oconnell_m_Page_51.txt
cfa22e4d95ae24edefaab0693420c86d
04ead54e921b07af283548f4bbf92c40ba37f82a
12211 F20101206_AABGBL oconnell_m_Page_63.QC.jpg
f25678c006f7448a2e9f1f4a817db60d
2bc03315099f45822cb775eb5e2f847fe4fe1b0f
43097 F20101206_AABGAX oconnell_m_Page_66.jpg
d1bb3c2ef588ffd5b488c2d55f3202d8
2328c413efbc1374f4b44a85e398e29650b6ce56
111283 F20101206_AABGCA oconnell_m_Page_77.jp2
a243e2637eca8f72f4c62db1ceb919d8
925735ca6939b3a9a6e49292c7ba23c366fa5df6
48982 F20101206_AABGBM oconnell_m_Page_27.pro
db509196140c81a1600af917d140a683
89b73a25c9ce8c9d3588c9fb12ae42ab546a0435
24135 F20101206_AABGAY oconnell_m_Page_83.QC.jpg
bd9d36142cc056fbfdd1c11b785fcab4
6a55d5d4fedc2d131a7f075d7d0ff50564a87fb0
38675 F20101206_AABGCB oconnell_m_Page_63.jpg
5a53a0aec3a61ef9e4292e11ac618e70
cdd9919053a06b5fbb5d8b56353681e90a8ca82a
72087 F20101206_AABGBN oconnell_m_Page_66.jp2
d2c34ad74ed50e18e62457cf5b3a2f4a
a3edf77b603cc5fc337f87aaac76018e87a19a25
28007 F20101206_AABGAZ oconnell_m_Page_94.jp2
43ae3c4c2e0efd168ed5b7f0116464a1
ec2ef6be553ad38c3271f24365f45dd9b9ba2d79
3969 F20101206_AABGCC oconnell_m_Page_60thm.jpg
06c7cd4d210fb81392e8e68bf420ad91
251c42279b6aed3b4be1ee4cc3196b21ac2dbaed
33776 F20101206_AABGBO oconnell_m_Page_14.QC.jpg
0dacf0e10ca62709f7be61015492fd03
befbd47c13c1ef4d9a2dd61d08009bed26b35968
9819 F20101206_AABGCD oconnell_m_Page_84.QC.jpg
d19dc1c8fb2a0928e5f10fc949031fb0
a3fcaad6fb54f87e0496b4a1f51cf6f94f925c45
34817 F20101206_AABGBP oconnell_m_Page_89.jpg
d1bb6f7a12a9585bf1e11721dacbae6f
d00caf85d851353a66f46d54fb444bdb6a6fc2c1
103432 F20101206_AABGCE oconnell_m_Page_12.jpg
855c16909a724a09e4c7559a26d5467c
f547216731d6fdc280dee08bcc517260eef15c96
28037 F20101206_AABGBQ oconnell_m_Page_84.jpg
cd739b73ad5a8b0acabf4b4d275f9707
f2234abce24f47be520d1b5f2dec1957210a8b96
3836 F20101206_AABGCF oconnell_m_Page_61thm.jpg
707d7376bd046cdfe7c5ad7f87c81917
ce3ac39ca0034707a3f96cfd564492bcb110330b
2552 F20101206_AABGBR oconnell_m_Page_82thm.jpg
7e7f82b06b1b02248bdead7d35a3cfaf
768c2932ee96762cb222f31121679c6e878dad7b
32795 F20101206_AABGCG oconnell_m_Page_43.QC.jpg
7692e439453a713a000f49de778e9f44
91f7703870163636662d35a88d8ffcd391475648
71423 F20101206_AABGBS oconnell_m_Page_60.jp2
1e01f77bcfe4e41135de16984c35dc50
eeadae62ecee48a6f0a06fc0f7318f09782b4799
8576 F20101206_AABGCH oconnell_m_Page_26thm.jpg
83d107b119773ea2a9aa9ac53cf7c7bf
79fec24b029ba19a02c3088b332d707041e72700
1939 F20101206_AABGBT oconnell_m_Page_27.txt
f943cc9146e2c2bf8ced590d47c44021
c83e164052dfa97ba0d0c20a3e216ac25b83188f
2083 F20101206_AABGBU oconnell_m_Page_49.txt
61d2bc7e1359dd02bb9d51b4f1ebf7e3
9810e2a4619609a3ea09ec5348c0abdf02920c76
8163 F20101206_AABGCI oconnell_m_Page_43thm.jpg
ee6055c7348f0473716179f8db0b878f
d722c520137d48c134ada17dad5b6ba420c3e213
2713 F20101206_AABGBV oconnell_m_Page_64thm.jpg
997d32e8b0443f5e4c067bf3615d71a9
31e3997814334e1c4eefc33b0d0593e466e13c39
113979 F20101206_AABGCJ oconnell_m_Page_33.jp2
79c4e67325abc1ba6320dba49241268f
dd1c810ad5137d974777c389434d6f2c45093b06
82355 F20101206_AABGBW oconnell_m_Page_41.jp2
42d28c8bbe53ad808e2114ea05b2166e
eaf5b85e7d69bd7c299f7fdc449327abee6da335
1054428 F20101206_AABGCK oconnell_m_Page_57.tif
51de76b3bdbf9469fe38b1edf057595f
5737e0f37d09afefc61ed3ecbe4e17e66ca8c33b
6721 F20101206_AABGBX oconnell_m_Page_57.QC.jpg
27a5edbe75021742e8b0259ceead02d0
ab1ecbf27664d2c797ecf044de3e7ce7ea5bc4a2
35960 F20101206_AABGDA oconnell_m_Page_52.QC.jpg
1021cb3adb1981806897edbd937e9e3f
635c79984e57e6af343fa0cead791a832dfbaa63
31598 F20101206_AABGCL oconnell_m_Page_11.jpg
78e691fb2b674f41b3e9a55880834163
892ee0455e6885e25c607278ca1ddf1acf8b3400
34865 F20101206_AABGBY oconnell_m_Page_96.QC.jpg
053f96e04091906e2be70d0985c48dc5
9be23e93b17590f060b56fcf8441c030e1916255
98457 F20101206_AABGDB oconnell_m_Page_38.jp2
51e5b48de095dbb171d6b9dab345225d
f25fc2708efb61df2cc09f8f92e3704b7e236205
60351 F20101206_AABGCM oconnell_m_Page_31.jpg
c366ea3e44f0e59f8bc26fd5499731f7
de3c478b5daa0c620ea7fe6ad9f6c9d3f1fae321
108817 F20101206_AABGBZ oconnell_m_Page_13.jpg
9db74276d1d76392536cde5c44389ee2
a765597845f2ee78dc62892ded9480f0d209b933
114890 F20101206_AABGDC oconnell_m_Page_74.jp2
4ff7a435b888add1e52479840b930a53
0231d9e37909338fab50193828dfba541cc8f226
F20101206_AABGCN oconnell_m_Page_34.tif
0bac95a438749f5ea81bdf05a3322ccb
9a5e47633ef7ee97b1abb49dbfe4b192839ea494
4071 F20101206_AABGDD oconnell_m_Page_56thm.jpg
35ac6a2ab87c728a86cb50e00048e695
9e1f87aba6158214bac0cfc6f7977d3da7be904e
83246 F20101206_AABGCO oconnell_m_Page_92.jpg
b8f36616050e3178aa2882de2f939d63
046ad07be4c670434fafb63992c38f7137a19fb9
53159 F20101206_AABGDE oconnell_m_Page_20.pro
1b4fc293e1d85068b7d92f22c243bdaf
0cf698253b36c41ed5f13146bf99567341ba8861
33616 F20101206_AABGCP oconnell_m_Page_11.jp2
0361541c5ab8fad79161db3284f3bcf8
8a6b0abbcda9d76e2ebdf3464be7c61b2eeafa63
F20101206_AABGDF oconnell_m_Page_52.tif
c1d8396ea199f89071476c0efcbe4694
93f3b9de4022b48653db0c694d9e7ab59caeb371
114268 F20101206_AABGCQ oconnell_m_Page_34.jpg
78af578cab1180eae64f0523a9dc20c5
0b66304cffbeb15c5d9c9460574e639c15d6b5b9
111095 F20101206_AABGDG oconnell_m_Page_24.jpg
7f7721d16b1bb3965939126a280b34ab
cc72c1e2cf3bdca4999e60228b60552eb74fca50
34613 F20101206_AABGCR oconnell_m_Page_67.jp2
830a7c058d0d046cc8a403a16e19d07f
d1526e0f93fcc85c2da24e5856473c86bb18fa77
26449 F20101206_AABGDH oconnell_m_Page_86.jp2
134fd3862b2c05b2792e6b379f6af198
f73dff5940910517c3fa42a12089bdea70469c17
F20101206_AABFYA oconnell_m_Page_45.tif
d71f3d617022c68d3b09e0a3624efe23
8fa629b0688004c8d57b31c2f95953001383eb5d
15204 F20101206_AABGCS oconnell_m_Page_69.QC.jpg
79e9bbac5decd0b46724979e35d7bb4b
dafdfa906997c13cabf24ca19197e0adbba94d11
7926 F20101206_AABGDI oconnell_m_Page_07thm.jpg
2e54d15ba68e1a635c8d487fe067c770
fac66e12686b2f1dd779be6465870dd46b5fa964
117364 F20101206_AABFYB oconnell_m_Page_52.jp2
9c0f31f9a22c037b7c96a01a25487260
c77a1ebcaa84729e52e95734abde00091ef08d41
F20101206_AABGCT oconnell_m_Page_94.tif
ebca04c3008355d643748e0787d48ae3
92f82bfa544a8e2d4d33b67cb8755de294c50ce0
F20101206_AABFYC oconnell_m_Page_79.tif
5085f421eafcf137326b90c23cfe905d
47721581f121e387ca61b81ce10eb2f54f3b61bc
522 F20101206_AABGCU oconnell_m_Page_06.txt
109f1d38b67d279323aa9231db9b7680
ce50c81e078c18e9180179deae7ea222e5f3b32c
F20101206_AABGDJ oconnell_m_Page_88.tif
ec1975291bf328a435d02eaf766fc09b
9b8d5d668c981631b1840f4883fd175f7a407c03
28755 F20101206_AABFYD oconnell_m_Page_82.jp2
13ce2a5a120eac1bc9eb360f67edbb2a
efd383e388f7ee6ef0f6319a049b315f6085d547
46149 F20101206_AABGCV oconnell_m_Page_81.pro
5815659d540d060fc72709143375a4bb
ffeb8faaca869e24800e3edf569990324321dcab
61244 F20101206_AABGDK oconnell_m_Page_64.jp2
719ca024e818c76ffd8e161829dc3cc9
967c607e99c83ba7f37b605a49e3a2713dc6ab54
3046 F20101206_AABFYE oconnell_m_Page_58thm.jpg
91a83b7702f0b9462595eff7695e7ac9
895f591f721f377f902a587a369d19cef245ba28
33240 F20101206_AABGCW oconnell_m_Page_25.QC.jpg
fc7215dd848080257538e6d60a2b6758
96378d72a44d263c378cb373cc7888b3349c7586
F20101206_AABGEA oconnell_m_Page_50.tif
ed089018b7f822199303aba7989e899d
7dbfc4fb0093135b4bb4f324a22af17be353c061
2020 F20101206_AABGDL oconnell_m_Page_22.txt
23f52ffdff8dfbb9da9c7a5108055189
e0a045e62c5b33607d3b90062cd44c74fc6ec220
7625 F20101206_AABFYF oconnell_m_Page_01.pro
bc18a505a6845778ea38394aae163db5
b3edc0b1300bf475fbcdab9d38f75c7eeaf449a3
25664 F20101206_AABGCX oconnell_m_Page_29.QC.jpg
ac83eb20b8b25acab3402e8e5d350a72
c84c0b9e21e6f0398346fb7f548fd1f89c7bbe4e
97169 F20101206_AABFXS oconnell_m_Page_98.jpg
323d34ff45075e2fb0671bc1c7c8fb92
84b2237ba1862a9bdc1e6ce952baab95244350fe
8776 F20101206_AABGEB oconnell_m_Page_34thm.jpg
fa3a6c14f2c2b74fbc6cb51e604cdf93
4732c3b8c7c7645438c23f195ef8934c0355be3a
48838 F20101206_AABGDM oconnell_m_Page_61.pro
a31fc55c0ee7e10f69d27a5eafabbb5a
afe442a405746d14a8a7421c2feee3b195c33aad
28094 F20101206_AABFYG oconnell_m_Page_87.QC.jpg
74c090ac64c47568c33f14f3fd2d9e70
f63996060d434a4718dde56aa400992feed198e0
33889 F20101206_AABGCY oconnell_m_Page_07.QC.jpg
67fe9273105d361f11d4dbf479182aaf
d7ef82beb33da8eddfc0fdb897d6afe5c232a4d6
F20101206_AABFXT oconnell_m_Page_76.tif
3883b50772ff9aba462d29fefde48b6b
39ae2dab5b24ac40ec701990e0a18bbfbe8ff409
2541 F20101206_AABGEC oconnell_m_Page_80thm.jpg
9a11c0d9b3a97930de5d9d67f86f77c3
9128f00e5fa453a0a653d72278eacd986d71e3fa
52123 F20101206_AABGDN oconnell_m_Page_49.pro
1e6ca0256bfc7ec7df4f5dbe1ad2a912
d030f5245c97834e6a0734b10620b88f052d44be
F20101206_AABFYH oconnell_m_Page_66.tif
a1f71385e7b91f75b18d9c84bef4feab
a9ff8abea456e68102adae80f99d4cdb602653bc
52006 F20101206_AABGCZ oconnell_m_Page_73.pro
34db3bce4956da2d44b54faa4d9e72c3
ceff1fc3e6a8f777b735bc6ac100673bd9e291fc
36155 F20101206_AABFXU oconnell_m_Page_33.QC.jpg
1265e4e61f35a3912fc0fe01f5a8ab3a
8a3f4e7155752a37f4cdf16adea5c64a2f512892
113888 F20101206_AABGED oconnell_m_Page_44.jp2
aab7f6ab9dd8342be5c1cb307a1e969a
6219322ad500ad267dcaa3b5eb5b29885617f962
518 F20101206_AABGDO oconnell_m_Page_28.txt
3e757e8ecb66d32acc4f8b53438db180
77c0f98d4bd46b39007fc00998fdce8c9882bc76
66284 F20101206_AABFYI oconnell_m_Page_91.jpg
9497c099cb74b6fd7c8db73cbe5dc514
a6d06ed387091b01240660932fdc957c1f168321
64258 F20101206_AABFXV oconnell_m_Page_81.jpg
440a19a3a68bb05895689e0d20689320
54859b84502f9bc59bd73d3a5c1d7f8d70419cb7
F20101206_AABGEE oconnell_m_Page_97.tif
36439f777e47d875b107ddf8bb8c387b
aa34530fd57296dfa78fc5ab40fd273b04130a18
5915 F20101206_AABGDP oconnell_m_Page_31thm.jpg
9ca7bcc29dd7fc0b13e9abc4edb24f86
20c3f8bb133cdf47dcb6e19682501c8aa52eb1ce
F20101206_AABFYJ oconnell_m_Page_82.tif
6b26fd3a738161f3562662a2c44ce740
a9a441153a6cb629e37b90ddbb49e7c22965c83d
14076 F20101206_AABFXW oconnell_m_Page_61.QC.jpg
1a6de13a2e9b979bed0953d8d84de7fb
cc8573aeac18c4c98827ae58b09b906149879a77
3885 F20101206_AABGEF oconnell_m_Page_63thm.jpg
1f987c2f27b2c4c9bf9a7782dd958077
8a8700f714b6f2eb56ef998a7ec8a35b70fdfc8f
46487 F20101206_AABGDQ oconnell_m_Page_98.pro
93705d31baeebda0065efcdb289b14b9
fe23cf25abb41c72457246eae729c616f948144e
2688 F20101206_AABFYK oconnell_m_Page_70thm.jpg
0d6da073c8c12076225711186ca39e63
5e84dc28da137f4e71a0b1db74692355b95ae63d
19214 F20101206_AABFXX oconnell_m_Page_91.QC.jpg
b30cfcb741d7a9cad365a360d06f1ea1
d24f80cc239ef5c204b5e1ec4263fe595722c9dd
34983 F20101206_AABGEG oconnell_m_Page_45.QC.jpg
5de6847b729b813fce7e7579119ee389
9f7c136f17d3402a7dd472eacfc2b385c1aa9321
F20101206_AABGDR oconnell_m_Page_39.tif
e48c4f5a269bd1c97a268222a3c9a429
8214eb499c3f8e13452a704481d99faa926bdacb
34601 F20101206_AABFYL oconnell_m_Page_57.jp2
5bcb855c929fe1fdc9280502e012e4ec
c3a98e7446aec2316fbef5316a050f3ad5572877
10138 F20101206_AABFXY oconnell_m_Page_85.pro
67f7b7d1efd963283bc7995e80c51ae9
c396b2bff987f83205a908e8168e7e945726fd2c
44486 F20101206_AABGEH oconnell_m_Page_61.jpg
53422f7a372be7c038a3726ea994c207
91e098bf966e408709eb96326bd7f61d598cb6dc
4423 F20101206_AABFZA oconnell_m_Page_04.pro
aca27ef05a097d260d40e55282e05630
343193496c0b6be79b373a11be5a04000fe97e1e
8842 F20101206_AABGDS oconnell_m_Page_52thm.jpg
706b1710d7b8913b46f834d8a2ef1a24
c17192b434647ca160e7071df979b1782de44225
72282 F20101206_AABFYM oconnell_m_Page_56.jp2
1cc5c8e1cc5c80ac865ccf4703e5a54a
197e49c0300e0700a7099eacd225fca65bf736f5
F20101206_AABFXZ oconnell_m_Page_17.tif
b36ec11aca135acecc453f6f59c0b9ed
7759ac276362d27a7bf122647bdc770b43abdc8a
2348 F20101206_AABGEI oconnell_m_Page_69.txt
e8dcf9800f8b0220170df9fb86981e26
9dbd56bfff8e5cad6a694a412dc6f9bde79c1aad
114409 F20101206_AABFZB oconnell_m_Page_97.jpg
f797134cd09fcadd76a09bff1fd29a86
0bf22ab56ad8cefcc7f159b6c96ac24432bf813b
F20101206_AABGDT oconnell_m_Page_67.tif
7536bbecb321461265d2cbcff30ebff0
873c008a327f335a6d29c3e11503055ab84829de
33874 F20101206_AABFYN oconnell_m_Page_35.QC.jpg
005ef19a5aa9040cb2111f187f4bfa06
2e0e6117f244fdc4e935285d2a4b4594c37c51b0
107687 F20101206_AABGEJ oconnell_m_Page_23.jpg
8a5765a869cae982a754d223f9a60230
39cdfb9e42b449689331b160a87c3ca69f236bbe
F20101206_AABFZC oconnell_m_Page_37.tif
4997fae0f07d7d5522c9ad462708b74d
0e6ada68614aebb05b46be55456109bde32ed8c7
F20101206_AABGDU oconnell_m_Page_26.tif
3f849736a9207996764c8b60c240e833
13b682cf80582346d2d0919f07fce2f88583708d
49408 F20101206_AABFYO oconnell_m_Page_19.pro
c7e09e494a551e381750146abb96dd1d
6f0c4c57fa46673753c18a88cc7205105e856c9f
31433 F20101206_AABFZD oconnell_m_Page_84.jp2
fba3f3f50922b099fecc364fceb03868
8cc34c16fee1c5b8a5f381438d142760bde593a9
2261 F20101206_AABGDV oconnell_m_Page_75.txt
a51eea15b322956cfcaad015209b37e8
21a13c7377e0fa496c0e657fcf0b4095e3ffa40b
9015 F20101206_AABFYP oconnell_m_Page_24thm.jpg
0f2f478bf0d5b6bb92623f569b9ece58
a0b028c1661b366523190c834fdb4123f18a81b8
3094 F20101206_AABGEK oconnell_m_Page_84thm.jpg
7963c3a47c78c6e9906be73b774f5ba0
2dc8c2a0349c004be74327a750f9aadf525cd0bb
852 F20101206_AABFZE oconnell_m_Page_62.txt
6423f312602cc7491a9be9f3114fada3
9990142b93842baec253c1b5f9aab3c2fcd8eed3
F20101206_AABGDW oconnell_m_Page_20.tif
2fc65d29348d36d66dadd3da68919bb7
ce609d6c8aa30f947fe8b9884ab9751675f0b4af
113540 F20101206_AABFYQ oconnell_m_Page_76.jp2
37f99adb13b9c00ee7eadbbb72e48e1c
5162071d31ee6baf6a67a1f0dc79ff7dc6998e34
13248 F20101206_AABGEL oconnell_m_Page_60.QC.jpg
629ebbfd49edf8759fab6c674ad9bbf7
8ecfe444783e31da5ad8ace8e67ca3a5d51faa13
115807 F20101206_AABFZF oconnell_m_Page_48.jp2
4ee01b6bb9bd27fbbb8b5afda9e6b4fa
1c89a7e5957f09f5b8843950b7139baacb5d75b5
108037 F20101206_AABGDX oconnell_m_Page_43.jp2
a01d7ceb13517feb26a5820f8cc35453
17367f1b798d8bbf82518d59b36a1c437404d59c
2388 F20101206_AABFYR oconnell_m_Page_05.txt
985ece1b305b3b6a6afc66feea742487
66f348efc02c79335d84f0ebc5aa2140ec9dccf5
89759 F20101206_AABGFA oconnell_m_Page_71.jp2
5a7b95aec18c51fafdd72f98dc04c4ae
29cfbf0aba9a770c32c144630186dbf45b064a8d
3690 F20101206_AABGEM oconnell_m_Page_68thm.jpg
8190a50494fbc65680884b1d3dfdbcf6
462704749d2058a0481f9714e3bf9df00ba74f49
2036 F20101206_AABFZG oconnell_m_Page_85thm.jpg
1f39efd10435511344f8f8cabb4554ee
2ff07238d9dd5488d330cf3ecef69454a27a1d4a
113160 F20101206_AABGDY oconnell_m_Page_36.jpg
22aed5b37405d27d504760cd30c984e7
eaeb00ddc397e77e56b7f5c959a5b759977808e1
36905 F20101206_AABFYS oconnell_m_Page_75.QC.jpg
d6b2d267dac2487ef6b57ca6cd696923
8dfe93466f1e5b8b4a71e33c079991385ee0ee35
F20101206_AABGFB oconnell_m_Page_49.tif
703dee7d9694bc875cd45e02354552e8
46896643525dc6c589e8979350118a0b56f5cef7
2028 F20101206_AABGEN oconnell_m_Page_86thm.jpg
043915d7fee3ac5ce148f023d6f58b16
7802e45328ce1cbc0afe094e898106be8d61afb2
30119 F20101206_AABFZH oconnell_m_Page_55.jpg
81ee17487813c3610a21ea02581f7ec4
3cb3dcce61a7289caeea2a484c36aa2247baf523
111717 F20101206_AABGDZ oconnell_m_Page_52.jpg
56a54e343de8f554ffc3a5ea2333e76f
68c7e07a55ccaeda3149a16a4bf01a93edce2c28
68831 F20101206_AABFYT oconnell_m_Page_81.jp2
c8ae04b29b7b877e65756e89527d459a
e18980916faf97d18037730996720db1cfd7e07c
14565 F20101206_AABGFC oconnell_m_Page_53.QC.jpg
3b43e2ab330697799c90a501d423b388
14c65575edc01525c74037671706e4d0be9dfc60
2125 F20101206_AABGEO oconnell_m_Page_73.txt
324833101f2603d158152f6b58149d0a
df5f1a49da9ebd4b075eee166cf96e14632332c2
8103 F20101206_AABFZI oconnell_m_Page_19thm.jpg
bc27333d23f4408f58a58831d1632f58
f196588a843a81534db70e829e6e8205035e1abb
2403 F20101206_AABFYU oconnell_m_Page_06thm.jpg
f5bf0c68d8bd9f479726cbbcb79432b9
489ff171b14d5100a5d267d1933ff61c1e5112a2
3746 F20101206_AABGFD oconnell_m_Page_53thm.jpg
e2d98597f38d4e42d78bfad8d78f68f7
ceedc3d07d7d4b4808e73a0f631c6ef8e7d96bd9
23295 F20101206_AABGEP oconnell_m_Page_40.QC.jpg
3d70845de49491bb35d415fa3d36ee53
252c74c2715ae08db1d320c4f5b5fb9eeb7bf5d0
100498 F20101206_AABFZJ oconnell_m_Page_27.jpg
4d642efd44cbdef2c78f69895eb8d200
8364b63e5c6d0c88cbcf1f25922229c26ea12fc5
27585 F20101206_AABFYV oconnell_m_Page_82.jpg
42ffb62b625f9a89818845bc21ca5332
d4d9d0f3f5a5c6724dac6bd176ef3dd9cc3bb89a
8765 F20101206_AABGFE oconnell_m_Page_97thm.jpg
d5df615e6918083e2acf3a50b7018375
024a2c1a816178abe94efeab3f0f834de91a8d74
27076 F20101206_AABGEQ oconnell_m_Page_39.QC.jpg
6902c85db547036af461b413fb4f336b
045e0d14c9985692f3c62171f606b37af5ad8703
4102 F20101206_AABFZK oconnell_m_Page_65thm.jpg
5a1867f150c29fdcd8a0db92ebd2364e
49847dc8c28a4c53fb1b950ae97fd553eb2087a5
F20101206_AABFYW oconnell_m_Page_71thm.jpg
d7afe4726dd2d1c09f047c6c9c6bdf97
168dc9ea836f0e7391faf20527bff3ac1d4f7537
4635 F20101206_AABGFF oconnell_m_Page_87.txt
6864ee306e27ad508574c57810006c69
ed8211164e31789addf59de91708f0f63791feac
3310 F20101206_AABGER oconnell_m_Page_09.pro
c264175c7e6a573c6aabef38aa99cbe9
8f063ac0b0abb0bb192e0c52988e8e5913e2a50f
27722 F20101206_AABFZL oconnell_m_Page_91.pro
1ec0acf6acabc84767049db772252460
7af935e9bae9f49d1d651bd80347b0fc645aa5b8
21231 F20101206_AABFYX oconnell_m_Page_62.jpg
b770322f449023044ad6adb52ff700ca
2494b4a322e6fbec675f197edc9ec40833461632
2077 F20101206_AABGFG oconnell_m_Page_45.txt
35d95b30a246a13ca3e108e031b380fc
6958f283181bccc6f158338b87d7d0f6ca5cebee
F20101206_AABGES oconnell_m_Page_63.tif
5cf39044f2fd3013fb5d881414b5ded0
a683006f060865a58162a918d6a7bf41d466a5e6
53965 F20101206_AABFZM oconnell_m_Page_13.pro
dfd1c9984a942696569419b8e0fd8ae2
6f3323c067e4dc6a905df2c91eba0ea7cdd3768b
565 F20101206_AABFYY oconnell_m_Page_11.txt
f075a52b2120562a3481fade16b6c90a
e3566b307ca1630de035bc85e55f180e0fbbcec0
77144 F20101206_AABGFH oconnell_m_Page_99.jpg
2a8916ac593b34833ea77c8ebb3691bc
981359d83573db65ccc95b7d69b652d52de04320
11043 F20101206_AABGET oconnell_m_Page_94.pro
0dd51aa16b2f4f70c28f7cbb9a8533f7
918641c3d5c6cbf659f564bd18a4b9a6611f9661
29296 F20101206_AABFZN oconnell_m_Page_98.QC.jpg
4f3064904ab0e9bc90b4e9d47e8fe4bf
fd35588155c31c2a8fe6456cd4942534738a25d4
F20101206_AABFYZ oconnell_m_Page_96.tif
706b8f061d05524671e2ee4c886e952a
49876adada5f43e99933e4d615aa38fe626dca4d
421 F20101206_AABGFI oconnell_m_Page_01.txt
4f08258b3aa7fc578151cb3a6945c4e5
5e2a2fd86ecfd052f4b4b0cabbf2ebf4d7deedb9
8622 F20101206_AABGEU oconnell_m_Page_45thm.jpg
24bc1320a274206bcd3a4ca7bfff537d
6867759debb6fc2e15f72226556054edcf320170
39523 F20101206_AABFZO oconnell_m_Page_89.jp2
d3620da6fc1ea5b315880ac26cd5260d
b0928a6d7248b86fcabb2dba02f1266d367af5ec
35832 F20101206_AABGFJ oconnell_m_Page_34.QC.jpg
e6d6b45e5b3aaeac356aa85e131df447
bc54e3599767c8e2758448c7fcb2e38559e51117
105193 F20101206_AABGEV oconnell_m_Page_14.jpg
6bc93863a0f8db6f08de74c02943d13c
09cc4fa39cc9bc1b9feb90d84374b7f0b37cdadc
F20101206_AABFZP oconnell_m_Page_90.tif
8935a9512d85d308217fd07fa5b5594d
5727d1445a9cabdb597e63721feb56ef1912acdb
7376 F20101206_AABGFK oconnell_m_Page_79thm.jpg
35789c6942de21348d71a2bfbc182caf
afe29ddac7f89ee357ce189c2ca426840abcdfb6
8923 F20101206_AABGEW oconnell_m_Page_94.QC.jpg
27eda0f761baf8d2c8f2961fa059f02b
ebbaf7d0f071ef04d6f689ed8cbcaa2ec1cc1c8c
99757 F20101206_AABFZQ oconnell_m_Page_18.jpg
bfb841fbf961de2acd155ea301e2155f
14c598bfd54cb0ae868e6223d7cb90e4e09d576e
52555 F20101206_AABFZR oconnell_m_Page_26.pro
c9366da8311ab52a0da2717102a76351
28c28f678722840a5a4d514c9dee1f6eef28ca55
4319 F20101206_AABGGA oconnell_m_Page_88.txt
a93d9c1656dc763387cabce79d875f0a
475e9cf75b974b5793b67a69670f4d090a840ec9
130348 F20101206_AABGFL oconnell_m_Page_87.jp2
50a8fe6b7022914126d0767722e85faf
c46ab60ed98ebbca48ca0c8166f87720d30c01a2
5824 F20101206_AABGEX oconnell_m_Page_41thm.jpg
87728a875caff842c7413d06e78096f1
c3878dafb66d817613d95eccec619d60546e32db
F20101206_AABFZS oconnell_m_Page_78.tif
4600b691ed02b6a266bce9c70195b4ae
b242b950647eb99bf34ac7ddb2b535ef03517da8
82739 F20101206_AABGGB oconnell_m_Page_93.jp2
a646d352b13d64d02c7c1a0a41129520
6ddf175a3d654fac82d5ef0ff78796ee70d2e45d
8998 F20101206_AABGFM oconnell_m_Page_09.jpg
75acb2611baf6c605f91df84ea74b35c
13aec552d03588634d9224b3d9b836e26ae73153
1192 F20101206_AABGEY oconnell_m_Page_09thm.jpg
1ee3cad26ad0851d0e3efeab3239a901
9039d7a62d90f909b60b0986efdbb0103840d0c6
F20101206_AABFZT oconnell_m_Page_72.tif
dbab57e6e6384e5095cfdbb80243bd97
594319fe9c1bb0de27d6477ff863aa1afc091ebe
860 F20101206_AABGGC oconnell_m_Page_17.txt
687c38aff16697facb53fb6408512213
3d858a76d504841d4452ea8ea3dd4f0362d1fce7
48959 F20101206_AABGFN oconnell_m_Page_17.jp2
9f7339681c8d1623e73536970c77670b
4d72f4768b48c3d3d62305ccc77bb69f15ac8046
73746 F20101206_AABGEZ oconnell_m_Page_83.jpg
c0d57d17fcf6cdd69c55e80f4e840401
3a083b503f90dd4a4e70ad29cc0aebed7cc0b22b
34844 F20101206_AABFZU oconnell_m_Page_26.QC.jpg
172690d70acf58db2c322f6007e29da6
2f9158e2b64cd90396ef73352ff013fb718a88ca
7589 F20101206_AABGGD oconnell_m_Page_88thm.jpg
9a421aaf213184dd30dd6fca685fd846
d8140df9353f41f88b9194bcc2a6aaf754741cfc
2330 F20101206_AABGFO oconnell_m_Page_56.txt
5c5b862d141d004abd7d6b9b0b243dae
12950c480eed5b36f7231f8ea430f902583fbb85
5830 F20101206_AABFZV oconnell_m_Page_92thm.jpg
b8124e0f2d75ecd804dd66dbfca6fc40
d15184541deef995f8ddc7315e4e711369c9e5d0
2011 F20101206_AABGGE oconnell_m_Page_70.txt
08cc64148870e600378c1a99f712b984
1f651649c4fe599cde5cce8cee3fb0e83636f45f
97847 F20101206_AABGFP oconnell_m_Page_05.jpg
fe3843a8d18c7b08e5f6dfb06db3152b
07471fe35e50bb835276cbd780f7c59701929178
7757 F20101206_AABFZW oconnell_m_Page_10thm.jpg
1bbf94458e9452013628d6b832d96d79
9223ab05b6078c1772bc52b40e48f89413827b54
33330 F20101206_AABGGF oconnell_m_Page_97.QC.jpg
400c2df7445ba9da0d3deb5fef22db67
1d08b063044e0ce48c81c57dca11ec802df37c00
11071 F20101206_AABGFQ oconnell_m_Page_64.QC.jpg
0370058bcdf81cf91007abbcdcd5ca67
375aa6032ea367487354ec992c1c40b4ca7c4167
36100 F20101206_AABFZX oconnell_m_Page_44.QC.jpg
df3c54c3ad62ccadf91dcd6c257cc356
92c576373c7fe79c6f204d4901e70a2037932824
9296 F20101206_AABGGG oconnell_m_Page_96thm.jpg
2cf13d55a8f95f9b02a51c0664e01987
3b5400f353fb88fec373d3104c5a9b68fee3855d
104096 F20101206_AABGFR oconnell_m_Page_98.jp2
e22d392f592222a88d089c55f891a788
0def838b857713bfd5608fd9b5e4ebb2a9b99c9e
F20101206_AABFZY oconnell_m_Page_43.tif
fd3dd05a633b825a2d28db33112c9480
5db86b6d64f67dd3d75fca877062bbfc65582b4c
27419 F20101206_AABGGH oconnell_m_Page_58.pro
2cd232aaa4483e34492b6db3fa80bf5d
933e5274f3a2c073ab9db8048a706eb89f4707a1
2124 F20101206_AABGFS oconnell_m_Page_39.txt
fd0309ea60fe47cbe26997614d388de8
5a71fab9e18b6d6adae2087cf7bb1840c8cd7df3
F20101206_AABFZZ oconnell_m_Page_32.tif
45c01be03fc8e9bb0fb0f65d678a24a4
06978c2ff76c86c7b45f9d904577ea0c990ccc4f
2016 F20101206_AABGGI oconnell_m_Page_46.txt
54e76394da69f4a43020e38ea85f76b8
e2fbe2639d8c9e0a243573cf13d526b8312f21ac
100525 F20101206_AABGFT oconnell_m_Page_09.jp2
299585ed6ad7aff7e6418251eb692763
c7cf6ccd7f069af563241680c197ef5a6be1cb05
19652 F20101206_AABGGJ oconnell_m_Page_57.jpg
e0ba35ee3618f0dbe0e50990a64e0af9
02b594b2876454211dc92017d38dc2d34801d547
2793 F20101206_AABGFU oconnell_m_Page_89thm.jpg
7fc99ccb00348104c0682ec9c05d62cf
7826f5f2b7562e15341fcc57a206fd160d8404c3
2407 F20101206_AABGGK oconnell_m_Page_94thm.jpg
7adf08899c917202f10bd7c0b139f414
af8df846a99867c9bfad48b92deafe63d29599dc
57046 F20101206_AABGFV oconnell_m_Page_05.pro
3a72833f41d8d163afd8fa4d7b19ab79
7e8ec29ddd57ff7d0eb8736eb6ed580efe73fea0
520 F20101206_AABGGL oconnell_m_Page_54.txt
b595e5eabf9ef9e1ceb22fc81d7c7306
20099879307dafb9a1b2bf35404eff62c0d837d7
F20101206_AABGFW oconnell_m_Page_46.tif
a2d831666b07431b44d44b4365b93b58
4fa32651d2a3149a9dcaba5afda3c589579b31a6
2199 F20101206_AABGFX oconnell_m_Page_47.txt
4ea99ca1303cc5ad33559b9902304112
f1008fa8664c7c75bc714be83ed9e390dfe721af
30933 F20101206_AABGHA oconnell_m_Page_10.QC.jpg
0964421b82a1deb49f978ccfd8399d73
6a83422f5af7096dd053b645168d4a6d952e100e
80552 F20101206_AABGGM oconnell_m_Page_59.jp2
970118b2728872c4fc7cd527811ab799
6a3f8a08f81157ed4e6ec346e1789b819d88bcb8
27755 F20101206_AABGFY oconnell_m_Page_55.pro
3c9f847f82602f1a04c34287a2649b4e
3acb31bbf3b49c71df818af3d14a2a6e5c04de00
F20101206_AABGHB oconnell_m_Page_59.txt
f4594fe22ff318380a48ab1d06b2a7d7
b447667b755d70fcd914338a05ef7793e60cac3e
1828 F20101206_AABGGN oconnell_m_Page_41.txt
c078aeffcd2ec4db9d068692b03120d4
56533c46b3f18ced1fdc44653e3ee8569f8dc1b0
111079 F20101206_AABGFZ oconnell_m_Page_14.jp2
e4df0a9fc80d5a9d655d346f41fe3001
8a8050f1d0e34adf3e266655457de6224816d3c2
24120 F20101206_AABGHC oconnell_m_Page_41.QC.jpg
fae8318e11d9b1bc06cf4ec1654fbd09
808f690797fb17bbc63fa45bb1b0cfed55272a41
108045 F20101206_AABGGO oconnell_m_Page_50.jpg
832ebee9ec2b7d570d98b39031a00230
9931d52d642c01bfc4fe5f0e5b04bbadd991aa18
38550 F20101206_AABGHD oconnell_m_Page_64.jpg
6dc6dbb3223c821b6c9eeca80e0c51f4
c5953709598896d95060aa56043d6e709d87cfd3
35286 F20101206_AABGGP oconnell_m_Page_99.pro
0e87b1989f98187c6e67bc4038771271
4b2014361316c6589d4d2c88beb65794c5220f44
30750 F20101206_AABGHE oconnell_m_Page_15.QC.jpg
2d300ab96f2496fee74a9976cd36a300
8c9cbcf8d366449417bad8ca42d01f49bb3e92b0
F20101206_AABGGQ oconnell_m_Page_18.tif
702b37d57b89d3befb874e8f5bb3e5ef
2680a09becbf5bb9e11f167e626e418608ccb6a7
F20101206_AABGHF oconnell_m_Page_68.tif
036f9051c4cec8840b5436fb0c66eafd
8b6e5af2fdf4a0c7b149d69557226d419f4fd08e
F20101206_AABGGR oconnell_m_Page_06.tif
d60c5d7bbf49633ea3604ddf865eee55
77b2f20e830226b2036a675631a68a93fc0e9021
52664 F20101206_AABGHG oconnell_m_Page_45.pro
34d6f35f3feb1682eac2c79034704d92
63d8cfdeaab9727a70a51c91fb58f5a5067cd811
51557 F20101206_AABGGS oconnell_m_Page_35.pro
c7e94e0bc04b272b2471f0a4b49ac521
a81e8ff73246fa0546903f7f531adcf9534dad99
618 F20101206_AABGHH oconnell_m_Page_03thm.jpg
66e9c3eeec839dea8c7f87392b5e42f1
c392c9f8e14809d383a2acf718d6d9f61217e2f5
1958 F20101206_AABGGT oconnell_m_Page_19.txt
b509ccb5dcecda04fa926d65b963562f
5ca446a96dc9175730cf2665b3be45ea7962d781
27814 F20101206_AABGHI oconnell_m_Page_80.jpg
92112df43c1673d942b66a77251d502c
dbac7b0d3631c1663219f7f63b8c902cd24513e8
19324 F20101206_AABGGU oconnell_m_Page_81.QC.jpg
0ae4b9a35a38a1bfc93be581bdc264fd
bc20692c62ca9625fcce8d751c1a36757cd4f542
4798 F20101206_AABGHJ oconnell_m_Page_91thm.jpg
ab12a7141f5db79b7bb146bce49fc099
73d3b552d7e3f2d150ffc2cda74b2582f850212a
34266 F20101206_AABGGV oconnell_m_Page_70.jpg
4794b255fdb444cf11ce505f77318f25
20035c7a730491bcb1be15cacbf20320ef22824f
8664 F20101206_AABGHK oconnell_m_Page_73thm.jpg
d19027ec88722459db4c17d7051a5bbb
38ea2d1b02b0ac62b502e2151890fd2f198fce13
119393 F20101206_AABGGW oconnell_m_Page_96.jpg
5358abcada8f30dc79d59a01ad966c9d
6d4ec806edee7354d6ab658bdca1742d8f0fac59
8650 F20101206_AABGHL oconnell_m_Page_78thm.jpg
b093bf1457c5ce78988007e0872d3f46
3e360c6579023958fe185ea9e9bcaf9762da8ffb
8585 F20101206_AABGGX oconnell_m_Page_76thm.jpg
b639e6d4d2960acaa160a2fbe87eb41f
7c4182c97cc612d1213c5943f97cdeb252bb17a0
6836 F20101206_AABGIA oconnell_m_Page_39thm.jpg
afaf16ea7ba00ee9b940170b63fb0c8a
b29a7faca9eb14e58cee6a795cbd34571f4d14df
2316 F20101206_AABGHM oconnell_m_Page_96.txt
f7530a43e82d81489c4e30ba18fa9999
39d58c024118fd020a0d68fafbac63a81ced144d
F20101206_AABGGY oconnell_m_Page_55.tif
2b07b080d019ae3c4fbb59c1151d5347
8fea8a044b42c641029d2723f113f407d6bd2bc4
47955 F20101206_AABGIB oconnell_m_Page_37.pro
524318ab1e43d78de24506c29d2f9609
df172831bd87cb5a4b3833851cd2c3d65f30c1f8
109710 F20101206_AABGGZ oconnell_m_Page_21.jpg
4cab4a13694c13c84dc3b8e274a5ad78
c292709277528aa2e88466f8dccfafca9364d986
2227 F20101206_AABGIC oconnell_m_Page_36.txt
95699347312b4cc6935ae7c0435e30e6
413a385e632791885dc084e39e864830b647bf2b
8497 F20101206_AABGHN oconnell_m_Page_80.QC.jpg
09c72a4aef7a149a58b1309c33ae3d78
d8ebaca7a9e2f6f0bd8dba6468cba4dced36189d
116209 F20101206_AABGID oconnell_m_Page_13.jp2
5335ce93f00a1e45e1a5ef5d3ed13105
aacb5832f778a0753bfebca97ab8ac92d4186d80
F20101206_AABGHO oconnell_m_Page_99.tif
3ba71725fa9ea2ba763a7f9cb548a41b
608622700b3ed5bd93fe0b2301148a89bb9d7a4a
34992 F20101206_AABGIE oconnell_m_Page_78.QC.jpg
303e9eabb5a3da071956957f05ba41e1
550ece766f78d4330dee9536e439cbae02ffff8b
F20101206_AABGHP oconnell_m_Page_98.tif
2d1f89a3b1d8fe02bc2ab850f44cedfe
a3478651ff7811ddc95ebd51e0f0d258f2dde191
F20101206_AABGIF oconnell_m_Page_41.tif
a214037616649c00d5a0e30f12db5659
7a73426d49f52d0d0ce94754a8d020c51bbe9770
24212 F20101206_AABGHQ oconnell_m_Page_92.QC.jpg
3e81fe2ae3ff2d0030200d136c0ca7ca
51c8fbb911b5859112463edc56d14853bd22608a
92968 F20101206_AABGIG oconnell_m_Page_88.pro
4832c0d7468cdc13a3a1e9c336e6a035
38c44f9d97550cdbf15595001d6889c9950dc962
8499 F20101206_AABGHR oconnell_m_Page_74thm.jpg
74825edc8b690e81a336e596903dca73
57103f4e6e6390fab68a81b1336e68d8a7047aad
F20101206_AABGIH oconnell_m_Page_12.tif
cdcfc81f567da21145432ee2cd72bdc9
65faca2d23ee53c4e15ab6aacadbc77aa01c63c7
F20101206_AABGHS oconnell_m_Page_33.tif
ac08fe636782266016659b1a4b3f7212
2afc598333f5b43f07dfcb20587652a3cdbed1e4
659 F20101206_AABGII oconnell_m_Page_90.txt
de48543f61ec2d832596e36f656663b2
a4a52ff33330359911a4fced57d8748d02338fe0
3118 F20101206_AABGHT oconnell_m_Page_71.txt
43d86c10909e04aa467a1637f3942689
03e9023479f4b7a0df126692fbac3badec951c2a
2325 F20101206_AABGIJ oconnell_m_Page_81.txt
9212829962adf11cf71c09d268361815
bdbad45dc1c9194d6679bc146fc2c435a89140af
2050 F20101206_AABGHU oconnell_m_Page_01thm.jpg
de20ee67d8cb2e3287128e276080c85a
d6563422e60c578680b6bcee4014c568b61a903e
41415 F20101206_AABGIK oconnell_m_Page_65.jpg
5bf5a56582f3ffeb564e7162db6fefd3
c38844ecaccc948045eeeabaa884ada28d36b0a5
108253 F20101206_AABGHV oconnell_m_Page_16.jpg
c65de4742ceb8e30711bf346144c9ac3
8d1f6427f4100589bda49ac6b0ce1cd5231aa8b7
13855 F20101206_AABGIL oconnell_m_Page_04.jp2
297d6c24658a1f94a8c4455e1bef4687
8b3584679dc08bf872516504a89440449aed3bc7
F20101206_AABGHW oconnell_m_Page_13.tif
f9aa12a8efe6c98f6e6bfd272aa2891e
144ca386a60a716b02c3a3a92a5193d6c2052514
35077 F20101206_AABGJA oconnell_m_Page_16.QC.jpg
bdf607aa56a960fcfc6611799769344a
e6fdcdb98c4dc9105cd8cc833d73e9e6c7108a44
4210 F20101206_AABGIM oconnell_m_Page_17thm.jpg
bb43bcbdfdaea169e9e143656c79139d
a3abd36702eef5403949b33abbf78890cd61b803
40473 F20101206_AABGHX oconnell_m_Page_70.pro
ea9021dbb6f928b531e3622c9db63e6a
3d4d0384bb677b5e9e347b8028f9cd6a56a5fa93
8567 F20101206_AABGJB oconnell_m_Page_46thm.jpg
e219403920964f19ab2e4f547a92b4e4
5bf7625899608a0af08fa2aee8f446621385864a
20868 F20101206_AABGIN oconnell_m_Page_31.QC.jpg
0fe2b72884fff9154269d9c57cb3f535
ca948c2afeea2a58e57b019aa2d0771a118de6e7
19316 F20101206_AABGHY oconnell_m_Page_57.pro
f76a106bb513e2bf60733296136cfa92
3e2db334d133293115f3bb0404915f5d32bf7857
73786 F20101206_AABGJC oconnell_m_Page_61.jp2
ec48124d89bda69f2571797a94307a08
2c2f59478bc69c7df9d54a83ffd57719f9d16a18
35927 F20101206_AABGHZ oconnell_m_Page_24.QC.jpg
39d6ef9b2ed11cfc23d1787171da4931
eb2275dc9f3be9b684fccc96c110ae03035963a5
90 F20101206_AABGJD oconnell_m_Page_02.txt
8910a51df2849d56047b64d2d9c54d99
dc2c3b3c088bbd7edf2a69f01e6d97d0bced5bdc
10456 F20101206_AABGIO oconnell_m_Page_90.QC.jpg
effe171305d1ade6e037e2f4678ee669
b6f232fbcf1ab5d4e27ef27dfb8faed27aa26973
28439 F20101206_AABGJE oconnell_m_Page_88.QC.jpg
d2dfd69c3fbc39b008c29c4238769ce1
fc621eb59cae8a7651e9b104cac7f4fecd6b5cca
101908 F20101206_AABGIP oconnell_m_Page_15.jp2
fb09a7c7a2eb9cda41b5fecdb071eb61
8960a089b8caa499c18e25a86eb6e262ce110009
538 F20101206_AABGJF oconnell_m_Page_02thm.jpg
20c018097d1d4972615064e6b0bc4236
2d432ff0a8e3970c7070332d0e5d3337fed8a0cc
30716 F20101206_AABGIQ oconnell_m_Page_28.jp2
9402f59e611d7dc1a57622cc3964674a
fea61d03e38022cf002206beee10f3d0e4b26303
34488 F20101206_AABGJG oconnell_m_Page_92.pro
b80542bbcae97153d3a79d718e9cc584
f281aa662b12a1c398f2f9b1e81ecf73e4133922
F20101206_AABGIR oconnell_m_Page_58.tif
0440c3ee1628d078e948ec418412013a
6a69427c83f37256129fd2c7b558fae16340b65e
109189 F20101206_AABGJH oconnell_m_Page_32.jp2
fa8f803036f889a2718e36301e8c597c
9dd6e3a3464a2d8ef5be434085ea349d2c204908
6621 F20101206_AABGIS oconnell_m_Page_67.QC.jpg
7bb818d4535ec959284b1fffcee800e5
4a3734c58e0ff7768ef48963cf5e59d61d197018
98596 F20101206_AABGJI oconnell_m_Page_19.jpg
41e67791f5eb610fbec4e9453f2b945d
5bec49ffba8023338ffaebff1d97d03d33768acb
F20101206_AABGIT oconnell_m_Page_51.tif
cdb12888340c2ac03564aeaaf4d6af6d
7c599132e37dca1cea2c4dd61361fa1babed2d66
4330 F20101206_AABGJJ oconnell_m_Page_04.QC.jpg
58366027ab837b6eb06e7351555befdd
fb365a827ddc522b4a4e6259b9769792fafb2561
17772 F20101206_AABGIU oconnell_m_Page_67.pro
a1516b732b14b337bd87537832625bed
7cd88bb3a30289df6ed656e0666b2bd568e85690
2136 F20101206_AABGJK oconnell_m_Page_20.txt
5cf28198840aa9a8fd0bd1fd4dec4579
dc1c510a2b63ef555013613615578ad6ae35904f
9060 F20101206_AABGIV oconnell_m_Page_75thm.jpg
4289a19e8dbf3c193c5a141bc9487ac2
99d0f8758cce2f5b78ebd62ca3674fad2b3c67d4
18567 F20101206_AABGJL oconnell_m_Page_62.pro
2ba900eaf80579f037ffc12cc8e43b61
dc8ae78bec009c5b6da5d5bcb398db7a0158e802
79983 F20101206_AABGIW oconnell_m_Page_29.jpg
681f8913e4f8c6fdc6b6281cb11ce80f
e2cd86070bb2c36c7c7e11128f11a4845d945cab
39038 F20101206_AABGJM oconnell_m_Page_63.pro
eebdc2b3b8059b0ffc8c6eae69184996
04586a413ff5d9edb1febf1bdca921cbe217442c
115106 F20101206_AABGIX oconnell_m_Page_24.jp2
e225df983a289dab30437f6ef5425cf8
9d368a89d6f54d8d26f495f7f1e787badd6bc7ef
149811 F20101206_AABGKA UFE0021430_00001.xml
bea960c7fa94e3c9250e90b8c1948944
1f29b48711d6966769886616243d299436c3a7d6
53346 F20101206_AABGJN oconnell_m_Page_44.pro
369921223be7c4e6961bbc628d97b9b1
e9791e1605933be6cabc5d501defdf2d20e5b607
33204 F20101206_AABGIY oconnell_m_Page_27.QC.jpg
cb6317a8d1b68060bbac872e1f0ad147
a1b02d915962387d9fc6ac3010d0a8766f0e3c65
31664 F20101206_AABGJO oconnell_m_Page_30.QC.jpg
22ddd2b12324097e6d54373b4ebc21ec
3a2bfcb417ce029cf1db601adad54fe138c7aedb
50615 F20101206_AABGIZ oconnell_m_Page_59.jpg
c46836f57d0b705b1c07e9e1ad6ca50b
8b62e65d5ab84f4883bc4f86fa6c012bd0425604
24033 F20101206_AABGKD oconnell_m_Page_01.jpg
0d95e356887efa84611e0a8ff7dd00c9
fc08e81c4970f7f74deb99b95134aab0d4a88e93
7543 F20101206_AABGJP oconnell_m_Page_38thm.jpg
63d54a10225fc03e40f37186a75783c6
4a9da374df7bafe8b9ec1c7b3c483f35361642d3
4115 F20101206_AABGKE oconnell_m_Page_02.jpg
460aa104913b817ef125fc5704d4fb94
377ad1ac07ce6fd3c085fb65b8ec6ba8b228da81
57471 F20101206_AABGJQ oconnell_m_Page_96.pro
f820e9ee6a8226e1a31fa5089253ada7
b4770c275048ccc91e4d338a893d1c01dfb59c7c
5280 F20101206_AABGKF oconnell_m_Page_03.jpg
9877315b25feff90cce3cf67ea255f75
a78c322de09583449016a7763c05a2e705c1f0bb
F20101206_AABGJR oconnell_m_Page_64.tif
3d2d5cf1a093cbbac67240773bebb6cd
751f0f7478b6b9bdb7a9fc233cf8920ffa6a29ab
12848 F20101206_AABGKG oconnell_m_Page_04.jpg
60f9df012e89738a629b707a63426bd4
fed50bca0095a2cb9419dee6b96d2300fecd7233
46505 F20101206_AABGJS oconnell_m_Page_15.pro
0ca6c415503ea3cac464f797da645bec
794891ea4fee6aa3d6839edcf314ae86797293db
117940 F20101206_AABGKH oconnell_m_Page_07.jpg
652ad0df4010e09b32e28e1a1d1ee2d9
266921f1e850742b4ad83988164158e635895df1
6664 F20101206_AABGJT oconnell_m_Page_62.QC.jpg
d0f7e8b1ea949d911164abb638075906
dedad3caf847e8cb5be68c2f960db55cb0684769
109648 F20101206_AABGKI oconnell_m_Page_08.jpg
11485564892f1707153db1e544fdcc6f
0b5b891ae5f399d7c6e00e4ca0cbc840525ea450
97595 F20101206_AABGKJ oconnell_m_Page_10.jpg
bbda85fe8ab9b91bd093bab9a0262996
e94ed5b2f8096b3383606c3f37454d0262f54f95
8444 F20101206_AABGJU oconnell_m_Page_95thm.jpg
75da2f19c516fbc0c85e59c6f0fdca5f
c995cf9b2deb76bf36a2678c43c3b2132632dcad
96727 F20101206_AABGKK oconnell_m_Page_15.jpg
c5f8cc02bc51b696b50f29ca5d37fe12
08314286868f985ce225b9aee1973ae8d9f160f5
103191 F20101206_AABGJV oconnell_m_Page_25.jpg
b6964ea289c4ef18ca1202f5a2e85287
0cec4cfc2f350b5fecdf8bf6ac6a31997725a1c3
47599 F20101206_AABGKL oconnell_m_Page_17.jpg
a7c2a58d99fd4a94175f493fe9d74d7c
40a30bedd1e1c0949da9218bd38912d7f0194d69
2061 F20101206_AABGJW oconnell_m_Page_67thm.jpg
f367d038201134aaafb6dae60624e7e9
0b2a4795745cb7bbe76f4a3d6a17c30ae2a04945
102446 F20101206_AABGLA oconnell_m_Page_43.jpg
93d96950d07817ef2be170fa7a12bc54
564ea79b5699cce32abcaa4bc4da44545df81a36
109254 F20101206_AABGKM oconnell_m_Page_20.jpg
51bcc5208c349d24d1cfedcbdf741414
4ce6d2ed3d821a2907bdb126f879001677957183
268450 F20101206_AABGJX oconnell_m.pdf
ff79800e63f028e1583c9d51e61ca053
f1d766b1ba576ca2f4b2ef25d0ba2e1f72ca6f0b
108674 F20101206_AABGLB oconnell_m_Page_44.jpg
d3e4de94921df0d585da041f53a6b779
5d7531eec0b99783c640a3956ac8aeabdaaa7868
104519 F20101206_AABGKN oconnell_m_Page_22.jpg
1f5fcc4b20310cf7016ed63058e6e167
59fbe491fde4e05889c115705e1f3364521b9f30
21420 F20101206_AABGJY oconnell_m_Page_17.pro
6cb4186f82e6cc784fd5fa93047ee119
f297b6138de81d3be2ad7ff1622f4b61494c7d8d
103353 F20101206_AABGLC oconnell_m_Page_45.jpg
06eaf8e749421c262123f0a08d48dd01
facb0a7406bc1a3ce53c923d720a28b00dc664d0
106762 F20101206_AABGKO oconnell_m_Page_26.jpg
13dc621b1477e3dce7f49f1926f1eeeb
28524c2e52c6f983fd1980c7e47da513e99ebe70
8788 F20101206_AABGJZ oconnell_m_Page_35thm.jpg
51ad5334d9d1c9906d4d26702b9d43de
a0dfa147c5b6f1fbb63d32359ed68c620ed82d4e
102373 F20101206_AABGLD oconnell_m_Page_46.jpg
7ea2ce00dd51423a2e1223584f5d2794
05aa44b8a06141ea4481048caee62710c6cb1903
28378 F20101206_AABGKP oconnell_m_Page_28.jpg
648cf8cce4a8cc73b1289034a58a2d4d
df72a7540c1365d8ea2ac65450569c5289662574
111012 F20101206_AABGLE oconnell_m_Page_47.jpg
1f575461409ea78f6f274ce171ad65f5
160ba700596274e7d5c7e0e050648549f06cf442
108103 F20101206_AABGLF oconnell_m_Page_48.jpg
8250aa4fad15fbdcd1fe5e5b018a2fd2
6be9dea2d11a5a13aacdb733fbb206178f489977
99110 F20101206_AABGKQ oconnell_m_Page_30.jpg
cdee2fdad91c7b85b158431981d82e65
04efaa955f7c96b3f3752862bb3debed1e746849
103911 F20101206_AABGLG oconnell_m_Page_49.jpg
9ccbd53c2da323c49704ec327017f225
0d7258a1cc940e4bad3128b3b2b530b0174d4001
103337 F20101206_AABGKR oconnell_m_Page_32.jpg
2299067c1d8cd4acec2d915b550188bd
ea9101159fc42e8725bbf60ec17716b849868845
108095 F20101206_AABGLH oconnell_m_Page_51.jpg
f9018bb4b1bcdb51017dace758863395
f9c03f5c910541c825589ef4eb7a698798ad5005
109097 F20101206_AABGKS oconnell_m_Page_33.jpg
09a086dae1cc58e0d0af1a8c8368ea6f
efe9ed9159854b5238bffe5bd022fb42d8be0f7b
44668 F20101206_AABGLI oconnell_m_Page_53.jpg
29d234645396861a42862c2f6d438be6
3a5576ac36edd567910fc64c9faf03a0088b5f1b
106393 F20101206_AABGKT oconnell_m_Page_35.jpg
68511e79a7600fbcf0b3bb11d550f499
b00f1ab415624f8572438237f38458d14293cd6e
17003 F20101206_AABGLJ oconnell_m_Page_54.jpg
41d0b8500fbdb4ad4204477e153ae55d
11c673cd0a5966cb218384e61545502512fb9d9f
101879 F20101206_AABGKU oconnell_m_Page_37.jpg
a1609a27c7009e39acce5dd06b9c2a73
a4803d40dd0b3e9ad443115da554d5dedfd5608b
29050 F20101206_AABGLK oconnell_m_Page_58.jpg
f16c4539d16e6946dd29ac6222422a56
a8b241b2aa21aea76ba94ed5ead07c605e4936b2
93031 F20101206_AABGKV oconnell_m_Page_38.jpg
7528e244eec1b8e3d77e62693b26e553
540ae5d122c5fa00abfe5b8552bd29ea1381f139
42332 F20101206_AABGLL oconnell_m_Page_60.jpg
2407c9f5fd16e3f2301f14e32212d1df
095bc479aa836c971425abafc8a99b69513b4c6f
87875 F20101206_AABGKW oconnell_m_Page_39.jpg
1c15b5b1621bee093d6a03dc5c2bf004
c317560eb87bc5f1a5807424f1e8c1c985bcf90d
20812 F20101206_AABGLM oconnell_m_Page_67.jpg
eea75ac2cb4605e7ce50cdcf4741f029
82681029b9e9aa53aad87f7a28767c01682e7a9e
78584 F20101206_AABGKX oconnell_m_Page_40.jpg
53ec5cf8894f87282ab999ee27899a17
a265bdbaba304a883ee80255d8b250cb5e0cc1b2
106703 F20101206_AABGMA oconnell_m_Page_87.jpg
e125384f3de520191c18555f9fd6d9f3
e7cb7a0ad8b63eb3d4e7b15c224d80db6b559faa
39733 F20101206_AABGLN oconnell_m_Page_68.jpg
76dc9f55077e19dbeeeb41b409877aae
8c018ac2d20d0fabadbf8389b0e5fbd92f7eb2bd
77884 F20101206_AABGKY oconnell_m_Page_41.jpg
552dc25e5927b478470182816cf349f5
d105f802649602c27a7400bc3c9ad9d70e7402e9
106992 F20101206_AABGMB oconnell_m_Page_88.jpg
485278464c62f04d424a67cd1f70d236
7b5dfa0ff3f2746717693e46a995f12aad2616e7
54631 F20101206_AABGLO oconnell_m_Page_69.jpg
131bb49ae4d40fc0eb49da61f2f71dc4
db691ec2d44905044feeb674d51680cc2afca129
48736 F20101206_AABGKZ oconnell_m_Page_42.jpg
3535687f7da30d983120308f0b09904b
c5078a8000c44e644bce8cabb7ddd2a9bff06e19
36309 F20101206_AABGMC oconnell_m_Page_90.jpg
873cf98e16971f42bceb1cc9014af611
f8f99bfc25e79cd2e21ac7b21152c90ee3e1c85f
49334 F20101206_AABGLP oconnell_m_Page_71.jpg
4943376a98da9f1d04d68cea967397de
2179f58a6602e2324f0ef9856947936fe8ae3b07
82168 F20101206_AABGMD oconnell_m_Page_93.jpg
c808fa73198dd03620b40b74bd0168ba
dd5f764ef20d7613f56a907dbf34d495f47a324c
18550 F20101206_AABGLQ oconnell_m_Page_72.jpg
ea68f0c0fc18026bafb441ad7d5023bc
287b879ea415dd208cdfa785a001a0a3a91d3c00
28509 F20101206_AABGME oconnell_m_Page_94.jpg
f94fcfe8407c1022b4103b556e7d4f37
f351e94b4ec988271910148d16b5dd37a9968c25
106763 F20101206_AABGMF oconnell_m_Page_95.jpg
c563bb6eb3d9e37ab12c556d5144d40a
c00e5fe8f813a5f51c32a55658ddf39d7fcacaac
105378 F20101206_AABGLR oconnell_m_Page_73.jpg
99b7dc9b3a2993a71b69bc995eafebc5
e3a194db3b72ecb64813a0449f80780d0ba9f9ec
5516 F20101206_AABGMG oconnell_m_Page_02.jp2
a2c6161519c9b98649d5059109e3b0df
6d0c3c723ed39dd3fde53009cb5468b027b1a74d
107021 F20101206_AABGLS oconnell_m_Page_74.jpg
f12c17afe1f52a7507c04f78c2327a18
30c618d520388ba5e2393deb5f3b531681306809
6418 F20101206_AABGMH oconnell_m_Page_03.jp2
d91845f81c4a63b0624f77b05d00b4e8
e57d114eda0a16667bf72b3967b61ef21c844de1
113420 F20101206_AABGLT oconnell_m_Page_75.jpg
d1bae706d14190338b25791bdca732a3
04aad6d77e4f7c7552d3b28b219bab283ce63236
1051977 F20101206_AABGMI oconnell_m_Page_05.jp2
c7a9d0ebced8a4db7340f8b81cdd2fe8
701cf3de85abfbc75c13b227a24c86675226c051
107531 F20101206_AABGLU oconnell_m_Page_76.jpg
80bd298cd2e7a8e3766264c73969b163
632ba0dee29a8ddbabcd0d4afe4d9c91f0faeca4
535029 F20101206_AABGMJ oconnell_m_Page_06.jp2
70206fa06bb0c4466523bccaee371f19
1d6c7190aad6fee00574a03535fde20901cf59a5
105051 F20101206_AABGLV oconnell_m_Page_77.jpg
dd75fa34ad81daafb6c8b40625d69668
8af6dcc0d66579210da143605535054655f7402d
1051980 F20101206_AABGMK oconnell_m_Page_07.jp2
456ae92884115d711c40ec0c77c49458
55ea5fa3d68f79caed9f03696f72e20ee1b49a10
109235 F20101206_AABGLW oconnell_m_Page_78.jpg
e9ab3d459b3258b1c729ef432463cdef
8cd0eaf2847983db53bdd2074170df255dc088c0
1051976 F20101206_AABGML oconnell_m_Page_08.jp2
074f582c76877b35ff4ac553c2a6d50d
607d81fed0a9ce648b065af879a3399524567236
92132 F20101206_AABGLX oconnell_m_Page_79.jpg
042bb619032c26e1027ef133351bb3c9
baaafa1799446acf36cb125e4a0b6a70d8b33112
608549 F20101206_AABGNA oconnell_m_Page_31.jp2
3bad1370a3a7a8afe1636175c71360ba
4f635863b60a6b8914a3f8138873daf6fc1ae415
102852 F20101206_AABGMM oconnell_m_Page_10.jp2
45ade96bdde7d78aad738eff6bad5455
03c7f02c444cf2b9f068a69ad35d68aa57c07ea0
23776 F20101206_AABGLY oconnell_m_Page_85.jpg
33744ba2ff370ec1f730c41251d72fa9
62595d4bb43cc4f4e446a48fcf4dff2e972a0a7f
120772 F20101206_AABGNB oconnell_m_Page_34.jp2
43ec77b9f8429e66199cb8c6f8e848d1
646ef08feb9fe3f047a1344f73dedccef1bc57d6
109923 F20101206_AABGMN oconnell_m_Page_12.jp2
af75840a109acbe35d1fc76270d6e024
1429d41af99020a65f008fb7ceb02c17d40f72ab
26355 F20101206_AABGLZ oconnell_m_Page_86.jpg
cdcc0f6bda7baaf8573750c1dc58cc9b
97c9327313957edbb40fc277a929f5f9cce1b5d5
111390 F20101206_AABGNC oconnell_m_Page_35.jp2
a41d884ebd7471cbf19f8fa738f6f852
fd7799bf406faa6bf4957f64384f4effda50a125
114925 F20101206_AABGMO oconnell_m_Page_16.jp2
60d2d29469c708ffb574380449fba8de
93717c140aaa73151efd0c9482b44c89ed1e1c9a
119179 F20101206_AABGND oconnell_m_Page_36.jp2
17ae0c3c97e6b790b9cdca3e8cf178e5
e36ca07a273d2e27b147537a93ea1278bcb1dff2
103972 F20101206_AABGMP oconnell_m_Page_18.jp2
9fb89ec3d5e2cfda90c620d205eb797d
b278bcc0adccc778111b8967ed3b01fe030df4c7
106795 F20101206_AABGNE oconnell_m_Page_37.jp2
c00b4122ad6c1a24392fc2457cf376dd
18681952f63e71c3ea7b63712c42d7551ca3431d
105201 F20101206_AABGMQ oconnell_m_Page_19.jp2
9161a7db698d4a4c1dcd870d92b4dba6
774aad23d64d2a17b3d4338a66a9e6de93a38908
94389 F20101206_AABGNF oconnell_m_Page_39.jp2
3282ed244f2c925280fb0e0fc78d2de3
a70a67dcfbe7f3f423e1b42c38a55880e6c28c49
115153 F20101206_AABGMR oconnell_m_Page_20.jp2
2682fc75a3f55cb19348082543d8eb7d
0bab1c8ccba58aa82bca8b4632d800501bfbb9ad
82377 F20101206_AABGNG oconnell_m_Page_40.jp2
09da894b811f07452aa364a6c201f35c
da546c49005a0224ef492b40ab4704395d3aa9bd
51467 F20101206_AABGNH oconnell_m_Page_42.jp2
693ecd2136d6ff31dd607e330aee15a7
2dc3231cc1b4a5227adde003ef67c939c7553297
113401 F20101206_AABGMS oconnell_m_Page_21.jp2
ca0acfbe14692aa7ca98a9d9684496d1
96b2b017f810eb0f157ae18e123353d22481eef3
110720 F20101206_AABGNI oconnell_m_Page_45.jp2
ac70d79011b7475ab76b9b3d58cf33d7
0ee70d39a68cb884bcc7437fde504d4c8e9bf706
110028 F20101206_AABGMT oconnell_m_Page_22.jp2
ad402306d29d3b6cd35ecea0ecc683bc
31cf73d6478dd57d825ffd8250135990c36b463f
109068 F20101206_AABGNJ oconnell_m_Page_46.jp2
18c6e70602e25c5ba1197c65c8be603b
2e42b5b54c15a85dd273621295d4d5d1c12678fd
111738 F20101206_AABGMU oconnell_m_Page_23.jp2
41ba2a8197643f3369069b4bd25eb4b2
91c43ebdc4fd4711e6114e1016fe2e0262e4bad6
117624 F20101206_AABGNK oconnell_m_Page_47.jp2
1b88ef2d276e451c8cb6961f1c804727
e978eaa3e3c8a647f02a46f1982cdc15a1b51454
110436 F20101206_AABGMV oconnell_m_Page_25.jp2
b78b1868a09d1e92fafbd251a4693825
325131c1861620613dc49034181cf5e11f3c1121
110359 F20101206_AABGNL oconnell_m_Page_49.jp2
dfe0d36909bce3b9473cdf2bcb5ed39b
2a598a29ab9ad53e63e40bd8543044f765a250d1
113781 F20101206_AABGMW oconnell_m_Page_26.jp2
1a27421bdc958495d5069359074265b8
72017bcbd2e1bcd1f51adbade4257a9df8ba7595
49429 F20101206_AABGOA oconnell_m_Page_80.jp2
6ed085a37d19e43b7eba40fe475db5dd
3ca9c58499518c1c8d9727f41c63332d4c49bc24
113855 F20101206_AABGNM oconnell_m_Page_50.jp2
6e1e475920b4103d39d2e5d7cfb08f7a
231a916d469744b050bddf02586c7a1f61874a16
106377 F20101206_AABGMX oconnell_m_Page_27.jp2
de5e15abc86dc5f0959ca1e9ef1c8e91
76ffe4e4bd27a58cb4f5259b26d577274309a402
76125 F20101206_AABGOB oconnell_m_Page_83.jp2
e430f14ee4efe87b01d7b6639549239c
9ff17026646829cc835620e4a2a31b1ef01ff8ab
114695 F20101206_AABGNN oconnell_m_Page_51.jp2
4edbc3a9e32c9414e63d420fc92aef04
10a57b83f818ef98854b5042db06b0f5e8837584
84500 F20101206_AABGMY oconnell_m_Page_29.jp2
73acb1f484da5792082993383582e896
5c2d4c05c370c9789b335ed8b094adac9554d63d
134100 F20101206_AABGOC oconnell_m_Page_88.jp2
ffc23013221213f58508186084914da3
c2078bd3fadae67e48b7514798db758b06ff7901
47407 F20101206_AABGNO oconnell_m_Page_53.jp2
a11207a915dddac028d52da79cd91c25
db16ac24e334ae65015691a7984838c37b421ad1
105211 F20101206_AABGMZ oconnell_m_Page_30.jp2
6d59de02a317df5c67c56aa8ed667a14
b27499699417e6ab0cca0f8b6e14dd2a656debd8
36120 F20101206_AABGOD oconnell_m_Page_90.jp2
fbb71157c35ce434239293aed1046a47
239330168faea120ddff5adb2381df6764ef9f46
27827 F20101206_AABGNP oconnell_m_Page_54.jp2
5ad16a81dee9073503077e296b243377
5bf78c4f8639cc64c52b85be40d005a2c1b72d57
66976 F20101206_AABGOE oconnell_m_Page_91.jp2
83da2d63558b352ce17c7379ce5f152a
13b42214357cf4bb5ce570c6ecc5a7f2d483e8a5
51885 F20101206_AABGNQ oconnell_m_Page_58.jp2
1cf13acb163cb80bb9e4cabd8bf7fc9a
89685ba555d7c0e0149c22cbb04237ce2f9fb9df
86495 F20101206_AABGOF oconnell_m_Page_92.jp2
bb9ab7feab4a024684cfc05ff95c0a7c
9167ff38501398e2ec4280a31ec763bc1fcc1790
35034 F20101206_AABGNR oconnell_m_Page_62.jp2
12addcf6b976156d442830af110d5a40
c5950d35173412e828e5167d3179346405879466
117088 F20101206_AABGOG oconnell_m_Page_95.jp2
d199c2c26d21db590d03b66178f8f621
af11c16c49db8be7ae994f7fd3696f2bddbef611
72464 F20101206_AABGNS oconnell_m_Page_65.jp2
6939e8288a48684dc2af4a20cbab69fc
2879920904f6ff6bf3a94979b02575121c2e3156
126148 F20101206_AABGOH oconnell_m_Page_96.jp2
c97528eeafb24b0125d5e7060d0c960b
1a2f3d1ecc150de5e249b5edf4942dfe5ecfea96
123956 F20101206_AABGOI oconnell_m_Page_97.jp2
39600798085f23fd5a94e82419732e95
3b40f777637b581e8f19ebd62efe17cc96ee66b7
67857 F20101206_AABGNT oconnell_m_Page_68.jp2
15a7c13f002c439212ecc3cb6947492f
d6d9e673590b42a6cfd7a9f90a32bad4f2f25345
F20101206_AABGOJ oconnell_m_Page_01.tif
ed0fa01674bc6b8d27e1f0202fcbd1e7
09a4157da5503435c95f60e1d183a88713d2343f
88070 F20101206_AABGNU oconnell_m_Page_69.jp2
13da9270e4324fd46b2826f073d8c5fb
a553bdc24103e41e7b4944a2e87aea9614d20970
F20101206_AABGOK oconnell_m_Page_02.tif
59273a03577a85c7f60d791504fe2100
08df4a196b17239c48c05783c6f1a8d0a092ceef
62849 F20101206_AABGNV oconnell_m_Page_70.jp2
3794fe6f69ab548a940b93e04427551a
729470d07b0b289e22449ab988a7412e736a49e0
F20101206_AABGOL oconnell_m_Page_03.tif
b8d5b20a8f15e0c00cea1ab01407510d
53b1ed6b6623c2c07a7d37c1b258bcc779927e83
33197 F20101206_AABGNW oconnell_m_Page_72.jp2
65ac0912944c10bec0e8e6aa0c964f79
a18022463554b8f70c582dacdeb3a77948b44b48
F20101206_AABGOM oconnell_m_Page_04.tif
f779fc8320629313e38e0f1214e46067
b9264a9e30b3cf33137f7f748f5c9e3b0258f282
119567 F20101206_AABGNX oconnell_m_Page_75.jp2
15c274376d43c3add4aacda5e34afc57
d5e995ecc107e9221321c2fd1105326f41116273
F20101206_AABGPA oconnell_m_Page_25.tif
b9f4947ad4f3335b77a2b6519a9f30e5
8d23bc91325697881c1b4103a42e1084fd7eea01
F20101206_AABGON oconnell_m_Page_05.tif
3c73e3fcb1c885fec253c74aea74de46
5cefb9be023aa25d294738a6d0ae3e79f6f23fd9
114255 F20101206_AABGNY oconnell_m_Page_78.jp2
70b921b91453d40a045befe11cee4ab6
effe6b06be53faeceb2f6d4945d999e0308ac364
F20101206_AABGPB oconnell_m_Page_27.tif
673be75465f21fccb32f73ab105d4e8f
b22b9df9669f4d2ac52299084da17ba22ab719ce
F20101206_AABGOO oconnell_m_Page_07.tif
2f1b45929ee65c87b10fca3c042cf3fb
c49d9aac101d3f91d8e31da10740fcea5cee07c2
97303 F20101206_AABGNZ oconnell_m_Page_79.jp2
897f0349739cdcbf93d5dc3d1e8a38ec
947f94c70018904afe8bb09c0eef459f26c88f6d
F20101206_AABGPC oconnell_m_Page_28.tif
917c62233e77210c176b26147a4db329
8f8b05647fa89696f2997ab2d9499714bbe5d8c7
F20101206_AABGOP oconnell_m_Page_08.tif
3ad2411f233083712765ce4a3e163647
44171d7376c6caa842a4ec305f0cdcf20ef7b61e
F20101206_AABGPD oconnell_m_Page_30.tif
3377d484036403022459d96d9e2bc87c
26a89534c118331603a5d97576e6738def49a327
F20101206_AABGOQ oconnell_m_Page_10.tif
0ce0a3d9fe9034b5e3081a6d2a6d0dec
91888cdd59560cfba74ed4e9cd57bd4488524404
F20101206_AABGPE oconnell_m_Page_31.tif
3f35988d28b3efc089903b85ce7624ab
8866203aefba4bef5142d2d527597cfa64a56a69
F20101206_AABGOR oconnell_m_Page_11.tif
0e5ef841e4d3ed8aaf17a70bb44eeb6d
48d5a739155308dfe489536d1a186d7070b78e09
F20101206_AABGPF oconnell_m_Page_35.tif
14454e14f15023920d2adf1310c35dd2
b08d4de9b13233ec5cbb7def0622baa7586fa5e5
F20101206_AABGPG oconnell_m_Page_36.tif
4598b972849f024b598d4781cb2d572d
969592257e74d0e1f50422d06b8d774d0501274f
F20101206_AABGOS oconnell_m_Page_14.tif
5b3b2afaca0b2c4aa646c16aa782d040
d34ac07d8ce8683e1f42d3c5294e6038313bd998
F20101206_AABGPH oconnell_m_Page_38.tif
ed3a386d953ae294493219681cacb92a
e1d444770ddb1d7d013f8aa42b459cad287b214f
F20101206_AABGOT oconnell_m_Page_15.tif
0db5b6798a0af7bc2438a967d086d234
0baed4fcdbcb8ea5f5bcc0b0f0f5ed5f54c2b760
F20101206_AABGPI oconnell_m_Page_40.tif
1d13a12729c1612e2cd1ce8740598ba0
c0dc51b946fde29e398033aff3186282dc44a2ec
F20101206_AABGPJ oconnell_m_Page_42.tif
d06c882ee4e6a62101bcff5f4997eed7
050063f98b15573ecc0b9d9b03970434bda42962
F20101206_AABGOU oconnell_m_Page_16.tif
756081e128c8d6ea7d38280d8fef9366
7b3a436a2093adc199decd6378e45b0f176e551c
F20101206_AABGPK oconnell_m_Page_44.tif
41a2cbb2705a5f345cf25c3e69dedfff
78d9bb77ea7814fd13c8cfb2ec7bcc3f41ea117e
F20101206_AABGOV oconnell_m_Page_19.tif
7674098ed1ea7af275684365d1332076
be297b8a652c5b1e15c5191199c6553d918eb682
F20101206_AABGPL oconnell_m_Page_47.tif
01dbdd56f6231b5238e480be21d9553c
10331ff31a8075d3cc06ba24b9a93d2ae57dfead
F20101206_AABGOW oconnell_m_Page_21.tif
0297b8782b4785d8ec746348ef3a430c
26ca5ac86068563767135a94f03255ea6b959a1e
F20101206_AABGQA oconnell_m_Page_77.tif
915406c5d6ab8dd8c39f139df20e0f5b
f709c5d2035623be7bcd3730f4a4bcf1179be0ba
F20101206_AABGPM oconnell_m_Page_48.tif
b01f56bc18104da1f43d9d1b0b74f6a6
7240f9698b0e8c1db192112e43c644adbcc88eab
F20101206_AABGOX oconnell_m_Page_22.tif
966d560a5b2469cae2de70111e1848ad
918989ca8346e2b973d02fc2c1a02dd686d6aa72
F20101206_AABGQB oconnell_m_Page_80.tif
4ed442934a6d4bac2c0a4cbe714d6ba8
fc0878b4d168e7de13e92c012897bc931a8cfa4a
F20101206_AABGPN oconnell_m_Page_53.tif
da830b8fc4c3623c1dfe4fdbf846d88f
c7b4f72d8c5dd2d2308f7d7336b67e5037447e43
F20101206_AABGOY oconnell_m_Page_23.tif
33b1a2efd5b7baa1eed508f1fd28e690
981ff7be82dc7508875e685c4a5de6bb82a7b6ff
F20101206_AABGQC oconnell_m_Page_83.tif
5a68f724181d0f106edcc977ec542bb1
3c5425ecde878839ae6e9320e40c64a00e178661
F20101206_AABGPO oconnell_m_Page_54.tif
a247a17db33e41581df1f29da164247a
0d1c87b5b79ee8cd43c0194b8954b084e17238fa
F20101206_AABGOZ oconnell_m_Page_24.tif
0f831ab3a40a47fc7224c50c4585b897
8dbc232af0d9ac6e09d10a0e32060586dc456ce2
F20101206_AABGQD oconnell_m_Page_84.tif
f0aa55ea7e9d7022079bcaabfd015d5c
a5896964d0546888dd4414246cbd5cc7a967cd2a
F20101206_AABGPP oconnell_m_Page_56.tif
aba5bf695e7c934f047f2c5f785d0c54
41ff99873ffb64f8345afb6a95c35ce6cb967f39
F20101206_AABGQE oconnell_m_Page_85.tif
bfc84c2810145581f14083e163723746
ab672cc5fa574134b67c86372e42fcdbd771c29c
F20101206_AABGPQ oconnell_m_Page_59.tif
83697ea5c3b96ee335b42fc98029a461
a0606665b2201a1d2ddafe4c1ee782a6e649d44b
F20101206_AABGQF oconnell_m_Page_86.tif
ce13a30372f44808c488ad9492084a06
0e318bd279e2bde6e78e34c9408d425a0b081e71
F20101206_AABGPR oconnell_m_Page_60.tif
9890b733c00bf4e8f1c04b5433bd5478
838bf63c03f8f496208c03c25e0c7e01aec1dac5
F20101206_AABGQG oconnell_m_Page_87.tif
cac98c5659f6881ba36334559d7986bf
09bdce4e6b512f6defa0795f1d36ef66a99b621b
F20101206_AABGPS oconnell_m_Page_61.tif
1c48705900e89ab530493cc4b2b5b9f0
76cf64e8ff1705943658da000792bd93ed353641
F20101206_AABGQH oconnell_m_Page_89.tif
c89a54b72ab92b2df0439076ee195799
c3bb7ed68bc9806eea7747102e794abef03511d1
F20101206_AABGPT oconnell_m_Page_62.tif
7463e5abe9f25b2c6bf9ff84e2cfc306
1cce37ef81aed9fee483e997d6b7d82ecf6699b3
F20101206_AABGQI oconnell_m_Page_91.tif
079fc5af7cce39d95e013ae3de076d0c
d4c876ed6b1470081cc4573bc83b5dfc2a192ddb
F20101206_AABGPU oconnell_m_Page_65.tif
351c6ffbf51027c6d490920e1d5d2e02
c83bf2a8d86ad81dca5f53e3277551916bf1e9ad
F20101206_AABGQJ oconnell_m_Page_92.tif
b430dccc05fdfe2bc494e145a41bbc1e
5efba1362ca9a174fa0706966f834dd93b216c7b
F20101206_AABGQK oconnell_m_Page_93.tif
0e903b022e87f3a50bf72df4cee56458
ecdbd0409bca58d7de1eab0b7c52e65ca7f09832
F20101206_AABGPV oconnell_m_Page_69.tif
b9afc7d30e8c989ba61b7bed6dd3c5b4
ed3f52c8fdb11c2ce50e501a3bd4965004f762c3
F20101206_AABGQL oconnell_m_Page_95.tif
9019bc9a0c86f00a3821449b106ea74d
266b284fcfe5129ecb5a6fb64e02f4c5cc9d04c7
F20101206_AABGPW oconnell_m_Page_70.tif
3041167a49244c246c817def26711da4
c0ca982b74453f58ab028ccd7df8604dd9f7207d
935 F20101206_AABGQM oconnell_m_Page_02.pro
186df53a821b8e23dbaa924807ba5807
0ea41d377a86194c2aa2605a7650aadcc871d0d1
F20101206_AABGPX oconnell_m_Page_71.tif
a1f2d656530320ce6cc51fb0adb31cb4
3cbf5df87a03591d4954149de6ed7a42cba5d9bf
51145 F20101206_AABGRA oconnell_m_Page_25.pro
64b4c4c03c413a7d230db9c73bfa52a2
44afae9771c1adc0a7e9402cec4007d8cfcab00b
1377 F20101206_AABGQN oconnell_m_Page_03.pro
5247db9fddd9b1b437feb81066dcd24c
56475514b0cf01876910fed88bb963702f1ac90e
F20101206_AABGPY oconnell_m_Page_74.tif
5d01c247bf5741f5ecb8aec7fa87983d
f69c28c17f83f3a4683f9bc21f8772b0cda3ec0b
12832 F20101206_AABGRB oconnell_m_Page_28.pro
eb5339cf0b5599a6eb20d3229d4b33c7
b2b0e9beb72ac67c4afe24976b10ae54591a67dc
12700 F20101206_AABGQO oconnell_m_Page_06.pro
441279e757f9ab48a7b37c046317df15
ca1915a64353c0a8b762c869af90e5db593ab68b
F20101206_AABGPZ oconnell_m_Page_75.tif
4ff3e40a530baa6e0a296e533b15ecb4
cc75143aa681a17e1c890d2450971270b0eccecb
37696 F20101206_AABGRC oconnell_m_Page_29.pro
61731f9cc9dd91e07dd5af74e48be6a6
655211339c99bee76312d0b78a053c55ea18247f
63808 F20101206_AABGQP oconnell_m_Page_07.pro
5f8e8f885e6b0405e31fca6c8a854141
94623502d49451efea55eb612251991ddb917458
48443 F20101206_AABGRD oconnell_m_Page_30.pro
eeceda6b83b65b944cdee7cefdec44e8
5020a0037fb9fcf25254173193e7bbf1cd7b2b32
58394 F20101206_AABGQQ oconnell_m_Page_08.pro
5c3172bae90843854a297bfe321fd972
d7ee8188e22eb3b76d193cc944cb317687513f2b
21648 F20101206_AABGRE oconnell_m_Page_31.pro
213c856318f37e6be386eb25e620007e
556b4eccc6c4d740adf0e29c4fab070e60a656d1
47210 F20101206_AABGQR oconnell_m_Page_10.pro
f8851b56efee8c4b78005aab3788d5ad
247b93561170e3c867270a75e521a58ea5449722
53084 F20101206_AABGRF oconnell_m_Page_33.pro
79aba0a64ddc1969e4633fbe39f91657
7d14d0bd5d2630c5afffa20190d7264c34921617
14217 F20101206_AABGQS oconnell_m_Page_11.pro
c1a9fce38d86bc974359820401151a6b
b2a1bf92dc61d8b7d7827dae0dfded4850164471
57112 F20101206_AABGRG oconnell_m_Page_34.pro
11f534b4b20bc8b3f6b99ce7f55ac617
1057f48b64492d16b8757842574e2fb1c83b2441
51801 F20101206_AABGQT oconnell_m_Page_14.pro
1b5be5900897304f3ff58b7169253857
dcede15da68c473c4d28763ae9fb6cad216467c1
55899 F20101206_AABGRH oconnell_m_Page_36.pro
4ae0cd460e38f3749b81638bae103078
a7fed591f7c8c2a5a49c73fd18477c82dc49bd82
54786 F20101206_AABGQU oconnell_m_Page_16.pro
cfc3408b1de9296fca14dfbd43d6256f
a3c50d5b518c3542f67d0417730d01fb4d0f8a4b
45860 F20101206_AABGRI oconnell_m_Page_38.pro
2d669c073cd1e9c1983bf255a08e1911
e0a961dff982428e4d6f392acaf45e1e11ec7ada
47718 F20101206_AABGQV oconnell_m_Page_18.pro
d1878f28336766b86a06f4dc7abe1727
bfa21622384168abcdd95222f2bca311070eddaf
42822 F20101206_AABGRJ oconnell_m_Page_39.pro
c68af395217526cb7ba8a3c0cafb7dea
2596a2f6373b0a0c6a7356ba43c70cd5fd0e2c2e
36949 F20101206_AABGRK oconnell_m_Page_41.pro
6e9f7f43e2e5e20edf69b444e9da25d4
5bdc7c6ba9258937dd8c6c4eaa7795abffa00f14
51819 F20101206_AABGQW oconnell_m_Page_21.pro
639b755d329633cb2e3496ad060b807c
3d843150bcaf605310eef0b0cc3705fc8b03c19c
22794 F20101206_AABGRL oconnell_m_Page_42.pro
dad4fe11c333228847731674860a2182
e2028b69947275fe70781601b5b20cfb4bc04ae2
51021 F20101206_AABGQX oconnell_m_Page_22.pro
10a538d0c9df0a527598359f340fa23f
8b456493ad7e9a49e2e4df8f06d64cd2c68dabe2
60415 F20101206_AABGSA oconnell_m_Page_71.pro
7b2a3f5dbc3792debc3be36fadba7ba9
71cb0bcd65464f96d1a04c3bddf0388b48fa3d0f
50425 F20101206_AABGRM oconnell_m_Page_43.pro
9c4be1ad8da55ce00b8014b80427565e
da8416f180677fd882a0d23b4b9f58b9259545ec
51156 F20101206_AABGQY oconnell_m_Page_23.pro
4ac51aae1b2fbb13754c70b2a579a4a1
abf78be0da4fa8642aee93206ecc02e84b01cfea
54036 F20101206_AABGSB oconnell_m_Page_74.pro
25df22ba9702b788107be5c2f55b58fe
b155df289634156858c44af16265487676cb6169
50845 F20101206_AABGRN oconnell_m_Page_46.pro
3742da4d31b78287612ecd3b11b8d57d
c847c4b47f2ad2f96b67c3aa191d6f070b91da24
52662 F20101206_AABGQZ oconnell_m_Page_24.pro
3928f29616f2e6428ae35852544ce8ee
0adfe685815d18f4cdf52b9d2ec12471a2335305
57507 F20101206_AABGSC oconnell_m_Page_75.pro
cfc2883ce10e941ceb926a13f1b8bab9
2e50e083474e64443dd79d1551dcf7e9d80a007a
55079 F20101206_AABGRO oconnell_m_Page_47.pro
8c47aef65cf9b3e526560efcdfe18f9a
208cdef995a4f2abe96ac0069f6cd92ddb5c3aa5
52314 F20101206_AABGSD oconnell_m_Page_77.pro
e2e358276e4051495bb6de4957762c9b
a2a9cd4a9d60857b1b651e2c7ee864160a54d624
54866 F20101206_AABGRP oconnell_m_Page_48.pro
8b13850781608a6403a2876b7789a272
d50bb014a0a531cc1e18393845d48adcdad927b3







A GENERAL EQUILBRIUM ANALYSIS OF PROPERTY TAX INT FLORIDA


By

MIKE O'CONNELL
















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007

































O 2007 by Mike O' Connell

































To Roberta Hammond with love and gratitude









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my dissertation committee, Robert Emerson, Burl Long, David Mulkey and David

Denslow for their forbearance, patience, help and advice.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES ............_...... ._ ...............7....


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............9.....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 10...


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............12.......... ......


2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............18................


Theoretical Literature .............. ...............18....

Empirical Literature .................. ............... ...............20.......
IMPLAN Based Regional CGE Models............... ...............21.
Tax Policy Analysis............... ...............25

3 METHODOLOGY .............. ...............29....


The General Equilibrium Model ............ ..... ._ ...............29...
The Social Accounting Matrix............... ...............33.
Tax Poli cy Analy si s and Simul ati on ........._...... ...............35...._.._. .
CGE Model Code Implementation ............ ..... .__ ...............36..

4 DATA ANALYSIS .............. ...............39....


5 RE SULT S .............. ...............43....


Scenario I: Owner Occupied Housing Tax Results .............. ...............44....
Scenario II: Housing Services Tax Results .............. ...............47....
Scenario III: Capital Tax Results............... ...............49
Sum mary ............ ..... ._ ............... 1....

6 CONCLUSIONS .............. ...............73....


APPENDIX


A AGGREGATE IMPLAN SAM, 2003 .............. ...............80....


B DETAILED IMPLAN SAM, 2003 ................. ...............81........... ...

C IMPLAN INDIRECT BUSINESS TAXES ................. ...............85...............












D NAICS CATEGORIES .............. ...............86....


E JUST AND TAXABLE VALUE BY USECODE .............. ...............87....


F DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TO NAICS CROS SWALK ................. ............ .........90


G IMPLAN GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM MODEL PROGRAM ......____ ....... ....._.........91


LIST OF REFERENCES ............ ..... ._ ...............95...


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ...............99....











LIST OF TABLES

Table page

1-1 Source of taxes in Florida ................ ...............15...............

4-1 Florida industry value added shares, 2003 ................. ...............39........... ..

4-2 Florida industry import shares, 2003 .............. ...............40....

4-3 Florida industry labor intensity shares, 2003 .............. ...............40....

4-4 Distribution of labor across Florida industries, 2003 ................. ................. ..........41

4-5 Indirect business tax as percent of production ................. ...............42..............

4-6 Ad valorem tax as percent of capital ................. ...............42..............

5-1 Output results owner occupied housing simulation ................. .............................54

5-2 Domestic inputs results owner occupied housing simulation ................. .....................55

5-3 Imported inputs results owner occupied housing simulation ................. ............. .......56

5-4 Factor inputs results owner occupied housing simulation ................ .......................56

5-5 CET domestic results owner occupied housing simulation ........._ ..... ..._._..........57

5-6 CET export results owner occupied housing simulation .............. ....... .............5

5-7 Export results owner occupied housing simulation .............. ...............58....

5-8 Import results owner occupied housing simulation .............. ...............59....

5-9 Final household consumption results owner occupied housing simulation.......................59

5-10 Armington household results owner occupied housing simulation ............. .............59

5-11 Output results housing services simulation............... ...............6

5-12 Domesti c inputs re sults housing servi ce s simul ati on ...._._._.. ............. ........._.....6

5-13 Imported inputs results housing services simulation .............. ...............61....

5-14 Factor inputs results housing services simulation............... ...............6

5-15 CET domestic c re sults housing servi ces simul ati on ................. ......___. ........._._...6

5-16 CET export results housing services simulation............... ...............6

5-17 Export results housing services simulation ................. ....__ ...................6











5-18 Import results housing services simulation............... ...............6

5-19 Final household consumption results housing services simulation .............. ..................64

5-20 Armington household results housing services simulation............... ...............6

5-22 Domesti c inputs results capital tax simul ati on ................. ...............65.............

5-23 Imported inputs results capital tax simulation .............. ...............66....

5-24 Factor inputs results capital tax simulation............... ...............6

5-25 CET dome sti c results capital tax simul ati on ................. ...............67...........

5-26 CET export results capital tax simulation ................. ...............68........... ..

5-27 Export results capital tax simulation ................. ...............68..............

5-28 Import results capital tax simulation............... ...............6

5-29 Final household consumption results capital tax simulation .............. ....................6

5-30 Armington household results capital tax simulation............... ...............6

5-31 Investments results table ................. ...............69........... ...


5-32 Output results table .............. ...............70....

5-33 Labor results table............... ...............70.


5-34 Capital results table............... ...............71.

5-35 Exports results table............... ...............71.

5-36 Imports results table............... ...............71.

5-37 Household results table ................. ...............72................


A-1 Aggregate IMPLAN SAM, 2003 .............. ...............80....

B-1 Detailed IMPLAN SAM, 2003 .............. ...............81....

C-1 IMPLAN indirect business taxes .............. ...............85....


D-1 NAIC S categories .............. ...............86....

E-1 Just and taxable value by usecode .............. ...............87....

F-1 Department of Revenue to NAICS Crosswalk ................. ...............90........... ..










LIST OF FIGURES


Fiare


page


3 -1 CGE framework ............. ...... ._ ............... 1...









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

A GENERAL EQUILBRIUM ANALYSIS OF PROPERTY TAX INT FLORIDA

By

Mike O'Connell

December 2007

Chair: Robert Emerson
Major: Food and Resource Economics

This dissertation uses a general equilibrium model to analyze the effects of property tax

policy on various industrial sectors of the economy and on the distribution of income. A general

equilibrium model is an established methodology used to evaluate the impact of tax policy. The

empirical basis for the model is a social accounting matrix that includes a production section

transforming intermediate inputs, labor and capital factors into commodity output for the

domestic and export market. The domestic commodities are allocated to intermediate inputs and

final consumption by household groups, government and the investment sector.

The behavior of producers and consumers is described by the optimization of profit and

utility functions subject to technological and income constraints. There are nine household

groups distinguished by income and twelve industry sectors which include owner-occupied

housing. The dissertation research consists of running counterfactual scenarios with the model.

Each scenario represents an alternative treatment of the ad valorem property tax.

The general equilibrium model formulation with multiple economic agents and institutions

permits the estimation of the detailed and systematic impacts of public policy. As with any

positive economic approach, the evaluation of policy presents an obj ective assessment that gives

support to decision making. An important conclusion of the research is that the total









consumption by household groups as a welfare measure of the change in public policy indicates

a clearly neutral impact. There are differences across income groups as to their consumption of

owner-occupied housing. Another conclusion of the research is that there are significant

differences in the productive output and use of factor inputs of the various industrial sectors.

The change in tax policy also has a positive effect on the housing sector which is composed of

owner-occupied housing and real estate which includes rentals.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Taxes are certain and controversial with none more controversial than local government

property taxes. Over the last several decades there has been what could be characterized a

citizen's revolt against property taxes with a number of legislative actions such as circuit

breakers and tax limitation programs. In 1995, the State of Florida introduced a property tax

initiative called Save Our Homes. Under Save Our Homes, the increase in taxable value of a

residence is limited to three percent a year or less.

As a source for state and local government spending, ad valorem taxes and sales taxes are

by far the largest revenue base (Table 1-1). In Florida, an advantage of the sales tax is that a

share is paid by nonresidents due to the tourism industry; a disadvantage is that sales tax

collections follow the cyclicality of the national economy due to the cyclicality of tourism. At a

local level there is a recurring conflict between the requirements for education expenditure at the

local level which is primarily funded with ad valorem taxes and property tax relief. The state

must evaluate the benefits and costs of one tax source over another. This estimation procedure

and resulting decisions with regard to tax collection and spending is a basic application in the

Hield of public economics which deals with the efficiency and equity of government policy.

The research or economic problem addressed in this dissertation is that of establishing a

method or tool to assist in choosing the optimal policy in terms of efficiency and fairness. In

making the policy analysis and decision, the state evaluates the impact that alternative policies

will have on the specific industry sectors, consumers and the overall economy. Government

expenditures and revenue collection decisions have an impact on industrial sectors and

household groups which in turn have a reciprocal effect on state and local governments. These









shared interactions are described in a model representation where the economic outcome of all

agents and institutions is endogenously determined.

A reliable and comprehensive method for conducting the tax policy analysis is not only

necessary but fundamental to the types of factors contributing to the outcome of the policy

choice. The economic model utilized in this dissertation is a computable general equilibrium

(CGE) model. Besides providing detailed information on the individual business sectors and

households in the economy, it provides a complete representation of the overall state or regional

economy .

The research obj ective is to determine equilibrium solutions resulting from alternative tax

policies through a CGE model as a complete implementation of public policy analysis. Different

choices of tax policies are evaluated by examining the alternative equilibria of the economic

model that are brought about from changing policy parameters. The CGE model has nine

household groups and twelve industry sectors. The model incorporates the state's tax structure.

Three scenarios will be developed with the model to simulate the outcome of alternative

tax policy decisions. The analysis will be conducted using the Harberger equal revenue yield

procedure where all scenarios maintain the same level of government services. This procedure

allows for the separation of the effects of changes in tax policy from changes in the provision of

public goods. An examination of the compound effects of a change in revenue and consequent

change in public expenditures is relevant but as an initial approach to evaluating tax policy the

Harberger procedure is fundamentally important. The approach used in this dissertation can be

seen as the first stage in a full analysis. The next stage would be the balanced budget approach.

This topic is an interesting and important one since the 2007 Florida legislature is currently

considering changes in the property tax system. Existing tax policy analysis typically concerns









itself with the direct estimation of changes to general revenue funds with strong ceteris paribus

assumptions regarding the behavior of economic agents. It is rare for actual tax policy analysis

to consider the impact on income distribution of households.

It has been observed that, over time, the distribution of income, both nationally and

regionally, has become more unequal. A recent study of the changing pattern of the distribution

of income in the United States has been conducted by Dew-Becker and Gordon (2005). The

increasing inequalities of income at the top end of the distribution and recent demographic trends

have increased the demand for real property in Florida especially in the coastal areas. Upper

pressure on real estate prices has prompted the current legislative activity with regards to

property tax policy.

The CGE model developed in this dissertation analyzes the effects of changes in property

tax policy on various sectors of the economy in the State of Florida and on the distribution of

income. By using a CGE model and equal-yield differential tax analysis to study tax policy, this

document attempts to makes an original contribution to the field of public economics. A CGE

model can incorporate multiple household agents classified according to income. This

formulation allows for an assessment of the distributional impact of a change in property taxes.

A general equilibrium model is an established methodology used to evaluate the efficiency

and equity of tax policy. The model describes the interactions between multiple markets, sectors

and economic agents with the weakest level of ceteris paribus assumptions. Estimation of the

feedback effects between interrelated markets and sectors of the economy is essential for

determining the final incidence of tax policy and evaluating its distributional and equity impacts.

The distributional impact of these programs in terms of their progressivity or regressivity










depends on the incidence of the property tax. The CGE model is used to evaluate the real

property tax system within the capital theory of tax incidence

The research was conducted by utilizing the IMPLAN1 regional database in the

construction of a Florida Social Accounting Matrix (SAM). The GAMS (General Algebraic

Modeling System) MPSGE (Mathematical Programming System for General Equilibrium)

software program was used. This software was originally developed in 1987 by the World Bank.

The State of Florida' s tax system is composed of several different tax categories. Table 1-

1 presents information on tax sources for general revenue funds as reported by the Florida

Department of Revenue and state legislature. Direct taxes are levied on individuals or

corporations. Indirect taxes such as sales taxes are imposed on a selection of commodities.

Florida has been eliminating the direct revenue source of intangible tax over several years (2002-

2005).

Table 1-1: Source of taxes in Florida
2003-04 $ 1,000,000
Sales and use tax 17,814.1
Motor & special fuel taxes 2,017.7
Corporation income tax 1,344.7
Documentary stamp tax 2,632.1
Intangibles tax 857.1
Beverage licenses and tax 624.3
Cigarette and tobacco products tax 446.4
Motor vehicle. & mobile home annual reg. 608.3
Ad valorem taxes 22,405.2
All others 11,091.4
2005 Florida Tax Handbook

An important fact about the relative size of taxes and public spending in Florida is that it

ranks near the bottom when compared to levels of other states. It is 48th out of 50 in terms of

per capital revenue production. The amount of revenue relative to the state's overall economic


SIMPLAN is an economic impact modeling system produced by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group since 1993.









activity has a telling influence on the magnitude of changes in tax policy and the conclusions of

this dissertation.

There are three important conclusions that have policy implications. First, the size of the

impact of the simulated tax policy is small in terms of final consumption of households as a

measure of welfare. Second, the housing services sector which is composed of owner-occupied

housing and real estate is positively impacted by the change in property tax policy. Third, the

lower income household groups are impacted to a greater degree from the reduction in property

taxes in terms of their consumption of owner-occupied housing.

These aspects of the model conclusions are noteworthy. If the welfare of households is the

primary valuation of the benefits of public policy, then the insignificant resulting impacts on the

distribution of income from the elimination of the property tax represent a neutral appraisal. The

positive impacts on specific industries are significant. The individual outcomes of the model's

industrial sectors are linked to their relative share of taxes paid and their factor intensity.

An interesting outcome of the counterfactual simulations is the transfer of capital between

industries. Of those sectors that are positively affected by the change in tax policy, there is a

movement of capital to certain industries. There is an increase in labor in those industries losing

capital so that their output remains positive. At the institutional scale level, there is a substitution

of investment for household consumption. Once again the magnitude of the substitution is slight

but it does show the consequences of a change in a capital tax.

The results of the general equilibrium analysis can be used to present a comprehensive and

informative perspective. As with any positive economic approach, the evaluation of public

policy functions is an objective assessment that gives support to decision making. The model

result of consumption being replaced by investment indicates a need for further research utilizing










a dynamic CGE model where the flow of capital services is related to the capital stock and

additional investment could lead to an expansion of consumption in the future due to increased

capacity .

The next section will consist of a literature review on general equilibrium modeling and

tax policy evaluation. A methodology section will follow with a description of the equations that

constitute the CGE model. The methodology section will also explain the social accounting data

matrix and equal yield differential tax analysis. The next section, on data analysis, will describe

the economy using the summary data from the social accounting matrix (SAM). The IMPLAN

SAM will form the source data for the empirical model. The dissertation will conclude with the

results of the model simulation and discussion.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical Literature

General equilibrium modeling is based on microeconomic theory which describes the

behavior of firms as maximizing profit subject to a technology constraint and households as

maximizing utility subj ect to a budget constraint. The theory results in the derivations of

demand and supply functions which serve as central equations in the model. Prices are

determined by the equality of supply and demand within factor and commodity markets. The

microeconomic foundations of general equilibrium modeling have been thoroughly explained by

Ginsburgh and Keyzer (1997), Starr (1997), and Katzner (1989).

General equilibrium modeling roots extend back to the neoclassical economists of the

nineteenth century, especially Walras (1834-1910). His contribution to and continuing influence

on general equilibrium theory is evident from the role that "Walras' law" plays in the modern

treatment of the theory. Walras created a mathematical model of the economy consisting of an

interdependent system of supply and demand equations. Any single market equation was

redundant in that if the rest of the system was in equilibrium, then by definition the sole

remaining equation would also balance.

The Edgeworth-Bowley box (Edgeworth (1845-1926) and Bowley (1869-1957)) is a

standard method for examining the multi-market clearing function of prices by graphing a two-

industry or two-household economy. The interdependent markets adjust simultaneously. This

simple framework allows for the representation of the efficiency of a multi-market or multi-agent

equilibrium allocation. The efficiency of equilibrium is represented by the condition that the rate

at which the individual agent is willing to exchange goods must be equal to the rate at which they










are required to trade. These rates are the consumer' s marginal rate of substitution, the producer' s

rate of product transformation and the price ratio.

This basic Edgeworth-Bowley model demonstrates the possibilities that open up when

dealing with a multi-market and multi-agent setting. The equilibrium allocation takes on

additional significance in terms of its efficiency. A market outcome is Pareto efficient if no

agent can improve his situation with further trades without making some other agent worse off.

The First Welfare Theorem demonstrates that the competitive market price equilibrium is a

Pareto efficient allocation.

The multi-market and multi-agent framework also allows for the possibilities of

introducing the concepts of social welfare and the equity or distributional property of the

equilibrium allocation. This critical attribute of the equilibrium solution will play an essential

role in this dissertation. Another significant property of a general equilibrium solution is its

existence.

The theoretical basis for the existence of a general equilibrium model solution was

established forty years ago by Arrow (1971, 1974), Debreu (1959) and Scarf (1967, 1973).

Along with postulating the critical assumptions necessary for a solution, the Arrow-Debreu

general equilibrium model uses a Eixed-point theorem to prove the existence of an equilibrium

solution.

General equilibrium models are mainly built to analyze the effects of real world policy on

the economy. At this point they are called applied or computable general equilibrium models.

Thus, the ability to actually establish an equilibrium given empirical data is essential. The Eixed

point mapping can be developed into a numerical algorithm that converges to a solution of the

model as established by Scarf (1967, 1973). The numerical recalculation of an equilibrium









solution comes into play when a policy variable is changed in order to determine its effect on the

model's solution

Empirical Literature

A computable or applied general equilibrium model (CGE) is the empirical application of

general equilibrium theory using real world data and practical solution algorithms. This research

effort makes it possible to estimate the economic response to policy changes. Shoven and

Whalley (1984 and 1992) laid the groundwork for much of this activity. They used their applied

models to analyze trade and tax policy. Other general introductions are those by Gunning and

Keyzer (1995), and by Kehoe and Kehoe (1994).

A CGE model is made up of a system of demand and supply equations, income identities

and other functions. The general equilibrium model can be represented as a system of nonlinear

equations and solved as such. The model's parameters or coefficients are calibrated rather than

estimated. The model is calibrated when its initial solution reproduces or replicates the

benchmark data. The primary or benchmark database used in the calibration process to derive

the model equation' s parameter values takes the form of a social accounting matrix (SAM).

A social accounting matrix is a comprehensive mapping of the structure of the economy.

It describes by the means of accounts represented by rows and columns of a table the production

process of industries, the returns to factor markets, final demand for commodities, the external

balance and the distribution of income among institutional agents. It is the inclusion of the

income accounts of households that makes general equilibrium analysis wholly suited for

assessing the equity outcomes and redistribution effects of policies.

The system's parameterized equations produce the equilibrium prices and quantities for all

the endogenous variables as observed in the SAM database. By changing a parameter or

exogenous variable, a counterfactual equilibrium of the general equilibrium model can be









simulated and compared to the benchmark solution. Conclusions about the impact of policy can

be drawn from the change in the model's equilibrium variables, especially the welfare change in

the level and distribution of income.

The early CGE models in the 1970s and 1980s were national in scale. National CGE

models benefit from the prevalence of data, such as the National Product and Income Accounts

and the Input-Output Accounts compiled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Later, in

the 1990s, regional CGE models were built. A major review of regional general equilibrium

models was done by Partridge and Rickman (1998). The amount and detail of data needed for a

CGE model is acutely limiting on the regional level as compared to the national and international

levels.

IMPLAN Based Regional CGE Models

One existing source of data that can form the basis for constructing a regional CGE model

is the commercial IMPLAN software product and related database. IMPLAN is primarily used

for economic impact analysis by means of an extended input-output methodology which

generates employment, income and output multipliers. It was initially developed by the USDA

Forest Service. IMPLAN develops a regional SAM as part of its analysis procedures. The SAM

is then available as a stand-alone structure.

There have been a number of regional CGE models built using the IMPLAN SAM. Some

models represent prototypes that serve as standard examples for a cluster of individual research

efforts. These prototypes can be characterized by the particular specification of the IMPLAN

SAM. The problem being addressed determines the way in which a SAM is specified.

In order to understand the prototype variations, it is necessary to present the structure of

the standard IMPLAN SAM. The columns and rows of the SAM are indexed by the following

ordered list: industrial sectors, commodities, factors of production, institutions and foreign trade.









IMPLAN has 509 different industries and commodities which can be aggregated according to the

characteristics of the subj ect matter being investigated.

Proceeding down the first column of Appendices A and B, collection of industries, there is

a use matrix that corresponds to an input-output table. Next there are the factors of production

and indirect business taxes. The labor and capital factor inputs follow the BEA classifications

where employment compensation and proprietor income are assigned to labor returns and other

property income is assigned to the return to capital. The Einal element is the use of imports in the

production process.

The next column corresponds to a set of commodities which is composed of a make matrix

that represents the output of industries and an institutional make matrix that represents the output

of institutions. The latter matrix is unique to the IMPLAN SAM and is derived from the

negative entries in the BEA accounts. Institutions consist of households distinguished by income

levels, government (federal, state and local), enterprise and capital (investment and inventory

change).

The factor column is the distribution of factor returns to institutions and the imports of

factors. Factor imports are unique to the IMPLAN SAM and are derived as residuals. The

institutional column consists of final demand of commodity, inter-institutional transfers and

commodity imports. The Einal column represents exports of commodities by industries and

institutions. Institutional exports are also unique to the IMPLAN SAM.

The State of Oklahoma IMPLAN CGE is documented in the web book by Vargas and

Schreiner (1996). This Oklahoma CGE model has served as the basis for numerous dissertations

and research articles such as Budiyanti (1990) and Koh (1991). A frequent re-specification of

the IMPLAN SAM is to move indirect business tax from factor returns to the government row of









the institution sector. An individual feature of each prototype is how it translates the BEA

income categories into the factors of production, land, labor and capital. As with all regional

IMPLAN CGE models, employment compensation is readily consigned to labor. The Budiyanti

(1990) Oklahoma IMPLAN CGE model translates proprietor income as capital and other

property income as returns to land.

The Koh (1991) Oklahoma IMPLAN CGE model translates other property income as

capital which seems to be the general practice in these types of models. Koh allocates proprietor

income between capital and labor. Land is derived from an external calculation and both models

assign land only to the agricultural sector. Both SAMs lack an institutional make matrix but both

have labor inputs into the household and government institutions.

Another early example of a regional CGE model is the Ohio model by Kraybill and Pai

(1995). This Ohio CGE model has formed the basis of a number of dissertations and research

articles such as Seung (1996) and Seung and Kraybill (1999, 2001). The model has two factors

of production, labor and capital. This is true for most of the CGE models covered in this section.

The Ohio model considers federal government expenditures as an exogenous part of the external

trade or rest of world sector.

One current version of the IMPLAN model is the Washington-Idaho regional CGE model

developed by Stodick, Holland and Devadoss (2004). This model is based on the International

Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Standard CGE model (Lofgren, Harris, et al. 2001). The

interindustry use matrix is import-laden which means that imported commodities that are used in

production are combined with domestic inputs in the SAM. Institutional imports are totaled and

relocated to the commodity make column. Industrial and institutional exports are combined and

relocated to the final demand commodity row.









The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) CGE model was developed by

Hanson and Vogel (1998, 2000). It is based on the USDA/ERS CGE model by Robinson,

Kilkenny, et al. (1990). Hanson and Vogel's adjustments to the basic IMPLAN SAM are used in

this dissertation. They perform major revisions to the structure of the IMPLAN SAM. Domestic

and imported commodities are combined for intermediate and Einal demand. The difference

between the investment institution column and its row represents net savings which is typically

negative for low income households. Net savings replaces the investment institution row in the

inter-institutional transfer matrix and its corresponding column is zeroed out.

The institutional make and export matrix which represent negative final demands are

recombined with the Einal demand matrix. Indirect business taxes are moved from factor returns

to the government institution account. This particular re-specifieation was encountered in the

first two SAM prototypes. In the standard IMPLAN SAM other property income is mapped to

the enterprise institution and then from the enterprise account to other institutions. In the USDA

SAM, other property income is mapped directly to the appropriate corresponding institutional

account. The enterprise account becomes a balancing account for adjustment made to other

SAM components.

Another recent version of the IMPLAN based model is the Rutherford regional CGE

model (2004). In the Rutherford SAM the intermediate and Einal demand sectors are import-

laden. Industry and institution exports are combined to form total exports. The institutional

make and exports are assigned to proprietor income and factor imports are assigned to factor

endowment. The base data are adjusted and standardized to guarantee that they balance.

There are a number of individual regional CGE models that use the IMPLAN SAM

(Berck, Goland, et al. (1996); Hoffmann, Robinson, et al., (1996)). The former CGE model was










designed to examine the fiscal policy of the California state tax system. Two other relevant

instances of IMPLAN regional general equilibrium models that were used to evaluate state

property tax program initiatives are those created by Julia-Wise, et al. (2002) and Waters, et al.

(1997). Because the programs that they analyzed were linked to public education expenditures,

their models used a balanced budget incidence approach whereby a change in revenue is

accompanied by a corresponding change in expenditure so as to maintain a balanced budget.

Equal-yield differential tax analysis is in contrast to the Julia-Wise et al. and Waters et al.

method with a revenue-neutral approach "where government activity is held fixed in real terms,

and the direct incidence of taxes is shifted from one set of economic factors to another (Waters et

al. (1997), p. 75)."

However, the balanced budget type of analysis method "precludes comprehensive welfare

comparisons (Waters et al. (1997), p. 75)." Both papers use the same methodology and result in

the income distributional impacts of property tax policy. These articles are thus exemplars for

this dissertation and serve as the basis for a crucial extension. Knowledge of the change in

income distribution given a change in the consumption of public goods does not permit a

judgment as to who is better or worse off due to the change in tax policy. Given a similar tax

policy situation and method this dissertation conducts a revenue-neutral or equal-yield tax policy

analysis and examines the distributional effects.

Tax Policy Analysis

There are a number of taxes that the government may employ to collect revenue. Tax

policy in general analyzes the different taxes as to their efficiency and equity. The latter concept

is related to the incidence of a tax or who actually pays it. Equity consists of how that burden is

distributed across those individuals paying the tax.









The inequity of the income distribution of households and whether it is increasing over

time has been the subj ect of numerous articles, studies and editorials (Berliner 2007; Wheelan

2007; and Levy 2002). A few have looked specifically at the State of Florida (Kim 2004; Lynch

2003 and the Economic Policy Institute 2002). A complete set of papers on the topic of tax

policy and income inequality can be found in the edited books by Bradford (1995) and Hassett

and Hubbard (2001).

The hypothesis of who pays the property tax has been explained from at least two different

theoretical perspectives. The different arguments are covered in an extensive collection of

sources such as Aaron (1975), Blake (1979 and 1981), Fisher (1996), Raimondo (1992),

Hamilton (1976), Mieszkowski (1972), and Zodrow (1986, 2001). The new or capital view

represents the property tax as a tax on capital and the owners of capital. The tax cost is

capitalized into the value of the land and improvements.

The old or traditional view is that the tax burden falls upon consumers and producers who

own real property. Business firms depending on the elasticity of demand for their product are

able to shift the tax onto the purchasers of their goods and services as an increase in costs.

Households are unable to shift the tax. However, households are seen as receiving a

corresponding benefit from their contribution towards the provision of public services. Thus

property tax is viewed as a benefit payment or user charge.

Mieszkowski (1972) attempted to reconcile the two viewpoints making a distinction

between the national and local effects of property taxes. Local differences from a global average

property tax rate would create an excise-like tax that affects prices and land use allocation

between low and high tax areas. The reduction or elimination of the state' s property tax results

in a regional difference from the national average. The transfer of real property ownership title









to out-of-state residents is crucially important to the Florida real estate market. There is a

contrast between the exchange of productive factors and the exchange of the commodities made

up of those factors.

The application of a quasi national model with fixed factors of production and an open

exchange of goods seems appropriate to the study of the local components of tax policy where

land is immobile but its ownership is highly mobile. The CGE model solution represents the

equilibrated rate of return on capital. Investment in the model is endogenous and responds to the

price of capital.

Property tax is definitely seen as a tax on capital assets which includes land and

improvements to the land. Two types of property are modeled: residential and non-residential.

Residential property is categorized as owner-occupied and rental housing. Non-residential

includes industrial and commercial property.

Harberger is a forerunner of empirical tax policy analysis (1959, 1962 and 1966). His

maj or focus was corporate income tax but the methodology that he created has been used to

analyze other taxes. His approach to tax policy analysis is called equal-yield equilibrium where

the yield refers to the amount of revenue collected. Harberger' s rudimentary general equilibrium

model was composed of two goods and two consumers. The problem with examining the impact

of changing, introducing or eliminating a tax is that the resulting change in public expenditures

would confound the welfare effects and prevent the separate measurement of the impact of the

tax as opposed to the altered consumption bundle demanded by households. If there could be an

offsetting change in another revenue source so as to maintain a constant level of government,

then the unique effect of the subj ect tax could be estimated. This approach to examining the









welfare consequences of the tax policy analysis is also referred to as revenue-neutral or

differential tax analysis (Musgrave, 1959).

The technique of equal-yield differential tax policy analysis holds the real value of

government expenditures constant by adjusting an alternative tax instrument while the impact of

the existing tax is estimated. The level of the former tax rate becomes an endogenous variable

that adjusts so as to maintain the value of public spending constant.









CHAPTER 3
IVETHODOLOGY

The General Equilibrium Model

The general equilibrium model is composed of market exchanges and transactions between

economic agents such as households, firms, government, capital, and the foreign sectors. It

describes the interdependent behavior of economic agents. Each product and factor market is

characterized by a demand equation, a supply equation and a market clearing condition. The

behavior of firms is characterized by the purchase of factors of production from households and

intermediate goods from other firms in order to produce commodities so as to maximize its

profits .

Commodity sector supply is built up from the individual producers within that sector.

Each sector, Y, produces a domestic commodity, D, and an export commodity, E, according to a

constant elasticity of transformation (CET) function


Y,=soD, +(1-B))E,' Pi( I) 3-1

The production process is represented by a nested function of intermediate goods, labor

and capital. At the lowest level the composite intermediate inputs are made up of domestic and

imported commodities. These inputs are a constant elasticity of substitution (CES) Armington

function of domestic and imported commodities.


X, = SXD),"+(1- ,)XjM' I," 3-2

The composite intermediate goods enter the production process via a Leontief function

where ai is a share parameter greater than zero and summing to one.

Y = mini [xl / al i 3-3










Capital and labor factors enter as a Cobb-Douglas value added function. Capital is an

inclusive term which contains the flow of services from all productive assets whether they are

physical equipment or improved land and real property. Finally, the value added and the

composite intermediate goods are incorporated into a Leontief function at the highest level of

nesting. These technological equations enter into a cost minimizing optimization process to

derive cost and demand functions that are components of the CGE model.

Taxes are introduced into the CGE model either as a tax on output or as a tax on the inputs

to production. The sales tax which is a tax on output is paid for on a gross basis (1 + tax rate)

and the capital tax which is a tax on inputs is paid for on a net basis (1 tax rate). Given the tax

system in Florida the maj ority of taxes will enter as indirect business taxes on output. Property

taxes are introduced as a tax on the capital input.

Final demands by households, government and investment are modeled by a Cobb-

Douglas (CD) Armington function of domestic and imported goods.

A = D 2"1' M"
3-4

The structure of the CGE model is illustrated by Figure 3-1 which was used by Rutherford

and Paltsey (1999) and Rutherford and Light (2001). Output (Y) is produced by means of labor

(L) and capital (K) which are supplied by households. Intermediate goods (A) which are an

Armington aggregate of domestic (D) and imported goods (M) are also an input to the

production of output. Output is distributed between the export sector (E) and domestic market

via a constant elasticity of transformation function. The Armington composite good is purchased

by final consumption (C), government (G) and investment (I). Households consume final goods

(C), public services (G) and save or borrow funds (I).









































Figure 3-1: CGE framework

In addition to the household block with its endowment of labor and capital, there is a

government block with analogous endowments of labor and capital tax revenue. Capital tax

revenue contains the corporate income tax as well as property tax. Besides consuming final

goods and borrowing funds the government makes transfers to other institutions. The investment

block' s capital endowment represents accrued depreciation.

One special characteristic of general equilibrium models is that they are solved only in

terms of relative prices. This result was established in the first equation system of Walras. A

modeling convention is to choose a numeraire such that prices are equal to one in the benchmark

model. Thus, the variables are expressed in quantity terms.









The final demand commodity structure contains a composite good called housing service

and eleven other goods and services. The composite good housing service is composed of owner

occupied dwelling units as defined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and real estate

which includes rental units. There is a nested demand structure for consumption goods in the

CGE model whereby households decide between their housing expenditures and all other goods

and then they decide between a home purchase and renting. Other commodities included in the

model are the standard major aggregated NAICS categories (Appendix D). The NAICS codes

are the North American industry coding system for the classification of industrial sectors.

Each economic agent or institution is defined by an income and expenditure equation

condition. Households earn income from the sale of their endowment of capital and labor plus

inter-institutional transfers. They also receive dividends, transfer payments and borrow from the

investment agent. They use this income to buy private consumption goods, save and pay taxes

so as to maximize utility.


Uy)= Sy,") 3-5

Public goods enter the utility function as a commodity aggregate. The benefit of this

approach is that it allows for the focus to be applied to the revenue side of the analysis which is

the purpose of this dissertation. An obvious extension of the analysis would be to break out

public services as a separate commodity.

The behavioral equation and budget constraint enter into a utility maximizing or

expenditure minimizing optimization process to derive expenditure and demand functions that

are components of the CGE model. The income equation for the firms in a constant returns to

scale production technology takes the form of a zero profit condition where the value of output is

exhausted by the cost of production.









Households and firms display constrained optimizing behavior from which the product and

factor market supply and demand equations are derived. The simultaneous solution of the

model's equations is specified by the equilibrium price and quantity values to which the agents

respond. These prices and quantities in turn determine the income of the economic agents.

Government collects tax revenue in order to finance public expenditures. It supplies and

receives transfers from other institutions. The income definition of government states that

revenue is equal to expenditures plus transfers. These relationships, one for each level of

government, are represented in a social accounting matrix (SAM). Revenue corresponds to row

entries and expenditures and transfers are represented by column entries. Row totals equal

column totals as the income definition requires. The SAM is populated with data from the

IMPLAN modeling system.

The IMPLAN definition of investment is the purchase of commodity by industry for

capital formation. Investment expenditures are represented by the SAM column which contains

domestic and imported commodities, investment accounts for households and government, the

withdrawal from which can be interpreted as loans. The source of investment spending is

denoted by the row entries which consist of depreciation, savings and direct foreign investment.

The income definition for the investment sector states that row items are equal to column

expenditures. For the Florida economy, the equation is nonbinding since there is generally a

surplus of foreign savings. The income definition for the foreign sector states that imports are

equal to exports plus foreign savings (balance of payments). In a static model the supply of

foreign savings is fixed.

The Social Accounting Matrix

A CGE model is built from a SAM which is a consistent dataset representing the full range

of transactions within the economy. Initially the parameters of the model need to be calibrated.










The calibration process moves backward from the SAM to construct the model given the

functional forms of its equations. The behavior of the agents in the model should replicate the

observed data.

An essential part of a SAM is the use table which describes the interindustry flow of goods

and services. It is equivalent to the transaction matrix of an input-output model. The use matrix

along with the factors of production and indirect taxes determines domestic output. This

production is either consumed domestically or exported. The final demand and import matrix

shows the consumption of institutions. The SAM includes the distribution of factor income to

institutions.

There are certain transactions that do not involve the exchange of goods and services for

money such as interinstitutional transfers between household and government agents. Household

information displayed by income class allows for the analysis of the distributional impact of

public policy. A SAM is balanced in the sense that institutional income equals expenditures.

The SAM used in the construction of the CGE model in this dissertation is supplied by the

IMPLAN software program. The Florida SAM is displayed in Appendices A and B.

The detailed IMPLAN industrial codes which correspond to the four digit US Census

Bureau NAICS codes have been aggregated up to twelve maj or sectors including owner

occupied housing. The following section from the IMPLAN manual describes the owner

occupied housing sector:

Owner occupied dwellings' is a special sector developed by BEA (Bureau of Economic
Analysis). It estimates what owner/occupants would pay in rent if they rented rather than
owned their homes. This sector creates an industry out of owning a home. Its sole product
(or output) is ownership, purchased entirely by personal consumption expenditures

A household owning a house pays property taxes and other related permits and taxes but
not directly to the government. A household makes these payments to the owner-occupied
dwelling sector that then passes it on to the government as indirect business taxes
(IMPLAN Pro User' s Guide, p. 229).










Homeownership is a unique durable consumption good for households. It is a long-term

investment for which they receive a flow of continuous housing services. Recognizing this fact,

BEA distinguishes between the two measures and calculates the short-term costs in maintaining

a home such as upkeep, insurance and real estate taxes. The impact of tax cuts which are

targeted towards the housing services sector can be modeled. When property taxes are

eliminated or reduced, the owner-occupied housing industry in relation to other industrial sectors

experiences a decline in their cost of production. This results in an increase in the production of

owner-occupied housing and the use of intermediate inputs from the construction industry.

Households reallocate their consumption between housing services and all other goods in

response to a change in price.

Tax Policy Analysis and Simulation

A change in tax policy has an effect on the behavior of households and firms. The CGE

model presents an explanation for the responses that these agents have to alternative policies. It

also can account for any consequent reallocation of resources across economic sectors and

institutions. The impacts of policies on the welfare of households and the distribution of income

among them can be estimated as a result of this analysis.

The CGE can be used for a comparative static simulation of a policy change by altering

policy variables or introducing exogenous shocks. A new counterfactual equilibrium solution is

calculated with an alternative set of prices, factor demands, production levels and income values

which can be compared to the benchmark equilibrium values.

The benefit of the policy decision in terms of consumer welfare can be determined using

an income based measure. Because a CGE is based on the household maximization of utility, the

welfare index can be calculated as the amount of income the consumer would need to achieve a










specific level of utility or welfare. The indirect utility function formulations in MPSGE code

permit a straightforward reporting of this measure.

The CGE model simulation consists of decreasing taxes on real tangible property which, in

the model, takes the form of eliminating the capital tax on owner-occupied housing (Simulation

I) or on the composite good housing services (Simulation II). Finally, property tax will be

eliminated on residential and non-residential property (Simulation III). For each model

simulation there will be a corresponding increase to a replacement tax revenue source such as

sales taxes so as to keep the real value of public expenditures constant. It is important to hold the

provision of public goods fixed since a comparison of welfare changes across households would

be problematic in that the public consumption patterns would differ among income classes. The

outcome of the property tax simulation will vary depending on the alternative chosen.

The standard short-term static model restricts the level of investments to a fixed exogenous

amount. Alternative tax policies have no effect on a fixed capital stock and investment in such a

model. The model used in this dissertation depicts capital investment as a final demand sector

which is endogenous and adjusts instantaneously to changes in tax policy. The steady-state

capital closure of the CGE model was proposed by Rutherford and Light (2001). The

formulation is consistent with a long-run equilibrium solution.

CGE Model Code Implementation

In essence, a CGE model is composed of a system of equations such as excess demand

functions, a reference dataset based on empirical information and parameter values calibrated by

means of the solution process. This system and process can be assembled and executed with a

traditional programming language. The solution algorithm may also be coded or the system may

be linked to an appropriate numerical routine. The CGE system of equations may be represented

in spreadsheet software and its internal solution routine used to solve for the equilibrium values.










Higher level modeling systems, such as Matlab and General Algebraic Modeling System

(GAMS) combine a matrix-based programming language with numerical solvers. These

products facilitate model representation and execution. GAMS was initially developed for

economic modeling by the World Bank and has been available since 1987. It has been used for a

wide variety of model building proj ects and research activities.

The mathematical programming system for general equilibrium (MPSGE) extension to

GAMS was developed to formulate and solve CGE models. CGE models are based on a

sophisticated set of equations which can be difficult to set out in a detailed structured system that

incorporates actual economic data. MPSGE offers a condensed and efficient operational

representation for a system of nonlinear equations thus reducing the initial setup time and effort.

Users can devote more of their time to the conclusions of the model and less time in

programming.

Most programmed CGE models are set up as quasi-optimization problems with their

equations corresponding to equilibrium conditions. Developing the underlying production and

utility equations into supply and demand functions can be somewhat involved. MPSGE is based

on nested CES utility and production functions. Its framework provides for the direct

incorporation of data into model statements.

The importance of the numerical algorithm that establishes a model's equilibrium has been

mentioned previously. MPSGE is set up as a mixed complementary problem as suggested by

Mathiesen (1985). This formulation offers an insight into the unique role that prices and

quantities or activity levels play within the model system. There are three MPSGE classes of

equations that are analogous to mathematical programming statements. The complementary










problem refers to the dual mathematical programming problem corresponding to the primal

specification.

First, there is a market clearance inequality that takes the form of an excess demand

inequality with supply minus demand times a price variable that acts like a Lagrange multiplier.

If supply is greater than demand then the price variable is zero so that the overall complementary

condition is satisfied. If supply is equal to demand then there is a positive price variable. Next

there is a zero excess profit inequality with the firm's activity level acting as the Lagrangian

multiplier. It states that if the value of production is less than the cost of inputs then the activity

level is zero. If they are equal, then the firm produces a positive quantity. Finally, there is an

income balance for the institutions or agents such as households or government which specifies

the relationship between endowments and expenditures.

The Florida CGE presented in this dissertation is written in and solved with MPSGE. The

model code is located in Appendix G. As the code illustrates there are four maj or elements to

the model: sectors, commodities, consumers and auxiliary constraints. The sectors are associated

with the production blocks which represent a cost equation based on a nested CES production

function. As a corollary to the market clearance equation, commodities enter as prices in the

production blocks. Exogenous and endogenous taxes also enter the production block. The

demand block represents consumer endowments and preferences. It corresponds to an

expenditure equation which is based on a nested CES utility function. The auxiliary variable

represents an external constraint and is used to represent endogenous taxes.









CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS

The share tables (Tables 4-1 4-4) display calculated ratios which provide information on

the major industry sectors (NAICS) in the State of Florida. The value added share Table 4-1

presents the proportion of labor and capital factor inputs that are used in the production process.

It indicates value added over and above raw materials. A corollary of the table would be the

relative amount of intermediate inputs used in production. Manufacturing and construction use

the greatest amount of intermediate goods and other services uses the least. Other services and

owner occupied housing have the largest percentage value added components. Owner-occupied

housing is exclusively produced by means of capital and intermediate inputs which according to

the input-output table (Appendix B) are predominantly composed of financial activities and

professional services.

Table 4-1: Florida industry value added shares, 2003
(Capital + Labor) / Production Percent
Other services 73.50
Owner occupied housing 66.10
Education and health services 61.10
Trade 60.09
Financial activities 59.69
Real estate 56.35
Natural resources and mining 56.09
Professional and business services 56.05
Transportation and utilities 53.41
Leisure and hospitality services 50.51
Construction 42.51
Manufacturing 31.36
Industry average 55.47

In Table 4-2, Florida industry import shares, the proportion of imports in production also

indicates that manufacturing and construction have the greatest relative quantity of imported

inputs in the production process whereas owner-occupied housing has the least.










Table 4-2: Florida industry import shares, 2003
Imports / Production Percent
Manufacturing 34.52
Construction 28.04
Natural resources and mining 21.60
Transportation and utilities 18.14
Leisure and hospitality services 18.09
Professional and business services 13.92
Education and health services 13.56
Financial activities 11.61
Other services 10.53
Real estate 8.55
Trade 7.25
Owner occupied housing 6.64
Industry average 15.98

Table 4-3, Florida industry labor intensity shares displays a measure of labor intensity in

production. The most labor intensive sectors are education and health services, other services,

construction and professional and business services. Real estate is seen as the most capital

intensive. Table 4-4 displays sector labor as a percentage of total labor supply. The table

indicates that over half of the labor resource is employed in other services, professional and

business services, trade and education and health services.

Table 4-3: Florida industry labor intensity shares, 2003
Labor / (Capital + Labor) Percent
Education and health services 89.06
Other services 84.82
Construction 83.45
Professional and business services 79.14
Leisure and hospitality services 74.94
Trade 74.74
Manufacturing 68.08
Transportation and utilities 64.55
Financial activities 57.31
Natural resources and mining 55.50
Real estate 27.90
Owner occupied housing 0.00
Industry average 69.38










Table 4-4: Distribution of labor across Florida industries, 2003
Sector labor / Total labor Percent
Other services 20.43
Professional and business services 20.26
Trade 13.35
Education and health services 11.29
Construction 7.93
Financial activities 6.61
Manufacturing 6.29
Leisure and hospitality services 5.67
Transportation and utilities 4.77
Real estate 2.34
Natural resources and mining 1.05
Owner occupied housing 0.00
Total 100.00

The share of indirect business taxes in output is shown in Table 4-5. The highest share of

taxes is collected from the trade, leisure and hospitality services and real estate sectors. Table 4-

6 displays the ratios of ad valorem taxes to the capital factor input. It is evident that the owner-

occupied housing and real estate industry pay the greatest share of the tax. Housing can be

construed as a physical stock or as the flow of services provided by that stock. The value of

housing stock is different from the use value of housing services. The value of owner-occupied

housing and real estate represents the latter amount.

The ad valorem tax was distributed across industries according to the just and taxable

value by usecode table (Appendix E) supplied by the Economic and Demographic Research

Office of the Florida State Legislature. Appendix F contains the crosswalk between the

Department of Revenue codes and the aggregated NAICS industry sectors.












Table 4-5: Indirect business tax as percent of production
Indirect business taxes / Production State & local
Trade 12.52
Leisure and hospitality services 4.74
Real estate 4.64
Transportation and utilities 3.49
Financial activities 2.10
Professional and business services 1.36
Other services 1.31
Natural resources and mining 0.65
Manufacturing 0.58
Education and health services 0.54
Construction 0.43
Owner occupied housing 0.03


Table 4-6: Ad valorem tax as percent of capital
Ad valorem tax / Capital
Owner occupied housing
Real estate
Leisure and hospitality services
Trade
Natural resources and mining
Transportation and utilities
Professional and business services
Education and health services
Manufacturing
Construction
Financial activities
Other services


State & local
18.71
15.96
7.49
6.74
5.05
4.64
3.05
1.76
1.55
0.37
0.37
0.33









CHAPTER 5
RESULTS

This dissertation consists of three scenarios ranging from removing property taxes on

owner-occupied housing to eliminating property taxes on all real property. There is a set of

tables for each simulation. All result tables show the percentage change between the benchmark

and counterfactual solutions. For these simulations it is assumed that the term indirect business

taxes is an aggregation of several individual taxes and is synonymous with sales tax (Appendix

C). Property tax is broken out and treated separately for the purpose of this analysis. The output

results tables display the change in total production (some industry output may decline and some

may increase). The domestic inputs results tables contain changes in the input-output table due

to the elimination of real property taxes. The imported inputs results tables are a foreign (other

U.S. states or other countries) analog to the input-output table in that they represent the changes

in imported intermediate goods used in the production process. The factor inputs results tables

show the amount of change in the use of labor and capital.

The CET (constant elasticity of transformation) result tables represent the process whereby

output is produced for domestic use or for the export market (other U.S. states or other

countries). There are corresponding domestic and export CET tables showing changes in their

respective outputs. Another name for the CET domestic results table is the make matrix. An

explanation of the structure of these tables is necessary for those who are unfamiliar with input-

output matrices. If an industrial sector only produced a single type of commodity, then only the

diagonal cells would be populated. However, some industries produce multiple types of goods

called by-products. Thus, an industry in a row may have more than one commodity activity as

indicated by the columns.









The total export and import results tables report the changed levels in industrial and

institutional external trade. An explanation of the difference between the CET export results

table and the total export results table is that the former is the export component of total

industrial production, the other component being domestic sales. The latter table shows

aggregate exports which include industrial as well as institutional exports.

A construct of the MPSGE model is that exports are transformed into a commodity that

functions as foreign exchange. In MPSGE a commodity is represented by its price. The price of

foreign exchange is in turn transformed into imports. This complementary variable contributes

to the balancing of exports and imports. The interinstitutional transfers are represented in the

income blocks by this balancing variable. Thus, domestic and foreign savings enter into the

equilibrating equation. Savings is fixed in the model while exports and imports are endogenous.

The household consumption results tables contain the change in final consumption by

households. It can be interpreted as the change in total welfare from the change in tax policy.

The equivalent variation measure as implemented in MPSGE represents a Hicksian money-

metric welfare index which compares the initial reference welfare level with the post simulation

level. The following equivalent variation formula is from Rutherford and Paltsey (1999).

EV = 100*(W1 Wo)/Wo 5-1

It is used to evaluate the impact of tax policy in terms of an economic welfare measure. The

Armington Household Results Tables show the change in the components of total consumption

by household group.

Scenario I: Owner Occupied Housing Tax Results

In the first simulation only the property tax on owner-occupied housing is eliminated.

Practically, this may be interpreted as increasing the homestead exemption to the local resident

homeowners. Output of trade, transportation and utilities, financial activities, real estate,










education and health services and leisure and hospitality services decline from the initial shock to

the model. Owner-occupied housing has the largest increase in output. There is a substitution

away from real estate in favor of owner-occupied housing which accounts for its significant

decline.

The output results (Table 5-1) seen here occur because in differential tax analysis a cut in

real property taxes on owner-occupied housing must be compensated for by an increase in

indirect business taxes so as to keep the real value of government output constant in the resulting

final consumption allocation. Thus, the costs to industries have increased and they are passed

along to the purchasers who reallocate their consumption spending. Output declines due to

increased prices. The industries most affected are those that have the highest ranking in terms of

indirect business taxes paid as indicated in Table 4-5. The relatively extensive change in the real

estate sector is due to a substitution in favor of owner-occupied housing in the nested demand

function.

The domestic and imported input results (Tables 5-2 and 5-3) reveal the assorted increases

and decreases in the various intermediate commodities levels. Generally the sectors with

declining output have falling demand for inputs and in turn their level as an intermediate input

into the production of other goods declines. However, this is not a universal outcome with some

individual instances of increases in their input amounts.

Labor and capital utilization decreased in the trade, transportation and utilities, real estate

and leisure and hospitality service industries (Table 5-4). The factor input effects to these

industries correspond to the overall decline in their production resulting from the fiscal shock to

the model. Capital inputs decline in the construction, manufacturing, financial activities,

professional and business services, education and health services and other service industries.









The largest increase in capital use is in the owner occupied housing sector. There is the apparent

substitution from rental to owner-occupied housing in the household's nested consumption

allocation and in addition there is a reallocation of capital from the other industries due to the

implied subsidy to the owner-occupied housing sector.

Table 5-1 denotes the change in total output. Output is produced for either the domestic

market or for foreign trade. Table 5-5, CET domestic results owner occupied housing

simulation shows the detailed changes in output supplied to the domestic markets and Table 5-6

CET export results owner occupied housing simulation records the amount of output supplied to

the external sector.

Table 5-5 focuses the information in Table 5-1 in terms of the change in industry

production. The relationship between the initial change in property taxes and the subsequent

economic output is also reflected in Table 5-6. Owner-occupied housing increases in both

dimensions with exports showing a large rise.

Table 5-7 indicates that exports of the trade, transportation and utilities, financial activities,

real estate and leisure and health services industries decline. Once again, owner-occupied

housing shows the highest increase. In Florida, a large number of homes are owned by

nonresidents and by residents who live for the most part outside of the state but who may be

attracted to the state's favorable tax system and ideal climate. This phenomenon can be

construed as the export of owner-occupied housing. Imports decline for all industries except for

trade and owner-occupied housing (Table 5-8).

The consumption levels of the bottom two income classes of households have increased

slightly according to Table 5-9. The welfare levels for the other seven household income classes

decline. These amounts can be considered as the equivalent variation measures of the costs or










benefit of the property tax reduction by income class. The elimination of property tax on owner-

occupied housing can be seen as a subsidy for that industry. The average impact by household

group is about a tenth of a percent, somewhat insignificant.

The largest percentage changes in the consumption of various goods are for higher income

levels (Table 5-10). Of some interest is the change in commodities consumed by household

group. There is a decline in manufacturing, trade, transportation and utilities, financial activities,

real estate, professional and business services, leisure and hospitality services. Consumption of

the owner-occupied housing sector increases and real estate decreases across all the income

levels. This occurs due to the substitution effect within the nested housing services composite.

Owner-occupied housing expenditures increase for the lower income classes to a greater degree

than they do for the upper income classes. Real estate expenditures decrease for the higher

income classes to a greater degree than they do for the lower income classes. The consumption

of natural resources and mining, professional and business services, education and health

services and other services also increases for the lower income classes.

Investment as a final demand sector increases by 0.05 percent. This is not shown in a table

since there is only one common investment good or capital stock, and it is not mapped to

individual sectors or commodities. Indirect business taxes increase by 23.89 percent to make up

for the reduction in property tax revenue so as to keep the level of real state government output

constant. This amounts to an increase of the existing six percent sales tax (.06) to seven point

four percent (.074).

Scenario II: Housing Services Tax Results

In the second simulation, the property tax on all housing services which includes both real

estate (rental) and owner-occupied housing is eliminated. The impacts on the economy are

greater than the previous simulation since the indirect business taxes now increase by 34.7










percent to make up for the reduction in property tax revenue. This amounts to an increase of a

six percent (.06) sales tax to eight point one percent (.081). Table 5-11 shows that production of

natural resources and mining, manufacturing, trade, transportation and utilities, financial

activities and leisure and hospitality services declines. Real estate and owner-occupied housing

increases along with construction, professional and business services, education and health

services and other services. The relative increase in expenditures indicates an exchange in favor

of real estate or rental housing from owner-occupied housing. Real estate can take advantage of

a lower cost of production as it substitutes the use of capital for labor. Owner-occupied housing

can not act accordingly.

The large increase in real estate can be accounted for by the fact that it is a maj or input to

the owner-occupied housing sector as indicated by Table 5-12. Real estate is also a prime input

to other sectors mostly in the form of office rental. Imports of real estate decline sharply with a

substitution towards domestic production under the housing services simulation (Table 5-13).

This can be interpreted as Florida businesses renting space outside of the state. Compared to the

previous simulation, more returns to factors have fallen in value due to the transfer of resources

toward housing services (Table 5-14). Factor inputs decrease for those industries whose levels

of production have fallen.

There is a larger response in exports than domestic output as indicated by the CET

domestic results and export housing services simulations (Tables 5-15 and 5-16). The by-

products of real estate increase in export trade but decline domestically. Leisure and hospitality

services commodity output by the real estate sector declines as the overall production of leisure

and hospitality services decreases. Other services commodity output by the real estate sector

declines but for a different reason than the previous fall off. The maj or by-products of the other









services sector are transportation and utilities and financial activities. Total output of these

sectors has declined, thus lowering the demand for the by-product output of real estate. The

overall pattern of exports reflects those of total production as evidenced by Tables 5-17 5-1 1

with the housing services simulation. Imports of real estate decline due to the fact that a lower

cost of production from the reduced capital tax favors domestic output over imports (Table 5-

18).

The consumption levels of all but the bottom income class of households have declined

(Table 5-19). Whereas, the purchase of real estate increases for the lower and middle income

classes, it decreases for the upper income classes. Owner-occupied housing expenditures have a

greater increase for the lower income classes than the other income groups (Table 5-20). There

is an increase in capital investment expenditures of 1.6 percent. As stated previously the final

demand investment sector purchases commodities for capital formation.

Scenario III: Capital Tax Results

In the last simulation, the property tax on every sector is eliminated. The production of

manufacturing, trade, transportation and utilities, financial activities, leisure and hospitality

services declines with the capital tax simulation (Table 5-21). The combination of the

elimination of property taxes and a corresponding increase in indirect business taxes so as to

maintain constant real government output is spread out over all of the industrial sectors. Trade,

transportation and utilities, financial activity and leisure and hospitality services pay a substantial

amount of the indirect business taxes which can account for those sectors' resulting decline in

production. Once again there are declines in the levels of intermediate input usage by the

declining industries and a corollary decrease of those industry goods as intermediate inputs to

other sectors as evidenced by Tables 5-22 and 5-23.










The previous patterns exist for the current simulation in that there is a decrease in both

factors for those industries experiencing a decline in production and a substitution in favor of

labor for the other sectors except for real estate (Table 5-24). The latter sector has a relatively

higher level of property tax than indirect business tax and has a high level of capital intensity so

that it benefits from the capital tax scenario's design. The industry sectors with increases in

factor inputs are real estate, owner-occupied housing and natural resources and mining. The

output and factor usage in the housing services sector are up. The real estate industry has the

greatest increase in capital. This could be due to the fact that in a capital intensive industry

decreasing the relative price of the intensive factor of production increases the output of that

good and the use of the factor in that industry.

Table 5-25 indicates that natural resources and mining, construction, real estate, owner-

occupied housing, professional and business services and education and health services increase

across all commodities. Manufacturing, trade, transportation and utilities, financial activities and

leisure and hospitality services decline across all commodities. Other services show mixed

results. There seems to be a larger response in exports than domestic output as in the other

simulations. Exports (Table 5-26 ) mirror the effects observed in Table 5-25 except for leisure

and hospitality services and other services. Owner-occupied housing displays the largest

increase. The by-products of real estate increase in export trade but decline domestically as they

did in the second scenario. The explanation is analogous to that given for the second scenario.

As with the previous simulation, the pattern of commodity exports follows those of overall

output (Table 5-27). The large increase in exports of owner-occupied housing is due to the very

small initial value. A small increase will register as a significant percentage change. The










quantity of total imports shows almost no decline (Table 5-28). There is a substitution in favor

of domestic production of real estate.

The consumption levels of each income class of households have declined (Table 5-29).

However, there is a large increase in owner-occupied housing expenditures with the lower

income groups experiencing the greatest increase (Table 5-30). The consumption of real estate

increases for the two lower income classes and it decreases for the upper income classes.

The nested demand structure for the housing services composite good represents the trade-

off in consumption between a home purchase and rental units. Its parameters are calibrated

using the benchmark data. The final consumption block of the detailed IMPLAN SAM in

Appendix B indicates that higher income groups consume more owner-occupied housing and

less real estate including rentals. The opposite situation is indicated for lower income groups.

Thus there should be a bias towards rental units for the lower income classes and towards owner-

occupied housing for the higher income groups. Now that the tax incidence is spread over all

industry groups one would expect the shifts among income groups found for owner-occupied

housing and real estate under the capital tax simulation.

There is an increase of 2.0 percent in the investment sector' s expenditures on commodities

for the purpose of capital formation which is the largest of all the simulations. Thus, there is a

reallocation of final demand goods and services to the capital investment sector. Indirect

business taxes now must increase by 46.5 percent to make up for the reduction in property tax on

all sectors and still maintain a constant level of real government output. This amounts to an

increase of a six percent sales tax (.06) to eight point eight percent (.088).

Summary

The final seven tables (Tables 5-31 through 5-37) summarize the results in dollar values

rather than percentage terms for the three simulations and the benchmark amounts for









investments, output, labor and capital inputs, exports and imports and household consumption.

The same three simulations are presented for the output and factor use situations. First, owner

occupied housing and real estate experience an increase in output, labor and capital except for

simulation one where owner-occupied housing is substituted for real estate in the nested demand

function (Tables 5-32 5-34). Next, manufacturing, financial activities, trade, transportation and

utilities, and leisure and hospitality services undergo a decrease in output, labor and capital.

There are a two exceptions again for simulation one. Finally, construction, professional and

business services, education and health services and other services display an increase in output

and labor but a decrease in capital. The first situation can be accounted for by the fact that the

capital tax directly impacts the capital intensive industry sectors of owner occupied housing and

real estate. The next group of industries is not capital intensive and its members are particularly

affected by the compensating increase in indirect business taxes.

The final collection of industries are all labor intensive and are as a whole not as impacted

by indirect business taxes as the second group. The labor intensive production process can

account for the substitution of labor for capital as output increases. Considering the adjustment

under a partial equilibrium framework first, the market equilibrium condition for a tax on an

input is characterized as the price times (1 + tax rate) equal to the marginal factor cost. The

marginal cost of supplying an additional input up to the fixed factor supply level is zero. The

marginal cost of producing an amount in excess of the fixed input supply level is essentially

infinite. A tax on an inelastic supplied good is paid by entirely by the provider. A decrease in

the tax will solely benefit the supplier. Demand and output will be unchanged. By contrast, in

the general equilibrium setting, output and factor use are altered in each scenario as inputs are

reallocated among markets.









Total output declines between the benchmark and each consecutive scenario. Owner-

occupied housing increases from the benchmark across all the simulations and real estate

increases from the benchmark in Scenarios II and III. Household consumption decreases

between the benchmark and each consecutive scenario (Table 5-37). Owner-occupied housing

consumption increases from the benchmark in each simulation. Exports and imports decline

from the benchmark in each of the simulations (Tables 5-35 and 5-36). Whereas real estate

consumption in Scenario III is slightly below its benchmark, real estate exports in Scenario III

are above its benchmark. Investment is the only aggregate final demand variable that increases

consistently from the benchmark (Table 5-31).














Table 5-1: Output results owner occupied housing simulation
Natural Owner Professional Education Leisure &
resources Transportation Financial Real Occupied & business & health hospitality Other
& mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & utilities activities estate housing services services services services
3.46 0.03 1.12 -5.42 -2.71 -0.38 -8.50 15.59 1.57 -0.11 -3.16 1.11


2 All result tables show the percentage change between the benchmark and counterfactual solutions



















Table 5-2: Domestic inputs results owner occupied housing simulation
Natural Owner
resources Transportation Financial Real occupied
& mining Constmection Manufacturing Trade & utilities activities estate housing
Natural


Professional Education Leisure &
& business & health hospitality Other
services services services services


resources &
mining
Constriction

Manufacturing
Trade
Transportation&
utilities
Financial
activities
Real estate
Owner occupied
housing
Professional&
business
services
Education &
health
services
Leisure &
hospitality
services
Other services


2.77 -4.07
1.85 -4.74
2.11 -4.51
-0.34 -6.88

0.67 -5.83

1.12 -5.42
-1.19 -7.57





1.98 -4.66



2.23 -4.41



0.54 -5.94
1.75 -4.85


-0.76
-2.03
-1.58
-6.45

-3.25


2.09 -7.46
0.34 -7.87
0.75 -7.56
-6.54 -9.49

-0.91 -8.79


1.48
0.61
0.81
-1.28

-0.59

-0.11
-2.39





0.72



0.36



-0.56
0.51


-1.12
-2.46
-2.20
-4.31

-3.53

-3.16
-5.37


-2.71 -0.38 -8.50
-4.93 -2.65 -10.58


-1.88



-1.69



-3.09
-2.20


0.37 -7.85



0.62 -7.53



-0.95 -9.06
0.36 -7.97


-2.32


1.98


17.18
























































Table 5-4: Factor inputs results owner occupied housing simulation


Table 5-3: Imported inputs results owner occupied housing simulation
Natural


Owner Professional Education Leisure &


Transportation Financial Real occupied
& utilities activities estate housing


& business
services


& health hospitality Other
services services services


resources
& mining Constmection Manufacturing Trade


Natural
resources &
mining
Constriction
Manufacturing
Trade
Transportation
& utilities
Financial
activities
Real estate
Owner occupied
housing
Professional
& business
Sen ices
Education &
health
sen ices
vi Leisure &
hospitality
sen ices
Other services


1.95
2.67
3.27
15.70

4.87

3.46
9.01





0.64



0.70



6.14
-0.11


-0.20 -6.84
0.35 -6.14
0.75 -5.78
12.88 5.47

2.41 -4.20

1.12 -5.41
6.54 -0.34





-1.49 -7.91



-1.54 -7.94



4.11 -2.61
-2.56 -8.88


-3.63


-0.86 -10.13


15.30
14.37
15.18
29.59

17.18


-0.04
0.79
1.20
12.27

2.80

1.57
7.02





-0.90



-1.19


-1.45
-0.87
-0.54
11.81

1.13

-0.11
5.25


-3.97
-3.90
-3.51
8.38

-1.86


-3.47 -1.14 -9.23
-2.89 -0.60 -8.79
5.95 5.85 2.50


-1.57

-2.71
2.51





-5.22



-5.31



0.35
-6.34


0.81 -7.22


-0.37 -8.49 15.60
4.97 -3.59 21.80


-3.05 -10.98



-3.09 -10.94



2.57 -5.83
-3.89 -11.87


-2.71 -5.65


-5.99



-0.72
-6.71


Natural Owner Professional Education
resources Transportation Financial Real occupied & business & health
& mining Constmection Manufacturing Trade & utilities activities estate housing services services
4.69 0.46 1.97 -4.76 -1.78 0.74 -6.70 2.14 0.18
2.01 -2.11 -0.65 -7.20 -4.30 -1.85 -9.09 15.59 -0.48 -2.39


Leisure &
hospitality
services
-2.50
-5.00


Other
services
1.51
-1.09


Labor

Capital






















Table 5-5: CET domestic results owner occupied housing simulation


Natural
resources
CET domestic table & mining Constmection Manufacturing Trade
Natural resources &


Owner Professional Education Leisure &
Transportation Financial Real occupied & business & health hospitality Other
& utilities activities estate housing services services services services


mining
Constriction
Manufacturing
Trade
Transportation & utilities
Financial activities
Real estate
Owner occupied housing
Professional & business
services
Education & health
services
Leisure & hospitality
services
Other services


1.77


3.36


-1.50


0.42


-3.74


1.36


0.02


-3.59


5.88
2.55
1.97
5.98


-2.21


-0.34


-6.05


0.06


15.59


0.60 -0.38

















Table 5-6: CET export results owner occupied housing simulation


Natural
resources
& mining Constmection Manufacturing Trade


Owner Professional Education Leisure &
Transportation Financial Real occupied & business & health hospitality Other
& utilities activities estate housing services services services services


Natural resources
& mining
Constriction
Manufacturing
Trade
Transportation &
utilities
Financial activities
Real estate
Owner occupied
housing
Professional &
business services
Education & health
services
Leisure &
hospitality
OO
services
Other services


-14.87


-12.86


-7.20 -1.71




-1.64 4.21


93.59


4.46 3.43


5.44 -0.28


-0.41 1.90


Table 5-7: Export results owner occupied housing simulation
Natural Owner Professional Education Leisure &
resources Transportation Financial Real occupied & business & health hospitality Other
& mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & utilities activities estate housing services services services services
3.36 0.15 0.59 -11.16 -2.69 -0.25 -9.39 73.58 2.87 1.73 -4.14 3.4





















Table 5-9: Final household consumption results owner occupied housing simulation
Households LT10k 10-15k 15-25k3 25-35k3 35-50k3 50-75k3 75-100k 100-150k 150k+
Armington 0.34 0.08 -0.24 -0.49 -0.27 -0.51 -0.06 -0.27 -0.52


Table 5-8: Import results owner occupied housing simulation


Natural
resources
& mining Construction Manufacturing Trade


Owner
Real occupied
estate housing
8 -0.14 0.0.


Professional
& business
services
-1.16


Education
& health
services
-1.33


Leisure &
hospitality
services


Transportation Financial
& utilities activities
-0.22 -0.2~


Other
services


-0.72


-1.05


-0.63 1.09


-0.09 -0.52


Table 5-10: Armington household results owner occupied housing simulation
LT10k 10-15k 15-25k3 25-35k3 35-50k
Natural resources & mining 0.12 -0.18 -0.50 -0.71 -0.75
Construction


50-75k 75-100k 100-150k
-1.24 -1.04 -1.25


150k+
-1.49

-1.81
-4.57
-2.16
-1.86
-14.90
13.07
-1.35
-1.04
-2.59
-0.95


Manufacturing
Trade
Transportation & utilities
Financial activities
Real estate
Owner occupied housing
Professional & business services
Education & health services
Leisure & hospitality services
Other services


-0.18
-3.02
-0.57
-0.24
-8.70
21.31
0.29
0.61
-0.99
0.70


-0.48
-3.28
-0.86
-0.54
-9.43
20.34
0.00
0.30
-1.28
0.37


-0.80
-3.58
-1.18
-0.85
-9.71
19.96
-0.32
-0.02
-1.59
0.06


-1.01
-3.79
-1.38
-1.06
-10.02
19.55
-0.54
-0.23
-1.80
-0.16


-1.05
-3.82
-1.42
-1.10
-11.67
17.36
-0.59
-0.27
-1.85
-0.18


-1.55
-4.33
-1.92
-1.61
-13.65
14.73
-1.09
-0.78
-2.35
-0.69


-1.36
-4.14
-1.71
-1.41
-14.51
13.58
-0.90
-0.59
-2.14
-0.50


-1.57
-4.35
-1.93
-1.62
-14.70
13.34
-1.11
-0.81
-2.36
-0.72


















Table 5-11: Output results housing services simulation
Natural
resources Transportation Financial
& mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & utilities activities
-9.53 1.27 -4.97 -8.61 -6.39-4





Table 5-12: Domestic inputs results housing services simulation


Owner Professional Education Leisure &
Real occupied & business & health hospitality Other


s estate housing
77 22.69 10.49


services


services
0.55


services
-5.33


services
1.10


Natural
resources
& mining Constmection Manufacturing Trade


Owner Professional Education Leisure &
Transportation Financial Real occupied & business & health hospitality Other
& utilities activities estate housing services services services services


Natural
resources &
mining
Constriction
Manufacturing
Trade
Transportation &
utilities
Financial
activities
Real estate
Owner occupied
housing
Professional &
business
services
Education &
health sen ices
Leisure &
hospitality
services
Other services


-11.94
-9.52
-12.52
-11.49

-10.96

-11.36
-1.84





-9.12

-8.17



-11.33
-8.80


-7.77 -10.97
-4.96 -8.60
-7.63 -11.10
-7.33 -11.04

-6.86 -10.40

-6.87 -10.43
3.10 -0.84





-4.45 -8.14

-3.50 -7.24



-6.15 -9.72
-4.39 -8.08


-9.74
-6.38
-9.48
-12.52

-8.71

-8.34
1.56





-5.88


-8.93 20.15
-4.76 22.70
-7.81 19.12
-14.65 20.37

-7.04 20.91

-6.75 20.17
3.32 33.12


5.22
10.50
7.37
8.55

8.75

8.18
19.88


-8.90
-5.33
-8.01
-7.27

-6.93

-7.23
2.71


-2.33
1.11
-1.85
-3.22

-0.98

-0.92
9.70





1.67

2.30



-0.57
1.62


-4.31 23.26 10.87


1.09 -4.80

1.22 -4.27


-5.01 -3.43 24.53


-5.97 21.04
-4.09 23.37


-7.37
-4.79


11.96














Table 5-13: Imported inputs results housing services simulation


Natural
resources
& mining Construction Manufacturing Trade


Owner Professional Education Leisure &
occupied & business & health hospitality Other
housing services services services services


Transportation Financial Real
& utilities activities estate


Natural
resources &
mining
Constriction
Manufacturing
Trade
Transportation &
utilities
Financial
activities
Real estate
Owner occupied
housing
Professional &
business
services
Education &
health services
Leisure &
hospitality
services
Other services


-7.11
-9.53
-9.06
9.22

-3.90

-5.60
-26.83





-11.13

-12.92



-4.38
-12.55


1.61
1.26
2.12
22.67

7.36

5.66
-18.10





-0.60

-2.52



7.78
-2.25


-2.71 -6.08
-4.98 -8.61
-3.98 -7.59
14.36 9.77

0.53 -3.29

-0.82 -4.60
-23.14 -26.08





-6.56 -10.17

-8.48 -12.03



1.21 -2.64
-8.32 -11.85


-4.79
-6.40
-5.90
7.95

-1.47

-2.38
-24.29





-7.96

-9.92



0.08
-9.78


-3.94 26.74 10.99
-4.78 22.68 10.48
-4.16 23.83 11.62
5.32 48.54 33.95

0.34 30.50 17.38

-0.68 27.99 15.22
-22.98 -0.77 -10.64


4.06
1.11
2.18
19.64

6.67

5.54
-18.22





-0.47


3.02 -3.91


3.02
1.10
2.03
19.43

6.88

5.53
-18.23





-0.58

-2.98



7.23
-2.55


0.55
1.79
21.57

6.20

4.94
-18.68





-1.14


-5.34
-4.37
14.42

0.46

-1.19
-23.44





-6.91

-9.22



-0.11
-8.70


-6.43 20.53

-8.42 18.09



1.41 30.53
-8.03 18.31


-2.74 -4.01


Table 5-14: Factor inputs results housing services simulation


Natural
resources
& mining Construction Manufacturing Trade


Owner Professional Education Leisure &
Transportation Financial Real occupied & business & health hospitality Other
& utilities activities estate housing services services services services


Labor


-6.61


2.44


-2.82 -6.91


-3.99 -1.90 15.66


2.63 1.33 -3.58


2.18


Capital -12.87 -4.42


-9.33 -13.15 -10.43 -8.48 25.13 10.49


-4.25 -5.46 -10.04 -4.67














Table 5-15: CET domestic results housing services simulation


Owner Professional Education Leisure &
Transportation Financial Real occupied & business & health hospitality Other
& utilities activities estate housing services services services services


Resources & CET
domestic table
Natural resources &
miming
Constriction
Manufacturing
Trade
Transportation &
utilities
Financial activities
Real estate
Owner occupied
housing
Professional &
business services
Education & health
services
Leisure & hospitality
services
Other services


Natural
mining Construction Manufacturing Trade


1.27


-9.01


-3.06


4.11


-5.73


8.56


-20.57 -13.39




-7.32 1.08




-3.06 4.73


10.49


-0.66


0.16
























































Table 5-17: Export results housing services simulation


Table 5-16: CET export results housing services simulation


Natural
resources
& mining Construction Manufacturing Trade


Owner Professional Education Leisure &
Transportation Financial Real occupied & business & health hospitality Other
& utilities activities estate housing services services services services


Natural Resources
& Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade

Transportation &
Utilities

Financial Activities
Real Estate
Owner Occupied
Housing
Professional &
Business
Services
Education &
Health Services
Leisure &
Hospitality
Services
Other Services


-11.69


-12.47


-11.22


1.29


-6.75


0.15


-23.61


-12.02


-11.32


-1.43
6.55 16.19


65.97


4.75 5.62


-11.82


-10.10


-5.26 -3.72


4.73


Natural
resources
& mining Construction Manufacturing Trade

-8.20 0.13 -2.22 -17.71


Owner Professional Education
Transportation Financial Real occupied & business & health
& utilities activities estate housing services services


Leisure &
hospitality Other
services services


-6.51 33.78


51.88


1.92 2.84


Table 5-18: Import results housing services simulation
Natural


Owner Professional Education Leisure &
Real occupied & business & health hospitality Other
estate housing services services services services


Transportation Financial
& utilities activities


resources
& mining Construction Manufacturing Trade


-1.62 1.13


1.11 2.75 1.60 1.01 -6.36 1.62


-0.10 -1.28 1.25 0.36













Table 5-19: Final household consumption results housing services simulation
Households LT10k 10-15k 15-25k( 25-35k( 35-50k( 50-75k( 75-100k 100-150k 150k+
Armington 0.07 -0.28 -0.57 -0.85 -0.75 -1.25 -0.44 -0.76 -1.10


Table 5-20: Armington household results housing services simulation
LT10k 10-15k 15-25k 25-35k
Natural resources & mining -0.89 -1.22 -1.50 -1.70
Construction


35-50k
-1.69

-1.20
-5.60
-2.46
-2.10
0.61
11.25
-0.71
0.14
-2.66
-0.15


50-75k
-2.32

-1.82
-6.22
-3.06
-2.71
-0.66
9.85
-1.34
-0.50
-3.27
-0.78


75-100k 100-150k
-1.75 -2.07


150k+
-2.38

-1.86
-6.28
-3.06
-2.76
-1.16
9.31
-1.39
-0.57
-3.30
-0.85


Manufacturing
Trade
Transportation & utilities
Financial activities
Real estate
Owner occupied housing
Professional & business services
Education & health services
Leisure & hospitality services
Other services


-0.41
-4.89
-1.68
-1.30
2.31
13.14
0.10
0.96
-1.86
0.67


-0.74
-5.16
-2.02
-1.63
1.79
12.56
-0.23
0.60
-2.18
0.30


-1.03
-5.43
-2.30
-1.92
1.49
12.23
-0.52
0.31
-2.46
0.01


-1.22
-5.62
-2.48
-2.11
1.24
11.96
-0.72
0.12
-2.66
-0.19


-1.22
-5.66
-2.43
-2.12
-0.50
10.03
-0.74
0.08
-2.66
-0.19


-1.54
-5.96
-2.74
-2.44
-0.82
9.68
-1.06
-0.24
-2.97
-0.51














Table 5-21: Output results capital tax simulation
Natural Owner Professional Education Leisure &

resources Transportation Financial Real occupied & business & health hospitality Other
& mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & utilities activities estate housing services services services services
6.82 1.52 -3.49 -9.39 -4.40 -6.29 15.60 9.68 2.25 0.67 -4.09 1.10


Natural
resources
& mining Construction Manufacturing Trade


Owner Professional Education Leisure &


& business
services



5.40
2.26
0.24
-2.56


& health hospitality Other


Transportation Financial Real occupied
& utilities activities estate housing


services services


services


Natural
resources &
mining
Constriction
Manufacturing
Trade
Transportation
& utilities
Financial
activities
Vi Real estate
Owner
occupied
housing
Professional
& business
Sen ices
Education &
health
services
Leisure &
hospitality
services
Other services


10.43
6.84
4.34
4.17

5.77

3.91
13.62







7.65



8.58



5.35
7.62


8.09
1.54
-0.61
-0.61

0.40

-1.24
7.98







2.18



3.19



0.61
2.15


0.12 -6.43
-3.48 -9.38
-5.39 -11.12
-6.23 -12.15

-4.68 -10.49

-6.09 -11.81
2.64 -3.63







-2.58 -8.59



-1.85 -7.91



-4.32 -10.15
-2.95 -8.90


0.00
-4.39
-6.61
-11.52

-5.87


-0.92 18.59
-6.28 15.61
-8.39 13.24
-17.29 13.10

-7.68 14.56


0.59
-4.08
-5.99
-6.34

-5.09

-6.66
2.01







-3.17



-2.91



-5.52
-3.57


5.52
1.12
-0.97
-3.83

-0.19

-1.61
7.53







2.07



2.42



-0.05
1.58


0.81 -0.67


-7.07 -8.90 12.41
1.68 -0.33 22.95


-0.50
8.75







3.39


-5.51 16.51


-2.85 -4.85 17.49



-4.96 -7.10 14.52
-3.95 -5.67 16.19


3.84 1.41


Table 5-22: Domestic inputs results capital tax simulation














Table 5-23: Imported inputs results capital tax simulation
Natural


Professional Education Leisure &
& business & health hospitality Other


Transportation Financial Real
& utilities activities esta


Owner
occupied
te housing


resources
& mining Constmection Manufacturing Trade


services


services services services


Natural
resources &
mining
Constriction
Manufacturing
Trade
Transportation
& utilities
Financial
activities
Real estate
Owner occupied
housing
Professional &
Business
Sen ices
Education &
health
sen ices
Leisure &
hospitality
sen ices
Other services


3.27
6.81
7.21
32.22

10.92

13.06
-8.61





3.58



2.44



11.00
3.50


1.08
1.51
2.12
26.15

5.29

7.45
-13.14





-1.68



-2.64



6.01
-1.76


-6.37 -12.50
-3.51 -9.40
-2.79 -8.68
19.02 11.51

-0.05 -6.14

2.18 -4.05
-17.43 -22.48





-6.26 -12.04



-7.40 -13.11



0.82 -5.33
-6.66 -12.39


-6.48
-4.42
-4.05
12.31

-1.29

1.11
-18.21





-7.15



-8.34



0.13
-7.62


-7.35 10.90


9.04


-1.44
2.23
2.99
23.68


-2.42
0.66
1.54
24.83


-5.94
-4.11
-3.41
18.88

-0.48

1.55
-17.95





-6.83



-8.40



-0.45
-7.27


-1.32
1.08
1.75
22.07

4.66

7.05
-13.50





-1.79



-3.37



5.31
-2.31


-6.31 15.58 9.66
-5.87 16.35 10.47
4.98 43.55 36.42

-3.19 20.13 13.89

-0.89 22.30 15.99
-19.83 -1.10 -6.16


5.71 4.16


8.25
-12.52


6.57
-13.87





-2.24



-4.33



5.35
-2.64


-9.09 12.11



-10.22 10.85



-2.12 20.67
-9.28 11.75


6.15 -0.52


-2.03


Table 5-24: Factor inputs results capital tax simulation
Natural


Owner Professional Education


Leisure &


Transportation Financial Real
& utilities activities estate
-3.12 -3.11 9.98
-6.58 -10.38 17.53


occupied & business & health hospitality
housing services services services
3.38 1.39 -3.85
9.68 -1.82 -4.92 -4.75


Other
services
2.32
-5.40


resources
& mining Constmection Manufacturing Trade
8.42 2.84 -1.41 -8.99
4.96 -4.87 -7.73 -10.48


Labor

Capital














Table 5-25: CET domestic results capital tax simulation
Natural


Financial Owner Professional Education Leisure &
Real occupied & business & health hospitality Other
activities estate housing services services services services


resources Transportation
& mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & utilities


CET domestic table
Natural resources &
miming
Constriction
Manufacturing
Trade
Transportation &
utilities
Financial activities
Real estate
Owner occupied
housing
Professional & business
sen ices
Education & health
sen ices
Leisure & hospitality
sen ices
Other services


1.52


8.45


-2.13


4.74


-6.20


9.42


-15.57


9.68


0.49


0.24


11.82













Table 5-26: CET export results capital tax simulation
Natural Owner Professional Education Leisure &
resources Transportation Financial Real occupied & business & health hospitality Other
& mining Constmection Manufacturing Trade & utilities activities estate housing services services services services


Natural resources
& mining
Constriction
Manufacturing
Trade
Transportation &
utilities
Financial activities
Real estate
Owner occupied
housing
Professional &
business services
Education & health
services
Leisure &
hospitality
services
Other services


1.55


5.55


-4.75


1.94


-26.10


-13.79


31.90


4.96 12.48



-2.63 4.38


59.66


6.51 6.25


-7.45 -1.46


-2.91 -5.75


Table 5-27: Export results capital tax simulation
Natural
resources Transportation Financial Real
& mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & utilities activities estate
6.92 0.16 -1.56 -19.58 -5.34 -8.57 23.39


Owner Professional Education Leisure &
occupied & business & health hospitality Other
housing services services services services
46.92 3.57 3.15 -5.67 2.82


Table 5-28: Import results capital tax simulation
Natural
resources Transportati
& mining Construction Manufacturing Trade & utilities
-2.08 0.74 -0.77 3.43 1.


Owner Professional Education Leisure &
ion Financial Real occupied & business & health hospitality Other


activities estate housing services
1.34 -4.70 2.00 -0.24


services services
-1.35 1.41


services
0.71














Table 5-29: Final household consumption results capital tax simulation
Households LT10k 10-15k 15-25k3 25-35k3 35-50k3 50-75k3 75-100k 100-150k 150k+
Armington -0.10 -0.46 -0.77 -1.06 -0.97 -1.52 -0.58 -0.93 -1.31



Table 5-30: Armington household results capital tax simulation
LT10k 10-15k 15-25k3 25-35k3 35-50k3 50-75k3 75-100k 100-150k 150k+
Natural resources & mining 0.56 0.19 -0.12 -0.32 -0.29 -0.97 -0.23 -0.59 -0.98
Construction
Manufacturing -0.38 -0.74 -1.04 -1.24 -1.21 -1.89 -1.18 -1.54 -1.91
Trade -5.51 -5.80 -6.09 -6.28 -6.25 -6.93 -6.26 -6.60 -6.95
Transportation & utilities -1.16 -1.52 -1.82 -2.01 -1.99 -2.65 -1.92 -2.28 -2.65
Financial activities -1.68 -2.03 -2.33 -2.54 -2.51 -3.18 -2.48 -2.83 -3.20
Real estate 0.65 0.09 -0.22 -0.48 -1.16 -2.54 -2.31 -2.67 -3.03
Owner occupied housing 12.53 11.90 11.56 11.27 10.50 8.96 9.21 8.82 8.41
Professional & business services 0.33 -0.03 -0.33 -0.55 -0.53 -1.22 -0.51 -0.87 -1.24
Education & health services 1.05 0.67 0.36 0.16 0.19 -0.51 0.19 -0.17 -0.55
Leisure & hospitality services -1.38 -1.73 -2.03 -2.24 -2.22 -2.90 -2.18 -2.54 -2.91
Other services 0.59 0.20 -0.11 -0.32 -0.27 -0.96 -0.26 -0.62 -1.00



Table 5-31: Investments results table
Natural Owner Professional Education Leisure &
resources Transportation Financial Real occupied & business & health hospitality Other
Investment & mining Construction Alanufacturing Trade & utilities activities estate housing services services services services Total
Benchmark 1,848 58,596 5,383 12,092 7,619 2,018 14,959 0 41,135 0 15,680 13,778 173,107
Scenario I 1,849 58,626 5,385 12,098 7,623 2,019 14,967 0 41,157 0 15,688 13,785 173,197
Scenario II 1,878 59,547 5,470 12,288 7,742 2,050 15,202 0 41,803 0 15,935 14,001 175,916
Scenario III 1,885 59,768 5,490 12,333 7,771 2,058 15,258 0 41,958 0 15,994 14,054 176,570
All values in millions of dollars.















Professional
& business
services
160,149
162,664
161,946
163,747


Education
& health
services
72,713
72,633
73,115
73,202


Leisure &
hospitality Other
services services Total
52,536 114,888 910,984
50,874 116,160 909,901
49,734 116,157 907,596
50,386 116,153 908,839
All values in millions of dollars.


Owner
occupied
housing
44,482
51,419
49,149
48,789


Transportation
& utilities
48,453
47,140
45,356
46,321


Financial Real
activities estate
67,786 52,224
67,531 47,787
64,552 64,074
63,521 60,369


Table 5-32: Output results table
Natural
resources
Output & mining Constmection Manufacturing Trade
Benchmark 11,809 78,326 103,366 104,253
Scenario I 12,217 78,349 104,520 98,606
Scenario II 10,684 79,319 98,228 95,281
Scenario III 12,615 79,517 99,755 94,463


Table 5-33: Labor results table


Natural
resources
& mining
3,676
3,849
3,433
3,985


Owner
occupied
housing
0
0
0
0


Professional
& business
services
71,042
72,559
72,912
73,444


Education
& health
services
39,566
39,636
40,093
40,117


Leisure &
hospitality Other
services services Total
19,886 71,627 350,578
19,390 72,707 350,578
19,174 73,187 350,578
19,120 73,285 350,578
All values in millions of dollars.


Transportation
& utilities
16,705
16,408
16,038
16,183


Financial Real
activities estate
23,191 8,210
23,362 7,660
22,749 9,496
22,469 9,030


Labor
Benchmark
Scenario I
Scenario II
Scenario III


Constmection
27,789
27,917
28,467
28,579


Manufacturing Trade
22,066 46,820
22,501 44,590
21,444 43,585
21,756 42,609

















Natural
resources
& mining
2,948
3,007
2,568
3,094


Professional
& business
services
18,728
18,637
17,932
18,386


Education
& health
services
4,863
4,746
4,597
4,623


Leisure &
hospitality Other
services services Total
6,651 12,820 154,759
6,318 12,679 154,759
5,983 12,221 154,759
6,334 12,127 154,759
All values in millions of dollars.


Owner
occupied
housing
29,402
33,987
32,487
32,249


Transportation
& utilities
9,173
8,779
8,217
8,569


Financial Real
activities estate
17,274 21,217
16,956 19,289
15,810 26,550
15,481 24,937


Capital
Benchmark
Scenario I
Scenario II
Scenario ITT


Constmection
5,510
5,393
5,266
5,241


Manufacturing Trade
10,348 15,828
10,281 14,687
9,382 13,747
9,548 14,169


Table 5-35: Exports results table


Natural
resources
& mining
9,137
9,444
8,388
9,770


Owner
occupied
housing
0
0
0
0


Professional
& business
services
75,463
77,627
76,908
78,155


Education
& health
services
10,325
10,504
10,618
10,650


Leisure &
hospitality Other
services services Total
22,056 20,849 399,239
21,143 21,575 397,049
20,357 21,493 397,061
20,806 21,436 398,114
All values in millions of dollars.


Transportation
& utilities
20,786
20,226
19,115
19,677


Financial Real
activities estate
24,451 25,999
24,391 23,558
22,860 34,781
22,356 32,080


Constmection
5,668
5,677
5,675
5,677


Manufacturing Trade
161,664 22,842
162,612 20,294
158,069 18,797
159,138 18,370


Exports
Benchmark
Scenario I
Scenario II
Scenario III


Natural
resources
& mining
9,137
9,071
8,989
8,947


Owner
occupied
housing
0
0
0
0


Professional
& business
services
75,463
74,585
75,384
75,283


Education
& health
services
10,325
10,187
10,192
10,186


Leisure &
hospitality Other
services services Total
22,056 20,849 399,239
22,036 20,740 397,049
22,332 20,924 397,061
22,367 20,996 398,114
All values in millions of dollars.


Transportation
& utilities
20,786
20,740
21,118
21,024


Financial Real
activities estate
24,451 25,999
24,382 25,961
24,698 24,344
24,777 24,778


Imports
Benchmark
Scenario I
Scenario II
Scenario III


Constmection
5,668
5,608
5,732
5,710


Manufacturing Trade
161,664 22,842
160,648 23,091
159,877 23,471
160,419 23,626


Table 5-34: Capital results table


Table 5-36: Imports results table
















Natural
resources
Households & mining Construction Alanufacturing Trade
Benchmark 2,457 0 84,332 72,336
Scenario I 2,435 0 83,303 69,441
Scenario II 2,412 0 83,193 68,164
Scenario III 2,447 0 83,177 67,688


Owner Professional Education
Transportation Financial Real occupied & business & health
& utilities activities estate housing services services
18,824 32,115 14,567 44,482 26,163 87,322
18,530 31,690 12,914 51,419 25,963 86,928
18,339 31,379 14,672 49,149 25,935 87,299
18,426 31,245 14,415 48,789 25,981 87,343


Leisure &
hospitality Other
services services Total
34,024 28,900 445,523
33,320 28,782 444,725
33,058 28,801 442,401
33,202 28,765 441,479
All values in millions of dollars.


Table 5-37: Household results table









CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS

The central issue of this dissertation is how changes in property taxes affect the state's

economy and the distribution of household consumption. This topic is a timely one since the

Florida legislature is currently considering changes in the property tax system. The tax policy

analysis in this dissertation has gone beyond the usual estimation of changes to the general

revenue funds. It employs a CGE model to estimate the property tax impact on production,

consumption and income in the economy. The CGE model provides a comprehensive outline of

the results of a change in tax policy which informs and supports any decision making. The

dissertation attempts to accomplish two obj ectives. First, it is an application of CGE modeling at

a regional level. Second, it is a property tax study that analyzes the economic and equity

implications of public policy.

The impact of a change in the tax system can be estimated and evaluated by means of the

equivalent variation measure of the property tax elimination within the context of constant

government revenue. Public policy impact was found to be of little consequence in terms of the

total consumption of households. There are significant differences across income groups as to

their consumption of owner-occupied housing. There certainly have been winners and losers in

terms of the industrial sectors. The winners appear to be the housing sectors and those industries

associated with them. The reduction in the property tax can be seen as having a beneficial effect

on the housing sector.

A summary of the policy implications includes two major conclusions. First, the level of

the overall impact of the simulated changes in tax policy is relatively insignificant in the context

of the overall economy. Conceivably a different policy parameter amount or combination could

have a larger effect. Second, on an individual sector or household level there are some relatively










significant results. The policy instrument is targeted at the housing services sector.

Corespondingly, the production and consumption of owner-occupied housing is dramatically

larger under all three alternative scenarios. Household groups are impacted according to the

varying proportion of housing services in their commodity consumption bundle. Low income

groups benefit to a greater degree from the reduction in property taxes in terms of their

consumption of owner-occupied housing.

In all three scenarios, about half of the industrial sectors show an increase in output with

the other half of the sectors declining. Owner-occupied housing, construction, business and

professional services and other services increase in each simulation. The property tax on owner-

occupied housing is lowered in each of the counterfactual situations. The property tax reduction

along with the fact that owner-occupied housing has the largest share of property taxes as a

percentage of capital input (Table 4-6) and the lowest share of indirect business taxes as a

percentage of output (Table 4-5) account for the sector' s increase across all scenarios.

The method of equal-yield differential tax analysis necessitates a rise in the level of

indirect business taxes. An industry with a low level of indirect business taxes will escape the

increase. Construction has the next lowest share of indirect business taxes but it also has a low

share of property taxes. Even though it is somewhat unaffected directly by the property tax

shock, construction is a necessary input to those industries that are affected, and is therefore

indirectly affected.

Business and professional services have a moderate share of indirect business taxes and a

slightly higher level of property taxes. It is a significant input to those sectors that are positively

affected by the change in tax policy. Other services have a small share of indirect business taxes

and the lowest share of property taxes. The average increase in construction and other services is









around one percent (1%) and the average increase in professional and business services is around

a percent and a half (1.5%). These minor changes are relatively insignificant.

Clearly, the real estate sector output increases in simulations II and III since its property

taxes are lowered. The increase (22.7% and 15.6%) can be attributed to the fact that the industry

is highly capital intensive (Table 4-3). Trade, transportation and utilities, financial activity and

leisure and hospitality services output decrease in each simulation. These industries pay the

highest share of indirect business taxes and thus their increase has a large effect on their

economic activity. Lower capital tax would have an effect on the financial sector which is a

capital intensive industry but for the fact that the sector pays a small share of property tax and

thus is somewhat unaffected by the lower capital tax. Transportation and utilities and leisure and

hospitality services do pay a relatively significant share of property taxes but they are labor

intensive industries and thus are not greatly affected by a lower capital tax.

The productive factors, labor and capital, follow primarily a general pattern noted earlier.

Both capital and labor inputs decrease in those industries with declining levels of production.

For those industries with an increasing output, there are two outcomes. First, there are a few

industries that experience an increase in both labor and capital. These sectors (real estate and

owner-occupied housing) are predominantly those immediately impacted by the change in tax

policy. Second, some sectors substitute labor for capital in their production process.

The factor market closer of the CGE model used in this dissertation can be characterized as

short-term and static. The total supply of labor and capital as productive factors is fixed in the

model simulations, so for the use of capital in some industries to increase, there must be a

reallocation away from it in other industries. This accounts for the behavior of those industries

with increasing output in the second outcome. The substitution of labor for capital is in fact the









movement of capital to those sectors that are described in the first outcome with increases in both

labor and capital.

In each simulation, the level of expenditures by the investment final demand sector

increases in order to create capital. In the first scenario it increases by a half of a percent (0.5%),

in the second one point six percent (1.6%) and in the third two percent (2%). A dynamic model

could explore the long-term implications of the change in capital formation.

The changes in exports mirror the particular changes in industrial sector production. The

individual variations in sector quantities are due to large CET commodity substitutions. Of

particular interest is the trade-off between the direct and by-product amounts produced

domestically and for external trade. The increase in real estate production due to a change in tax

policy identified in simulations two and three is accompanied by a decrease in its domestic by-

product output and by an increase in exports. Imports have increased for many of the

commodities produced domestically by those industries whose production has fallen off.


The smallest change in aggregated household consumption levels, an $800 million

reduction, is associated with the first counterfactual scenario. The next largest change

corresponds to the second simulation (-$3.1 billion) and the largest with the third (-$4 billion).

Consumption levels for the two lowest household income classes increase in the first scenario,

but only for the lowest income group in the second scenario. There are no consumption

increases for any of the household income groups in the third scenario.

Even though the overall level of consumption of household income classes has changed by

a relatively insignificant amount, the reallocation of commodities by households exhibits

important changes. The changes in the consumption of owner-occupied housing are sizable and

they are greater for lower income classes. In the baseline model, the lower income groups










purchase more real estate (rental housing) and less owner-occupied housing than upper and

middle income groups. As a result, in the counterfactual simulations, the lower income groups

demonstrate the largest increase in the consumption of owner-occupied housing.

In general, the size of the resulting changes is quite small relative to total consumption and

output. There are two explanations for this. First, the numeric conclusions of the analysis are

affected by the scale of revenue relative to the state' s overall economy. The size of revenues in

Florida relative to the overall level of economic activity is small, thus changes in the level of

taxes will have a minimum impact. Second, as indicated by Table 4-3 for the most part

industries in Florida are labor intensive so a change in a tax on capital will also have a small

impact on output.

Even though the impact of the change in tax policy is slight in terms of household

consumption, there is an order of magnitude difference between the impact on lower and upper

income groups. This outcome is consistent across scenarios and lends credence to the hypothesis

that tax policy affects income groups differently. One implication of this research is that a

complete evaluation of any policy change should take into consideration the impact on different

income groups.

There is a proportionately greater increase in the consumption of owner-occupied housing

for lower income groups across the scenarios. These groups consume less of this good in the

benchmark data set. If the encouragement of home ownership is a pubic goal, then the model

results imply that there is an additional benefit from the proposed tax policy.

There is a difference in the outcome for the real estate industry sector between the capital

tax and housing services simulations and the owner occupied housing simulation. The reduction

in property taxes is applied in the capital tax and housing services simulations. In the owner










occupied housing simulation, however, the tax reduction does not target the real estate industry

sector. In keeping with the interpretation of real estate exports as Florida seasonal property

rentals by non-residents, in the capital tax and housing services simulations the increase in the

sectors' by-product export of leisure and hospitality services commodity and the associated

reduction in its domestic by-products commodity output implies a trade-off in favor of transient

compared to permanent residents in contrast to the owner-occupied housing scenario which

primarily affects permanent residents.

There are essentially two maj or limitations on the research in this dissertation. First, the

IMPLAN SAM may be an imperfect representation of the Florida economy due to the particular

regionalization process applied to the BEA Input-Output (I-O) matrix. Even thought the I-O

matrix which is called the use matrix in the SAM is only one section of the total structure, it is

crucial for the conclusions in this dissertation. There are three methods that IMPLAN applies to

scale the national I-O matrix for sub-regions. The user chooses between a method based on

regional purchase coefficients, supply-demand pooling or locations quotients. The default

regional purchase coefficient method was used. A maj or issue with this procedure is its

assumption of a common technology among diverse areas. This criticism could be leveled

against any use of the IMPLAN system for economic impact modeling. However, the

widespread use of IMPLAN in the private and academic fields for estimating the impact of

economic activity in terms of employment, income and production metrics has provided valuable

information to decision making processes.

The second limitation is that the CGE model is characterized by a closed factor market

which is a restrictive assumption for the Florida economy. In the study of the impact of the

reduction in federal defense spending in California using IMPLAN data done by Hoffmann,









Robinson, et al., (1996) there was a significant difference between the assumption of a closed

and open factor market. The overall economic effect of the open factor market model was less

that the closed factor market model as impacted workers moved out of the state. Similar

differences in the results would be anticipated with an open labor market model used in this

dissertation. The closed labor model can be described as an application of a national model

which is in line with Mieszkowski's theory of the incidence of property tax. The model

simulation results are the local effects of the tax policy. One possible difference between the

application of a quasi national model and a model with open factor markets would be a smaller

change in the substitution toward owner-occupied housing.

An obj ective of further research would be to relax the restriction of fixed factor markets

and compare the results between the different specifications. Future research could also include

the simulation and analysis of alternative tax instruments. Converting the current CGE model

into a dynamic one has been mentioned in earlier chapters. Such a model would allow for the

study of the pattern of change in the housing stock, factor inputs and income distribution over

time. Finally, another direction for future research could be to break out governmental services

and public goods which are included in the other services aggregate sector and treat them as a

separate sector. This would permit the additional investigation of tax policy. Ad valorem tax

could be considered as a user charge for public services and the marginal cost of funds could be

calculated and used in the evaluation of public policy.











APPENDIX A
AGGREGATE IMPLAN SAM, 2003


Table A-1: Aggregate IMPLAN SAM, 2003


Indirect Federal
Capital taxes Households govt


State/local
govt


Industry Commodity Labor
687,416
217,456
350,578
154,760
42,597


Enterprises Investment

73,092


Trade Total
223,568 910,984
703,594
350,578
154,760
42,597
562 524,332
115 162,967
1,145 125,130
52,456
63,218 197,688
25 288,632
288,632 3,513,717
Source: IMPLAN


Industry
Commodity
Labor
Capital
Indirect taxes
Households
Federal govt
State/local govt
Enterprises
Investment
Trade
Total


317,335 26,321


69,389


95
107
13,888


311,388 54,907
37,800 101
547 -36
50,275
70,333
843 -20,820
350,578 154,760


14,742
1227
3935


79,219
30,059
13,196
2,176


6,835 34,424
9,526
37,636 5,587


22,160
79,582
11,087


4,452
38,146


2,088
145,593
910,984 703,594


58810
128,283 11,995
42,597 524,332 162,967
All values are in millions of dollars


2,919 321
11,447
52,456 197,688


11,265
125,130













APPENDIX B

DETAILED IMPLAN SAM, 2003


Table B-1: Detailed IMPLAN SAM, 2003
NRM CNS MNF TRD TUT FNI REL OCC PBS EHS LHS SRV
NRM
CNS
MNF
TRD
TUT
INF
FNI
REL
PBS
EHS
LHS
SRV
NRM 9.2 0.4 16.5 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.3 2.4
CNS 0.1 0.6 1.6 1.7 1.2 1.1 5.1 3.7 3.8 2.5 2.8 5.3
MNF 1.9 50.5 102.0 8.1 5.4 0.6 1.5 3.2 20.8 21.7 19.9 20.9
TRD 2.0 68.3 56.1 13.0 7.0 0.8 2.5 5.6 18.9 10.2 14.7 15.0
TUT 2.3 16.3 39.2 21.3 35.5 6.2 15.2 0.6 30.6 13.8 14.9 18.5
FNI 1.0 12.6 13.6 12.4 9.0 110.9 10.2 20.5 21.2 11.1 8.2 10.9
REL 1.9 4.0 4.3 24.4 4.6 10.5 32.1 9.3 39.8 33.6 18.2 22.3
OCC
PBS 2.9 60.7 83.1 87.5 33.4 36.7 45.5 12.5 258.4 62.1 32.4 53.1
EHS 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.2 6.5 0.3 0.4
LHS 0.2 1.5 5.4 4.3 4.4 4.3 2.6 19.7 8.9 9.1 3.6
SRV 2.3 11.7 22.2 9.7 6.4 6.7 3.1 4.3 34.0 8.5 9.9 13.7
LAB 37 278 221 468 167 232 82 710 396 199 716
CAP 29 55 103 158 92 173 212 294 187 49 67 128
HH1
HH10
HH15
HH25
HH35
HH50
HH75
HH100
HH150
FED 0.3 0.4 0.9 16.5 2.5 1.7 6.8 6.4 3.2 0.6 3.5 1.8
STL 2.3 3.6 7.6 141.2 21.2 14.9 58.1 55.1 27.4 4.7 29.9 15.4
INV 9.3 5.3 20.5 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.5 0.1 3.4 4.4
NRM 0.1 0.6 1.5 1.6 1.0 1.0 4.3 1.5 3.5 2.3 2.6 4.4
CNS 12.6 180.1 273.7 19.9 33.8 3.0 4.7 8.8 56.2 46.7 55.7 66.6
MNF 0.2 6.1 7.0 1.8 3.1 0.8 0.2 0.5 4.4 1.0 1.5 3.6
TRD 0.6 4.9 13.6 7.3 16.9 2.8 3.5 0.1 12.8 5.3 4.1 6.7
TUT 0.5 6.0 6.3 5.7 4.4 54.1 4.9 10.1 9.8 5.2 3.8 5.0
FNI 0.8 1.7 1.8 10.5 2.0 4.5 13.8 4.0 17.1 14.4 7.8 9.5
REL
OCC 0.7 12.4 27.3 26.3 10.9 10.1 11.9 2.3 106.0 19.8 10.9 17.7
PBS 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.1 0.1
EHS 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.5 5.5 1.3 3.6 1.0
LHS 0.5 2.2 3.8 1.6 0.9 1.4 0.5 2.0 5.7 1.4 1.6 1.9
SRV 0.3 0.4 0.9 16.5 2.5 1.7 6.8 6.4 3.2 0.6 3.5 1.8













NRhi CNS NINF TRD TUT FNI REL OCC PBS
50.9 2.9
777.5
0.0 494.4
871.2
0.1 337.8
464.4
333.3


EHS LHS SRY LAB CAP


NRhi
CNS
NINF
TRD
RT T
FNI
REL
OCC
PBS
EHS
LHS
SRY
NRhi
CNS
NINF
TRD
RTU
FNI
REL
OCC
PBS
EHS
LHS
SRY
LAB
CAP
HH1
HH10
HH15
HH25
HH35
HH50
HH75
HH100
HH150
FED
STL
IN1
NRhi
CNS
NINF
TRD
RTU
INF
FNI
REL
PBS
EHS
LHS
SRY


25.0


1040.0 0.5
675.1


1.1
0.5 48.2 0.3 7.4


353.8
0.6 935.9


29.2 5.3
51.4 7.8
176.9 31.6
260.0 48.8
450.1 95.8
783.2 131.1
472.0 142.5
469.8 120.9
429.6 95.7
378.0 96.3
5.5 55.5
716.3














HH1 HH10 HH15 HH25 HH35 HH50 HH75 HH100 HH150 FED STL INV


NRM
CNS
MNF
TRD
TUT
FNI
REL
OCC
PBS
EHS
LHS
SRV


0.6 0.5 1.1 1.3


7.6 6.1 13.1 15.1
35.1 25.9 55.9 67.1
8.9 6.9 14.8 16.2
7.6 7.2 15.5 21.4
10.4 7.2 15.5 17.2
15.6 12.5 26.9 31.1
8.2 6.7 14.5 16.7
45.4 34.3 73.9 78.9
10.7 9.7 20.9 27.1
10.9 8.9 19.1 24.0




0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3
0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5
0.6 0.3 0.6 0.8
1.1 0.5 1.0 1.5
0.7 0.3 0.6 0.9
0.7 0.3 0.6 0.9
0.6 0.3 0.6 0.8
0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4
0.1 0.3 1.2 1.8
-1.5 -2.2 -3.8 39.3
0.7 0.6 1.2 1.4


36.3 29.2 63.8 77.5
3.6 3.0 6.4 7.7
2.8 2.1 4.6 5.2
3.6 3.4 7.3 10.1
4.5 3.1 6.6 7.4


5.1 4.1 8.9 10.7
5.1 4.3 9.3 9.7
1.7 1.6 3.4 4.3
1.7 1.7 3.6 4.6


2.0 2.4 1.6 1.4 1.1 -0.4
35.6
23.8 26.8 15.6 13.7 11.0 37.7
118.1 139.3 81.1 71.2 57.1 1.7
23.1 27.8 16.5 14.5 11.6 5.4
40.8 48.6 29.6 26.0 20.9 0.0
21.9 15.8 5.4 4.7 3.8 1.0
68.9 100.0 73.5 64.5 51.7
26.3 32.8 20.6 18.1 14.5 37.6
116.7 145.8 108.0 94.9 76.1 2.6
50.8 63.7 42.9 37.7 30.2 0.9
36.5 47.6 38.2 33.6 26.9 140.0


0.0 0.4
126.3 586.0
17.0 53.8
8.7 -3.6
22.7 3.5
5.7
8.5 25.3


36.6 46.0
-110.8 0.0
-4.1 0.0
444.4 -1.3




2.8 167.4
3.3 51.1
19.0
36.7
49.5 3.0
46.5
27.8
19.5
30.3
795.8
323.8 110.9
16.2 3.2
1.2 18.1
8.7
64.7
1.0 124.5
6.6 72.7
5.2 20.2
3.7 124.3
0.0
17.1 365.4
1.3
1.3 156.8
1.9 139.0


HH1
HH10
HH15
HH25
HH35
HH50
HH75
HH100
HH150
FED
STL
INV
NRM
CNS
MNF
TRD
TUT
FNI
REL


0.1
0.1
0.5
0.7
1.3
2.2
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
5.0
-28.1
2.1


126.0
13.8
7.4
19.3
9.4


17.3
13.4
7.6
6.1


0.2
0.3
0.9
1.3
2.3
4. 1
2.5
2.5
2.3
3.0
11.0
135.7
2.5


145.9
15.4
9.5
23.1
6.8


21.4
18.4
9.8
7.9


0.3 0.5 22.3
0.5 0.9 63.0
1.8 3.0 151.6
2.6 4.5 143.6
4.5 7.7 117.7
7.9 13.5 78.6
4.8 8.2 29.9
4.8 8.2 14.7
4.4 7.5 9.3
2.7 2.7 300.6
7.2 6.4 315.2
81.9 98.3 0.0
1.3 1.1 0.2
23.4
77.3 65.6 79.8
7.7 6.2 0.1
5.6 4.5 1.8
12.5 10.0 0.0
2.0 1.6 0.4


12.1 9.7 12.6
13.2 10.6 0.6
6.3 5.0 0.2
6.0 4.8 0.7















NRM CNS MNF TRD TUT FNI REL OCC PBS EHS LHS SRV
63.9 0.2 0.1


NRM
CNS
MNF
TRD
TUT
FNI
REL
OCC
PBS
EHS
LHS
SRV
NRM
CNS
MNF
TRD


532.6


171.3
146.0
177.3
188.9





0.6
0.0 6.0 0.1 4.2


559.2 0.1
52.0


168.0
0.1 145.2


SRV
LAB
CAP
HH1
HH10
HH15
HH25
HH35
HH50
HH75
HH100
HH150
FED
STL
INV
NRM
CNS
MNF
TRD
TUT
FNI
REL
OCC
PBS
EHS
LHS
SRV


0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0
1.7 1.3 0.2 0.3
25.0 50.9 1079.8 56.8 55.8 66.8 66.3


0.4
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.0 0.7
0.6 3.2 4.1
0.0 193.4 48.0 48.3 47.5










APPENDIX C
IMPLAN INDIRECT BUSINESS TAXES

Table C-1: IMPLAN indirect business taxes


Indirect bus tax
Excise taxes
Custom duty
Fed nontaxes


Federal government


2693
844
915


State & local govt Sales tax
Property tax
Motor vehicle
Severance tax
Other taxes
S/l nontaxes
All values are in Millions of Dollars S


18196
14370
lic 354
38
3333
1855
source: IMPLAN









APPENDIX D
NAICS CATEGORIES


Table D-1: NAICS categories
Model sector
Natural resources & mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade
Transportation & utilities
Financial activities
Real estate
Owner occupied housing
Professional & business services
Education & health services
Leisure & hospitality services


Abbreviation
NRM
CNS
MNF
TRD
TUT
FNI
REL
OCC
PBS
EHS
LHS













APPENDIX E

JUST AND TAXABLE VALUE BY USECODE


Table E-1: Just and taxable value by usecode
Usecode Description
0 Vacant residential
1 Single family
2 Mobile homes
3 Multi-family 10+ units
4 Condominium
5 Cooperatives
6 Retirement homes
7 Miscellaneous residential
8 Multi-family 10 units
9 Undefined
10 Vacant commercial
11 Stores, one story
12 Mixed use store & office, etc.
13 Department stores
14 Supermarkets
15 Regional shopping centers
16 Community shopping centers
17 Offiee buildings non-professional services, one story
18 Offiee buildings non-professional services, multi stor7
19 Professional services buildings
20 Airports, bus terminals, marine terminals, piers, marina
21 Restaurants, cafeterias
22 Drive-in restaurants
23 Financial institutions
24 Insurance company offices
25 Repair service shops (excluding automotive)
26 Undefined
27 Undefined
28 Parking lots, mobile home parks
29 Wholesale outlets, produce houses, manufacturing outli
30 Florist, greenhouses
31 Drive-in theaters, open stadiums
32 Enclosed theaters, enclosed auditoriums
33 Nightclubs, cocktail lounges, bars
34 Bowling alleys. skating. rinks. pool halls, enclosed aren;


y


s












ets






as


Count
1,705,370
4,234,581
442,858
14,126
1,479,155
41,593
1,044
17,953
156,143
657
82,107
38,892
21,484
831
2,540
487
6,562
26,111
8,881
15,345
1,369
7,895
4,353
4,303
307
4,969
3,876
15,471
13,510
879
449
37
219
2,125
545


Just Value
70,207,645,797
854,600,759,530
24,773,944,993
44,980,935,352
272,540,727,113
3,954,968,490
2,323,865,744
1,532,992,213
31,469,330,697
4,917,867
16,885,153,432
22,958,290,738
7,273,321,089
4,187,517,730
2,309,595,305
8,123,305,532
18,048,684,143
11,717,142,785
23,434,034,340
10,137,687,255
1,953,107,001
4,890,819,217
2,778,529,527
4,658,881,287
215,938,437
1,188,090,985
2,152,360,993
8,174,769,795
8,593,431,725
612,837,149
94,023,754
173,952,610
638,846,600
741,525,251
760,861,057


Taxable Value
68,873,754,110
566,241,081,361
14,793,710,669
43,698,225,831
218,464,164,260
3,023,690,206
1,876,600,810
1,465,878,457
27,317,406,587
3,218,133
16,359,792,123
22,770,663,078
6,875,603,221
4,180,989,836
2,305,993,057
8,022,103,790
18,024,988,435
11,357,638,424
22,829,420,893
9,434,867,202
1,038,310,381
4,870,953,079
2,771,469,588
4,646,311,046
214,226,919
1,180,983,218
2,147,238,226
8,108,141,598
8,278,469,082
608,205,548
90,631,067
139,463,486
512,116,272
726,616,023
581,687,466


Tourist attractions, permanent exhibits, other entertainment
35 facilities, fairgrounds (private)
36 Camps
37 Race tracks: horse, auto, or dog
38 Golf courses, driving ranges
39 Hotels, motels
40 Vacant industrial

Light manufacturing, small equipment manufacturing plants, small
41 machine shops, instnxment manufacturing, print plants

Heavy industrial, heavy equipment manufacturing, large machine
42 shops, foundries, steel fabricating plants, auto or aircraft plants
43 Lumber yards, sawmills, planning mills
44 Packing plants: fnxit &vegetable, meat packing plants
Canneries, fnlit & vegetable, bottlers & brewers distilleries,
45 wineries


929
537
131
3,212
6,380
18,502


3,456,082,772
544,129,813
311,978,754
3,857,842,005
20,858,293,804
4,085,191,977


3,359,579,836
484,332,959
308,227,109
3,718,248,284
20,577,706,264
3,933,986,533


9,965,151,374


1,578,256,332
451,769,669
564,733,147


380,105,891


15,960 10,098,426,191


1,856,005,511
460,184,278
566,231,297


106 381,115,996













Usecode Description

Other food processing, candy factories, bakeries, potato chip
46 factories

Mineral processing, phosphate processing, cement plants,
47 refineries, clay plants, rock & gravel plants
Warehousing, distribution terminals, trucking terminals, van &
48 storage warehousing

Open storage, new & used building supplies, junk yards, auto
49 wrecking, fuel storage, equipment & material storage
50 Improved agricultural
51 Cropland soil capability class i
52 Cropland soil capability class ii
53 Cropland soil capability class iii
54 Timberland site index 90 and above
55 Timberland site index 80 to 89
56 Timberland site index 70 to 79
57 Timberland site index 60 to 69
58 Timberland site index 50 to 59
59 Timberland not classified by site index to pines
60 Grazing land soil capability class i
61 Grazing land soil capability class ii
62 Grazing land soil capability class iii
63 Grazing land soil capability class iv
64 Grazing land soil capability class v
65 Grazing land soil capability class vi
66 Orchard groves, citrus, etc.
67 Poultry, bees, tropical fish, rabbits, etc.
68 Dairies, feed lots
69 Ornamentals, miscellaneous agricultural
70 Vacant institutional
71 Churches
72 Private schools & colleges
73 Privately owned hospitals
74 Homes for the aged
75 Orphanages, other non-profit or charitable services
76 Mortuaries, cemeteries, crematoriums
77 Clubs, lodges, union halls
78 Sanitariums, convalescent & rest homes
79 Cultural organizations, facilities
80 Undefined reserved for future use
81 Military
82 Forest, parks, recreational areas
Public county schools include all property of board of public
83 instruction
84 Colleges
85 Hospitals
86 Counties (other than public schools, colleges, hospitals)
State other than military, forests, parks, recreational areas, colleges,
87 hospitals
Federal other than military, forests, parks, recreational areas,
88 hospitals, colleges


89 Municipal other than parks, recreational areas, colleges, hospitals
Leasehold interests governmentt owned property leased by a non-
90 govemmental lessee)


Count


Just Value Taxable Value


355 381,093,915


940 663,477,690


378,820,253


660,914,044


34,664 28,059,680,486 27,630,078,133


3,789
25,744
7,515
8,886
8,228
7,485
21,635
24,298
7,003
2,511
5,944
32,772
15,365
7,347
13,931
1,575
1,443
21,951
896
2,762
9,055
5,201
24,838
3,598
809
4,597
7,192
2,839
5,866
511
830
2,992
436
31,962


6,381
491
460
47,760


999,594,157
5,499,266,567
1,935,972,663
1,545,078,403
4,159,033,313
1,590,765,355
4,346,362,151
3,913,021,553
1,638,918,520
384,523,573
1,029,771,282
11,079,567,528
4,694,843,930
2,800,072,009
4,074,355,920
1,025,482,685
395,278,175
8,088,401,381
227,480,008
1,288,569,301
2,573,803,887
527,604,306
14,410,542,430
4,336,873,935
5,675,766,329
3,918,865,219
1,784,496,950
1,020,781,084
2,054,297,663
1,348,009,766
626,218,057
823,745,903
2,744,947,676
7,301,146,829


18,092,004,095
5,483,469,131
3,433,336,630
25,615,311,332


979,869,273
1,992,982,200
401,711,914
319,427,005
908,310,659
265,492,030
592,117,648
595,305,497
183,491,891
53,755,837
130,649,489
1,352,466,811
709,614,728
460,982,865
698,996,666
65,861,990
66,129,626
1,981,238,158
90,545,511
494,970,554
781,015,136
49,291,338
272,196,749
744,669,816
2,611,161,627
2,291,612,071
133,279,499
519,957,611
800,376,039
1,005,399,945
28,128,440
35,454,446
161,477
36,542,208


24,916,512
22,905,580
323,959,618
207,229,666


58,881,549


63,245,514


271,580,364


1,544,942,505


65,369 13,217,439,099


20,867 11,138,536,533


35,573 15,919,784,019


2,435


3,059,879,068













Usecode Description

Utility, gas & electricity, telephone & telegraph, locally assessed
railroads, water & sewer service, pipelines, canals, radio tv
91 communication
92 liining lands, petroleum lands, or gas lands
93 Subsurface rights
94 Right-of-way, streets, roads, irrigation channel, ditch, etc.
95 Rivers & lakes, submerged lands

Sewage disposal, solid ivaste, borrow pits, drainage reservoirs,
96 waste lands, marsh, sand dunes, swamps


Count


Just Value Taxable Value


11,109
1,127
32,527
24,232
9,148


14,797


4,347,111,741
257,587,866
186,063,942
528,461,347
149,322,642


298,738,733


3,236,868,726
253,164,548
165,050,325
48,418,396
39,798,095


88,572,963


Outdoor recreational or park land subject to classified use
assessment
Centrally assessed
Acreage not zoned agricultural


14,138 204,560,157 82,343,828
1,522 120,778,314 21,517,970
125,824 10,340,376,443 9,673,475,888

Source: 2005 Florida Department of Revenue










APPENDIX F
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TO NAICS CROSSWALK


Table F-1: Department of Revenue to NAIC S Crosswalk
NAICS sectors Depa
Natural resources and mining 47, 5(


42


rtment of Revenue
0 to 69


Construction


Manufacturing 41 to 46
Trade 10 to 16, 26 to 30
Transportation and utilities 20, 48, 49, 91
Financial activities 23, 24
Owner occupied housing, real estate 0 to 9
Professional and business services 17 to 19
Education and health services 72 to 75, 78, 83 to 85
Leisure and hospitality services 21, 22, 31 to 39
Other services 25, 71, 76, 77, 79 to 82, 86 to 89









APPENDIX G
IMPLAN GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM MODEL PROGRAM

$TITLE IMPLAN General Equilibrium Model

$ONTEXT
$MODEL: IMPLAN

$SECTORS :
YC(S) Sectoral supply -- CET for export and domestic
Y(S) Sectoral production
AH(G, HH)$AHO(G,HH) Household Armington
AG(G,PUB)$AGO(G,PUB ) Governm ent Armi ngton
AI(G)$AIO(G) Investment Armington
X(G) Commodity export
M(G) Commodity import
GOV(PUB) Public output
INV$IO Investment
C(HH)$CO(HH) Consumption

$COMMODITIES:
PY(S) Sectoral output price index
PAH(G,HH) $AHO(G, HH) Household Armington
PAG(G,PUB)$AGO(G,PUB) Government Armington
PAI(G)$AIO(G) Investment Armington
PI$IO Investment
PG(PUB) Government
PL Labor wages
RK Capital return
PFX Balance of payments constraint
PD(G) Domestic supply price
PX(G) Export supply price
PM(G) Import demand price
PC(HH) Utility price index


$CONSUMERS:
RA(HH)
GOVT(PUB)
BANK

$AUXILIARY:
TAU


! Instititutional income
! Government
! Investment


! Tax multipliers


* CET activity:
$PROD:YC(S) t:1 G.TL(t):4









O:PD(G) Q:MAKE(S,G) G. TL:
O:PX(G) Q: SEXPRT(S,G) G.TL:
I:PY(S) Q:(SUM(G,MAKE(S,G)+SEXPRT(S,G)))

* Production activity:
$PROD:Y(S) s:0 VA:1 G.TL:4
O:PY(S) Q:(SUM(G,MAKE(S,G)+SEXPRT(S,G)))
+ A:GOVT("IFED"I) T:TX("IFED",~S)
+ A:GOVT("ISTL"I) N:TAU$TX("ISTL"I,S) M:TX("ISTL"I,S)$TX("ISTL",~S)
I:PD(G) Q :USE(G, S) G.TL:
I:PM(G) Q: SIMPRT(G, S) G. TL:
I:PL Q:1d0(s) VA:
I:RK Q:KDO(S) P:PT("STL",S) A:GOVT(" STL")
+ T:TF(" STL",S) VA:

* Final demand by institutions modeled as Cobb-Douglas:
$PROD: AH(G, HH) $AHO(G, HH) s:1
O: PAH(G,HH) $AHO(G, HH) Q: AHO(G,HH)
I:PD(G) Q:DHO(G,HH)
I:PM(G) Q:MHO(G,HH)

* Final demand by institutions modeled as Cobb-Douglas:
$PROD: AG(G, PUB) $AGO(G,PUB) s:1
O:PAG(G,PUB) Q: (MAX(AGO(G,PUB),0))
I:PAG(G,PUB) Q: (MAX(-AGO(G,PUB),0))
I:PD(G) Q :(MAX(D GO(G,PUB),0))
O:PD(G) Q:(MAX(-DGO(G,PUB),0O))
I:PM(G) Q: (MAX(MGO(G,PUB),0))
O:PM(G) Q:(MAX(-MGO(G,PUB),0O))

* Final demand by institutions modeled as Cobb-Douglas:
$PROD: AI(G) $AIO(G) s:1
O:PAI(G) Q:(MAX(AIO(G),0))
I:PAI(G) Q:(MAX(-AIO(G),0))
I:PD(G) Q:(MAX(DIO(G),0))
O:PD(G) Q:(MAX(-DIO(G),0))
I:PM(G) Q:MIO(G)

* Final demand by institutions modeled as Cobb-Douglas:
$PROD:C(HH)$CO(HH) s:1 h:sigmah
O:PC(HH) Q:CO(HH)
I:PAH(G,HH) Q: AHO(G,HH) h:$HS(G)


$PROD:GOV(PUB) s:1
O:PG(PUB) Q:(MAX(GO(PUB),0))









I:PG(PUB)
I:PAG(G, PUB)
O:PAG(G,PUB)

** Investment:


Q:(MAX(-GO(PUB),0O))
Q: (MAX(AGO(G,PUB),0))
Q: (MAX(-AGO(G,PUB),0))


$PROD:INV$IO
O:PI
I:PAI(G)


Q:IO
Q:AIO(G)


* Commodity trade (fixed export and import prices):


$PROD: X(G)
O:PFX
I:PX(G)

$PROD :M(G)
O:PM(G)
I:PFX


Q :(XO(G)+ SUM(HH, XHO(HH, G))+ SUM(PUB,XGO (PUB,G))+XIO(G))
Q :(XO(G)+ SUM(HH, XHO(HH, G))+ SUM(PUB,XGO (PUB, G))+XIO(G))

s:1
Q :(MO(G)+ SUM(HH,MHO(G,HH))+ SUM(PUB,MGO(G,PUB ))+MIO(G))
Q :(MO(G)+ SUM(HH,MHO(G, HH))+ SUM(PUB ,MGO(G,PUB ))+MIO(G))


* Income balance for institutions:
$DEMAND: RA(HH)
E:PL Q:1e0(HH)


Q:ke0(HH)
Q: XHO(HH, G)
Q : (TRNHH(HH)+ SUM(PUB, TRNHHPUB(HH,PUB)))
Q:(-SUM(PUB ,PTAX(PUB ,HH)))
Q:(-SAVHH(HH))
Q:CO(HH)


E:RK
E:PX(G)
E:PFX
E:PFX
E:PFX
D:PC(HH)


$DEMAND: GOVT(PUB)
E:PL Q:tl0(pub)
E:RK Q:tkO(pub)
E:PX(G) Q:XGO(PUB,G)


Q :( SUM(HH,PTAX(PUB ,HH))+ SUM(P B, TRN SFER(PUB,P B)))
Q :(- SUM(HH, TRNHHPUB (HH,PUB))- SUM(P B, TRN SFER(P B,PUB)))
Q:(-SAVUBPUB(U))
SQ:GO(PUB)


NTK
Q:depr0
Q:XIO(G)
Q:(SUM(HH, SAVHH(HH)) + SUM(PUB, SAVPUB(PUB)))
Q:IO


E:PFX
E:PFX
E:PFX
D:PG(PUB)


$DEMAND:BAr
E:RK
E:PX(G)
E:PFX
D:PI


$CONSTRAINT: TAU
*GOVT("IGOV"I) =e= GOV("GOV")*Q0(" GOV")*PGOV("GOV");










GOV("ISTL"I)=E= 1;


$OFFTEXT
$SYSINCLUDE mpsgeset IMPLAN

tau.1 = 1;
tau.lo = -inf;
GOV.FX("IFED"I)= GOV.L("IFED"I);

IMPLAN.ITERLIM = 0;
$INCLUDE IMPLAN.GEN
SOLVE IMPLAN USING MCP;
IMPLAN.ITERLIM = 10000;

** scenario one
*TF("ISTL","IOCC"I)= 0;

** scenario two
*TF('STL',s) = ITAX('STL',S)/FD('cap',s) ;
*TF("ISTL",~HS)= 0;

** scenario three
*TF("ISTL",~S)= 0;

$INCLUDE IMPLAN.GEN
SOLVE IMPLAN USING MCP;










LIST OF REFERENCES


Aaron, H.J. Who Pays the Property Tax: A New View. Washington, D. C., The Brookings
Institution, 1975.

Arrow, K.J. "General Economic Equilibrium: Purpose, Analytic Techniques, Collective
Choice." Anzer. Econ. Rev. 64(1974):253-272.

Arrow, K.J. and F. Hahn General Competitive Analysis. San Francisco, Holden-Day. 1971.

Berck, P., E. Goland, et al. Dynamic Revenue Analysis for Cahifornia. Sacramento, Financial
and Economic Research, Department of Finance, 1996.

Berliner, U. "Have and Have-Nots: Income Inequality in America." National Public Radio
(Feburary 2007).

Blake, D.R. "Property Tax Incidence: An Alternate View." LandEcon. 55(Nov. 1979):521-531.

----------. "Property Tax Incidence: Reply." LandEcon. 57(Aug. 1981):473-475.

Bradford, D.F., Ed. DistributionalAnalysis of Tax Policy. Washington D. C., The AEl Press,
1995.

Budiyanti, R. Application of General Equilibrium M~odeling for M~ea~suring Regional Economic
and Welfare Impacts of Quality Changes in Sport Fishing in Oklahanta. Department of
Agricultural Economics_Stillwater, Olkahama State University. Doctor of Philosophy,
212(1990).

Debreu, G. Theory of Vahte. New York, Wiley. 1959.

Dew-Becker, I. and R. J. Gordon. Where Did the Productivity G; 1,n thr Go? hzflation Dynamics
and the Distribution ofhiconse. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. B. I. Press,
Brookings Institution, 2005.

Economic Policy Institute/Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Despite Past Boom Times,
hIconse Gaps H~ave Widened in 45 States Over The Past Twenty Years. Washington D.C.,
2002.

Fisher, R.C. State andLocal Public Finance: institutions, theory, policy, 2nd ed., Richard D.
Irwin, 1996.

Ginsburgh, V. and M. Keyzer The Structure ofApplied General Equilibrium M~odels.
Cambridge, The MIT Press, 1997.

Gunning, J.W. and M.A. Keyzer, Eds. Applied General Equilibrium M~odels for Policy Analysis.
Handbook of Development Economics, Elsevier Science, 1995.










Hamilton, B.W. "Capitalization of intrajurisdictional differences in local tax prices." American
Economic Review 66(December 1975):743-753.

Hanson, K. and S. Vogel. A CGE Model for a Regional SAM fions IMPRO. Washington, D.C.,
Economic Research Service, USDA, 1998.

----------. "A Note on linking the IMPRO 2.0 SAM data files for 1996 to a CGE model."
Washington, D.C., Economic Research Service, UDSA, 2000.

Harberger, A.C. The Corporation Income Tax: An Empirical Apprasial. Tax Revision
Conspendium 1. H. C. o. W. a. Means. Washington D. C., House Committee on Ways and
Means, 86th Congress, 1959.

----------. "The Incidence of Corporation Income Tax." J. ofPol. Econ. 70(June 1962):215-240.

----------. Efficiency Effects of Taxes on hIconse f om Capital. Symposium on Business Taxation,
Detroit, Wayne State University. 1966.

Hassett, K.A. and R.G. Hubbard, Eds. hzequality and Tax Policy. Washington D. C., The AEl
Press, 2001.

Hoffmann, S., S. Robinson, et al. "The Role of Defense Cuts in the California Recession:
Computable General Equilibrium Models and Interstate Factor Mobility." J. ofReg. Sci.
36(November 1996):571-595.

Julia-Wise, R., S.C. Cooke, et al. "A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis of a Property
Tax Limitation Initiative in Idaho." LandEcon. 78(May 2002):207-227.

Katzner, D.W. The Walrasian Vision of the M~icroecononzy. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan
Press, 1989.

Kehoe, P.J. and T.J. Kehoe "A Primer on Static Applied General Equilibrium Models." Fed.
Res. Bank of2~inn. Quart. Rev. 18(Winter 1994):2-16.

Kim, J. "Growth of regional economy and income inequality: county-level evidence from
Florida, USA." App. Econ. 36(February 2004):173-183.

Koh, Y.K. Analysis of Oklahanza's boom and bust economy by means of a CGE model.
Department of Agricultural Economics. Stillwater, Oklahoma State University. Doctor of
Philosophy, 186(1991).

Kraybill, D.S. and D.Y. Pai. Documentation for a Conzputable General Equilibrium M~odel of
Ohio, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ohio State University, 1995.

Levy, F. Distribution of Income. The Concise Encyclopedia ofEconontics, The Library of
Economics and Liberty, 2002.











Lofgren, H., R.L. Harris, et al. A Standarddddd~~~~~~dddddd Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) M~odel in
GAM~S. Washington, D.C., Trade and Macroeconomics Division, International Food
Policy Research Institute, 2001.

Lynch, R.G. "Estimates of Income and Income Inequality in the United States and in Each of the
Fifty States: 1998-1999." J. ofReg. Sci. 43(August 2003):571-581.

Mathiesen, L. "Computation of economic equilibria by a sequence of linear complementarity
problems." Math. Prog. Study 23 (1985).

Mieszkowski, P. "The property tax: An excise tax or a profits tax?" J. ofPub. Econ. 1(April
1972):73-96.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. IM~PLAN Professional User Guide, Analysis Guide, Data
Guide. Stillwater, 2000.

Musgrave, R.A. The Theory of Public Finance: A Study in Public Economy. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959.

Partridge, M.D. and D.S. Rickman "Regional Computable General Equilibrium Modeling: A
Survey and Critical Appraisal." Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 21(December 1998):205-248.

Raimondo, H. J. Economics ofState and Local Government. Westport, Connecticut, Praeger
Publishers, 1992.

Robinson, S.M. Kilkenny, et al. The USDA/ERS~ Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) M~odel
of the United States. Washington, Agricultural and Rural Economy Division Economic
Research Service, 1990.

Rutherford, T.F. Tools for Building National Economic M~odels Using State-Level IM~PLAN
Social Accounts. Department of Economics, University of Colorado, 1995 (revised 2004).

Rutherford, T.F. and M.K. Light. A General Equilibrium M~odel for Tax Policy Analysis in
Colombia, Colombian National Department of Planning, 2001.

Rutherford, T. and S. Paltsev. From an Input-Output Table to a General Equilibrium M~odel:
Assessing the Excess Burden oflndirect Taxes in Russia. Boulder, Department of
Economics University of Colorado, 1999.

Scarf H. "The Aproximation of Fixed Points of a Continuous Ma n." SIAM J. on Ap.
Math. 15 (September 1967). 1328-1243.

Scarf, H. and T. Hansen. The Computation of Economic Equilibria. New Haven, Yale
University Press, 1973.










Senate Finance and Taxation Committee. 2005 Florida Tax Handbook. Florida State Senate,
Tallahassee, Florida, 2005

Seung, C.K. A Dynamic General Equilibrium Analysis of State Tax Incentives for Economic
Development. Department of Agricultural Economics, Ohio State University. Doctor of
Philosophy: 153(1996).

Seung, C.K. and D.S. Kraybill. "Tax Incentives in an Economy with Public Goods." G; 1,n thr and
Change. 30(Winter 1999):128-147.

----------. "The Effects of Infrastructure Investment: A Two-Sector Dynamic Computable
General Equilibrium Analysis For Ohio." Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 24(April 2001):261-281.

Shoven, J.B. and J. Whalley. "Applied General-Equilibrium Models of Taxation and
International Trade: An Introduction and Survey." J. ofEcon. Lit. 22(September
1984):1007-1051.

----------. Applying General Equilibrium. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Starr, R. M. General Equilibrium Theory: An Introduction. Cambrid ge, Cambrid ge University
Press, 1997.

Stodick, L., D. Holland, et al. Documentation for the Idaho-Washington CGE Model, School of
Economic Sciences Washington State University, 2004.

Vargas, E., D. Schreiner, et al. Computable General Equilibrium M~odeling for Regional
Analysis, Regional Research Institute West Virginia University, 1996.

Waters, E.C., D.W. Holland, et al. "Economic Impact of a Property Tax Limitation: A
Computable General Equilibrium Analysis of Oregon's Measure 5." LandEcon.
73(February 1997):72-89.

Wheelan, C. Why Income Inequality Matters: Yahoo Finance, Yahoo, 2007.

Zodrow, G.R. "The Property Tax as a Capital Tax: A Room with Three Views." Nat. Tax J.
54(March 2001): 139-156.

----------. "The New View of the Property Tax: A Reformulation." Reg. Sci. and Urb. Econ.
16(August 1986):309-327.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

A native of West Palm Beach, Florida, Mike O'Connell obtained his B.A. in philosophy

from the University of Florida in 1972. After a 15-year career in banking culminating in a

position of vice president and focusing on property appraisal and community reinvestment, Mr.

O'Connell returned to the University of Florida to pursue an M.A. in economics which he

received in from the Warrington School of Business inl 991.

His professional career with the State of Florida has included work with the Department of

Revenue, the Agency for Workforce Innovation (formerly the Department of Labor) and the

Department of Community Affairs. He currently works for American Express as a senior

econometrician. He has used his extensive knowledge of economics, finance, and research

techniques to provide a wide variety of economic analyses to specific proj ects. These include

short- and long-term economic forecasting of the economy using advanced statistical and

econometric techniques and regional economic analysis using economic impact modeling

software such as REMI and IMPLAN. He has coordinated large proj ects with other departments

and agencies and. presented findings at state and national workshops and seminars. He also

incorporates the use of ArcView and ArcGIS geographic information systems for economic

analysis.





PAGE 1

1 A GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS OF PROPERTY TAX IN FLORIDA By MIKE O'CONNELL A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 by Mike OConnell

PAGE 3

3 To Roberta Hammond with love and gratitude

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my dissertation committee, Robert Emerson, Burl Long, David Mulkey and David Denslow for their forbearance, patience, help and advice.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........9 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................12 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................18 Theoretical Literature......................................................................................................... ....18 Empirical Li terature........................................................................................................... .....20 IMPLAN Based Regional CGE Models.................................................................................21 Tax Policy Analysis............................................................................................................ ....25 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................29 The General Equilibrium Model.............................................................................................29 The Social Accounting Matrix................................................................................................33 Tax Policy Analysis and Simulation.......................................................................................35 CGE Model Code Implementation.........................................................................................36 4 DATA ANALYSIS................................................................................................................39 5 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .......43 Scenario I: Owner Occupi ed Housing Tax Results................................................................44 Scenario II: Housing Services Tax Results............................................................................47 Scenario III: Capital Tax Results............................................................................................49 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........51 6 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................73 APPENDIX A AGGREGATE IMPLAN SAM, 2003....................................................................................80 B DETAILED IMPLAN SAM, 2003.........................................................................................81 C IMPLAN INDIRECT BUSINESS TAXES............................................................................85

PAGE 6

6 D NAICS CATEGORIES..........................................................................................................86 E JUST AND TAXABLE VALUE BY USECODE.................................................................87 F DEPARTMENT OF REVENU E TO NAICS CROSSWALK...............................................90 G IMPLAN GENERAL EQUILIBRI UM MODEL PROGRAM..............................................91 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. ..95 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................99

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 Source of taxes in Florida................................................................................................. .15 4-1 Florida industry va lue added shares, 2003.........................................................................39 4-2 Florida industry import shares, 2003.................................................................................40 4-3 Florida industry labor intensity shares, 2003.....................................................................40 4-4 Distribution of labor acr oss Florida industries, 2003.........................................................41 4-5 Indirect business tax as percent of production...................................................................42 4-6 Ad valorem tax as percent of capital..................................................................................42 5-1 Output results owner occupied housing simulation...........................................................54 5-2 Domestic inputs results owne r occupied housing simulation............................................55 5-3 Imported inputs results owne r occupied housing simulation.............................................56 5-4 Factor inputs results owne r occupied housing simulation.................................................56 5-5 CET domestic results owner occupied housing simulation...............................................57 5-6 CET export results owner occupied housing simulation...................................................58 5-7 Export results owner oc cupied housing simulation...........................................................58 5-8 Import results owner occupied housing simulation...........................................................59 5-9 Final household consumption result s owner occupied housing simulation.......................59 5-10 Armington household results owner occupied housing simulation...................................59 5-11 Output results housing services simulation........................................................................60 5-12 Domestic inputs results housing services simulation.........................................................60 5-13 Imported inputs results hous ing services simulation.........................................................61 5-14 Factor inputs results hou sing services simulation..............................................................61 5-15 CET domestic results ho using services simulation............................................................62 5-16 CET export results housing services simulation................................................................63 5-17 Export results housing services simulation........................................................................63

PAGE 8

8 5-18 Import results housing services simulation........................................................................63 5-19 Final household consumption resu lts housing services simulation...................................64 5-20 Armington household results housing services simulation................................................64 5-22 Domestic inputs results capital tax simulation...................................................................65 5-23 Imported inputs results capital tax simulation...................................................................66 5-24 Factor inputs result s capital tax simulation........................................................................66 5-25 CET domestic results capital tax simulation......................................................................67 5-26 CET export results capital tax simulation..........................................................................68 5-27 Export results capital tax simulation..................................................................................68 5-28 Import results capital tax simulation..................................................................................68 5-29 Final household consumption results capital tax simulation.............................................69 5-30 Armington household results capital tax simulation..........................................................69 5-31 Investments results table................................................................................................. ...69 5-32 Output results table...................................................................................................... ......70 5-33 Labor results table....................................................................................................... .......70 5-34 Capital results table..................................................................................................... .......71 5-35 Exports results table..................................................................................................... ......71 5-36 Imports results table..................................................................................................... ......71 5-37 Household results table................................................................................................... ...72 A-1 Aggregate IMPLAN SAM, 2003.......................................................................................80 B-1 Detailed IMPLAN SAM, 2003..........................................................................................81 C-1 IMPLAN indirect business taxes.......................................................................................85 D-1 NAICS categories........................................................................................................... ...86 E-1 Just and taxable value by usecode.....................................................................................87 F-1 Department of Revenue to NAICS Crosswalk..................................................................90

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 CGE framework.............................................................................................................. ...31

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy A GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS OF PROPERTY TAX IN FLORIDA By Mike O'Connell December 2007 Chair: Robert Emerson Major: Food and Resource Economics This dissertation uses a genera l equilibrium model to analy ze the effects of property tax policy on various industrial sectors of the econom y and on the distribution of income. A general equilibrium model is an established methodology us ed to evaluate the impact of tax policy. The empirical basis for the model is a social acc ounting matrix that incl udes a production section transforming intermediate inputs, labor and cap ital factors into commodity output for the domestic and export market. The domestic comm odities are allocated to intermediate inputs and final consumption by household groups, gove rnment and the investment sector. The behavior of producers and consumers is described by the optimization of profit and utility functions subject to t echnological and income constrai nts. There are nine household groups distinguished by income and twelve i ndustry sectors which include owner-occupied housing. The dissertation research consists of running counterfactua l scenarios with the model. Each scenario represents an alternative treatment of the ad valorem property tax. The general equilibrium model formulation with multiple economic agents and institutions permits the estimation of the detailed and syst ematic impacts of public policy. As with any positive economic approach, the evaluation of polic y presents an objective assessment that gives support to decision making. An important conc lusion of the research is that the total

PAGE 11

11 consumption by household groups as a welfare meas ure of the change in public policy indicates a clearly neutral impact. There are differences across income groups as to their consumption of owner-occupied housing. Another conclusion of the research is that there are significant differences in the productive output and use of fa ctor inputs of the various industrial sectors. The change in tax policy also has a positive effect on the housing sector which is composed of owner-occupied housing and real esta te which includes rentals.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Taxes are certain and controve rsial with none more controve rsial than local government property taxes. Over the last several decades there has been what could be characterized a citizens revolt against property taxes with a nu mber of legislative ac tions such as circuit breakers and tax limitation programs. In 1995, th e State of Florida in troduced a property tax initiative called Save Our Homes. Under Save Our Homes, the increase in taxable value of a residence is limited to three percent a year or less. As a source for state and local government sp ending, ad valorem taxes and sales taxes are by far the largest revenue base (Tab le 1-1). In Florida, an advant age of the sales tax is that a share is paid by nonresidents due to the touris m industry; a disadvantage is that sales tax collections follow the cyclicality of the national ec onomy due to the cyclicality of tourism. At a local level there is a recurring c onflict between the requirements fo r education expenditure at the local level which is primarily funded with ad va lorem taxes and property tax relief. The state must evaluate the benefits and costs of one ta x source over another. This estimation procedure and resulting decisions with regard to tax coll ection and spending is a ba sic application in the field of public economics which deals with the e fficiency and equity of government policy. The research or economic problem addressed in this dissertation is that of establishing a method or tool to assist in choosing the optimal policy in terms of efficiency and fairness. In making the policy analysis and decision, the state evaluates the impact th at alternative policies will have on the specific indus try sectors, consumers and the overall economy. Government expenditures and revenue collection decisions have an impact on industrial sectors and household groups which in turn have a reciprocal effect on state and local governments. These

PAGE 13

13 shared interactions are described in a model representation where the economic outcome of all agents and institutions is endogenously determined. A reliable and comprehensive method for conduc ting the tax policy analysis is not only necessary but fundamental to th e types of factors contributing to the outcome of the policy choice. The economic model utilized in this di ssertation is a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model. Besides providing detailed info rmation on the individual business sectors and households in the economy, it provides a complete re presentation of the overa ll state or regional economy. The research objective is to determine equilibrium solutions resulting from alternative tax policies through a CGE model as a complete implementation of public policy analysis. Different choices of tax policies are eval uated by examining the alternative equilibria of the economic model that are brought about from changing po licy parameters. The CGE model has nine household groups and twelve industry sectors. The model incorporates the states tax structure. Three scenarios will be developed with the m odel to simulate the outcome of alternative tax policy decisions. The analysis will be conducted using the Harberger equal revenue yield procedure where all scenarios main tain the same level of government services. This procedure allows for the separation of the effects of changes in tax policy from changes in the provision of public goods. An examination of the compound eff ects of a change in revenue and consequent change in public expenditures is relevant but as an initial approach to evaluating tax policy the Harberger procedure is fundamentally important. Th e approach used in this dissertation can be seen as the first stage in a fu ll analysis. The next stage woul d be the balanced budget approach. This topic is an interesting and important one since the 2007 Fl orida legislature is currently considering changes in the property tax system. Existing tax policy analysis typically concerns

PAGE 14

14 itself with the direct estimation of changes to general revenue f unds with strong ceteris paribus assumptions regarding the behavior of economic agen ts. It is rare for actual tax policy analysis to consider the impact on income distribution of households. It has been observed that, over time, the distribution of income, both nationally and regionally, has become more unequal. A recent st udy of the changing pattern of the distribution of income in the United States has been conducted by Dew-Becker and Gordon (2005). The increasing inequalities of income at the top end of the distribution and recent demographic trends have increased the demand for real property in Fl orida especially in the coastal areas. Upper pressure on real estate prices has prompted the current legisl ative activity with regards to property tax policy. The CGE model developed in this dissertation analyzes the effects of changes in property tax policy on various sectors of the economy in the State of Florida a nd on the distribution of income. By using a CGE model and equal-yield di fferential tax analysis to study tax policy, this document attempts to makes an original contri bution to the field of public economics. A CGE model can incorporate multiple household agents classified according to income. This formulation allows for an assessment of the distribu tional impact of a change in property taxes. A general equilibrium model is an establishe d methodology used to evaluate the efficiency and equity of tax policy. The model describes the interactions between multiple markets, sectors and economic agents with the weakest level of ceteris paribus assumptions. Estimation of the feedback effects between inte rrelated markets and sectors of the economy is essential for determining the final incidence of tax policy and ev aluating its distributional and equity impacts. The distributional impact of th ese programs in terms of their progressivity or regressivity

PAGE 15

15 depends on the incidence of the property tax. Th e CGE model is used to evaluate the real property tax system within the cap ital theory of tax incidence The research was conducted by utilizing the IMPLAN1 regional database in the construction of a Florida Social Accounting Ma trix (SAM). The GAMS (General Algebraic Modeling System) MPSGE (Mathematical Progra mming System for General Equilibrium) software program was used. This software was originally developed in 1987 by the World Bank. The State of Floridas tax system is composed of several different tax categories. Table 11 presents information on tax sources for gene ral revenue funds as reported by the Florida Department of Revenue and state legislature. Direct taxes are levi ed on individuals or corporations. Indirect taxes such as sales taxes are impos ed on a selection of commodities. Florida has been eliminating the direct revenue source of intangi ble tax over several years (20022005). Table 1-1: Source of taxes in Florida 2003-04 $ 1,000,000 Sales and use tax 17,814.1 Motor & special fuel taxes 2,017.7 Corporation income tax 1,344.7 Documentary stamp tax 2,632.1 Intangibles tax 857.1 Beverage licenses and tax 624.3 Cigarette and tobacco products tax 446.4 Motor vehicle. & mobile home annual reg.608.3 Ad valorem taxes 22,405.2 All others 11,091.4 2005 Florida Tax Handbook An important fact about the relative size of ta xes and public spending in Florida is that it ranks near the bottom when compared to levels of other states. It is 48th out of 50 in terms of per capita revenue production. Th e amount of revenue relative to the states overall economic 1 IMPLAN is an economic impact modeling system produced by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group since 1993.

PAGE 16

16 activity has a telling influence on the magnitude of changes in ta x policy and the conclusions of this dissertation. There are three important conclusions that have policy implications. First, the size of the impact of the simulated tax policy is small in terms of final consumption of households as a measure of welfare. Second, the housing services sector which is composed of owner-occupied housing and real estate is positively impacted by the change in property tax policy. Third, the lower income household groups are impacted to a greater degree from the reduction in property taxes in terms of their consump tion of owner-occupied housing. These aspects of the model conclusions are notew orthy. If the welfare of households is the primary valuation of the benefits of public polic y, then the insignificant resulting impacts on the distribution of income from the elimination of th e property tax represent a neutral appraisal. The positive impacts on specific industries are signifi cant. The individual outcomes of the models industrial sectors ar e linked to their relative sh are of taxes paid and th eir factor intensity. An interesting outcome of the counterfactual simulations is th e transfer of capital between industries. Of those sectors that are positively affected by the change in tax policy, there is a movement of capital to certain industries. There is an increase in labor in those industries losing capital so that their output remains positive. At the institutional scale level, there is a substitution of investment for household consumption. Once agai n the magnitude of the substitution is slight but it does show the consequences of a change in a capital tax. The results of the general equi librium analysis can be used to present a comprehensive and informative perspective. As with any positive economic approach, the evaluation of public policy functions is an objective assessment that gives support to decision making. The model result of consumption being replaced by investment indicates a need for further research utilizing

PAGE 17

17 a dynamic CGE model where the flow of capital services is rela ted to the capital stock and additional investment could lead to an expansion of consumption in the future due to increased capacity. The next section will consist of a literatu re review on general e quilibrium modeling and tax policy evaluation. A methodology section will follow with a descri ption of the equations that constitute the CGE model. Th e methodology section will also expl ain the social accounting data matrix and equal yield differential tax analysis. The next section, on data analysis, will describe the economy using the summary data from the social accounting matrix (SAM). The IMPLAN SAM will form the source data for the empirical m odel. The dissertation will conclude with the results of the model simulation and discussion.

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Theoretical Literature General equilibrium modeling is based on microeconomic theory which describes the behavior of firms as maximizing profit subject to a technology constraint and households as maximizing utility subject to a budget constraint The theory results in the derivations of demand and supply functions which serve as centr al equations in the model. Prices are determined by the equality of supply and demand within factor and commodity markets. The microeconomic foundations of general equilibri um modeling have been thoroughly explained by Ginsburgh and Keyzer (1997), Starr (1997), and Katzner (1989). General equilibrium modeling roots extend b ack to the neoclassical economists of the nineteenth century, especially Walras (1834-1910). His contribution to and continuing influence on general equilibrium theory is evident from th e role that Walras law plays in the modern treatment of the theory. Walras created a mathematical model of the economy consisting of an interdependent system of supply and demand equations. Any single market equation was redundant in that if the rest of the system was in equilibrium, then by definition the sole remaining equation would also balance. The Edgeworth-Bowley box (Edgeworth ( 1845-1926) and Bowley (1869-1957)) is a standard method for examining the multi-market clearing function of prices by graphing a twoindustry or two-household economy. The interdep endent markets adjust simultaneously. This simple framework allows for the representation of the efficiency of a multi-market or multi-agent equilibrium allocation. The efficiency of equilibri um is represented by the condition that the rate at which the individual agent is willing to exchan ge goods must be equal to the rate at which they

PAGE 19

19 are required to trade. These rates are the consum ers marginal rate of substitution, the producers rate of product transfor mation and the price ratio. This basic Edgeworth-Bowley model demonstr ates the possibilities that open up when dealing with a multi-market and multi-agent setting. The equilibrium allocation takes on additional significance in terms of its efficiency. A market outcome is Pareto efficient if no agent can improve his situation with further trad es without making some other agent worse off. The First Welfare Theorem demonstrates that the competitive market price equilibrium is a Pareto efficient allocation. The multi-market and multi-agent framewor k also allows for the possibilities of introducing the concepts of social welfare and the equity or distributional property of the equilibrium allocation. This criti cal attribute of the equilibrium solution will play an essential role in this dissertation. Anot her significant property of a ge neral equilibrium solution is its existence. The theoretical basis for the existence of a general equilibrium model solution was established forty years ago by Arrow (1971, 1974), Debreu (1959) and Scarf (1967, 1973). Along with postulating the critic al assumptions necessary for a solution, the Arrow-Debreu general equilibrium model uses a fixed-point theorem to prove the existence of an equilibrium solution. General equilibrium models are mainly built to analyze the effects of real world policy on the economy. At this point they are called applie d or computable general equilibrium models. Thus, the ability to actually establish an equilibr ium given empirical data is essential. The fixed point mapping can be developed into a numerical algorithm that converges to a solution of the model as established by Scarf (1967, 1973). The numerical recalculation of an equilibrium

PAGE 20

20 solution comes into play when a po licy variable is changed in orde r to determine its effect on the models solution Empirical Literature A computable or applied general equilibrium model (CGE) is the empirical application of general equilibrium theory using real world data and practical solution algorithms. This research effort makes it possible to estimate the econom ic response to policy changes. Shoven and Whalley (1984 and 1992) laid the groundwork for much of this activity. Th ey used their applied models to analyze trad e and tax policy. Other general introductions are those by Gunning and Keyzer (1995), and by Ke hoe and Kehoe (1994). A CGE model is made up of a system of de mand and supply equations, income identities and other functions. The general equilibrium mode l can be represented as a system of nonlinear equations and solved as such. The models parame ters or coefficients are calibrated rather than estimated. The model is calibrated when its initial solution reproduces or replicates the benchmark data. The primary or benchmark databa se used in the calibration process to derive the model equations parameter values takes the form of a social accounting matrix (SAM). A social accounting matrix is a comprehensiv e mapping of the struct ure of the economy. It describes by the means of accounts represented by rows and columns of a table the production process of industries, the returns to factor ma rkets, final demand for commodities, the external balance and the distribution of income among ins titutional agents. It is the inclusion of the income accounts of households that makes genera l equilibrium analysis wholly suited for assessing the equity outcomes and re distribution effects of policies. The systems parameterized equations produce th e equilibrium prices and quantities for all the endogenous variables as observed in the SA M database. By changing a parameter or exogenous variable, a counterfact ual equilibrium of the genera l equilibrium model can be

PAGE 21

21 simulated and compared to the benchmark solutio n. Conclusions about the impact of policy can be drawn from the change in the models equilibr ium variables, especially the welfare change in the level and distribution of income. The early CGE models in the 1970s and 1980s were national in sc ale. National CGE models benefit from the preval ence of data, such as the Nati onal Product and Income Accounts and the Input-Output Accounts compiled by the Bur eau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Later, in the 1990s, regional CGE models were built. A major review of regional general equilibrium models was done by Partridge and Rickman (1998). The amount and detail of data needed for a CGE model is acutely limiting on th e regional level as compared to the national and international levels. IMPLAN Based Regional CGE Models One existing source of data that can form the basis for constructing a regional CGE model is the commercial IMPLAN softwa re product and related database IMPLAN is primarily used for economic impact analysis by means of an extended input-output methodology which generates employment, income and output multip liers. It was initially developed by the USDA Forest Service. IMPLAN develops a regional SAM as part of its analysis procedures. The SAM is then available as a stand-alone structure. There have been a number of regional CGE m odels built using the IMPLAN SAM. Some models represent prototypes that serve as standard examples for a cluster of individual research efforts. These prototypes can be characterized by the particular specification of the IMPLAN SAM. The problem being addressed determin es the way in which a SAM is specified. In order to understand the prototype variations, it is necessary to present the structure of the standard IMPLAN SAM. The columns and rows of the SAM are indexed by the following ordered list: industria l sectors, commodities, factors of produc tion, institutions and foreign trade.

PAGE 22

22 IMPLAN has 509 different industries and commodities which can be aggregated according to the characteristics of the subject matter being investigated. Proceeding down the first column of Appendices A and B, collection of industries, there is a use matrix that corresp onds to an input-output table. Next there are the factors of production and indirect business taxes. Th e labor and capital factor inputs follow the BEA classifications where employment compensation and proprietor in come are assigned to labor returns and other property income is assigned to the return to capital. The final element is the use of imports in the production process. The next column corresponds to a set of comm odities which is composed of a make matrix that represents the output of industries and an in stitutional make matrix that represents the output of institutions. The latter matrix is unique to the IMPLAN SAM and is derived from the negative entries in the BEA accounts. Institutions consist of households distinguished by income levels, government (federal, state and local), en terprise and capital (investment and inventory change). The factor column is the distribution of factor returns to instituti ons and the imports of factors. Factor imports are unique to the IMPLAN SAM and ar e derived as residuals. The institutional column consists of final demand of commodity, inter-institutional transfers and commodity imports. The final column repres ents exports of commodities by industries and institutions. Institutional exports are also unique to the IMPLAN SAM. The State of Oklahoma IMPLAN CGE is documented in the web book by Vargas and Schreiner (1996). This Oklahoma CGE model has se rved as the basis for numerous dissertations and research articles such as Budiyanti (1990) and Koh (1991). A frequent re-specification of the IMPLAN SAM is to move indirect business tax from factor returns to the government row of

PAGE 23

23 the institution sector. An indi vidual feature of each prototyp e is how it translates the BEA income categories into the factors of production, land, labor and capital. As with all regional IMPLAN CGE models, employment compensation is readily consigned to labor. The Budiyanti (1990) Oklahoma IMPLAN CGE model translates proprietor income as capital and other property income as returns to land. The Koh (1991) Oklahoma IMPLAN CGE model translates other property income as capital which seems to be the ge neral practice in these types of models. Koh allocates proprietor income between capital and labor. Land is derive d from an external calc ulation and both models assign land only to the agricultural sector. Both SAMs lack an in stitutional make matrix but both have labor inputs into the household and government institutions. Another early example of a re gional CGE model is the Ohio model by Kraybill and Pai (1995). This Ohio CGE model has formed the basi s of a number of disse rtations and research articles such as Seung (1996) and Seung and Kr aybill (1999, 2001). The model has two factors of production, labor and capital. This is true for most of the CGE m odels covered in this section. The Ohio model considers federal government expe nditures as an exogenous part of the external trade or rest of world sector. One current version of the IMPLAN model is the Washington-Idaho regional CGE model developed by Stodick, Holland and Devadoss (2004). This model is based on the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Standard CGE model (Lofgren, Harris, et al. 2001). The interindustry use matrix is import-laden which means that imported commodities that are used in production are combined with domes tic inputs in the SAM. Institu tional imports are totaled and relocated to the commodity make column. Industr ial and institutional exports are combined and relocated to the final demand commodity row.

PAGE 24

24 The United States Department of Agricu lture (USDA) CGE model was developed by Hanson and Vogel (1998, 2000). It is ba sed on the USDA/ERS CGE model by Robinson, Kilkenny, et al. (1990). Hanson and Vogels adju stments to the basic IMPLAN SAM are used in this dissertation. They perform major revisions to the structure of the IMPLAN SAM. Domestic and imported commodities are combined for intermediate and final demand. The difference between the investment institution column and its row represents net savings which is typically negative for low income households. Net savings re places the investment institution row in the inter-institutional transfer matrix and its corresponding column is zeroed out. The institutional make and export matrix wh ich represent negative final demands are recombined with the final demand matrix. Indire ct business taxes are moved from factor returns to the government institution account. This pa rticular re-specification was encountered in the first two SAM prototypes. In the standard IMPLAN SAM other property income is mapped to the enterprise institution and then from the enterp rise account to other in stitutions. In the USDA SAM, other property income is mapped directly to the approp riate corresponding institutional account. The enterprise account becomes a bala ncing account for adjustment made to other SAM components. Another recent version of the IMPLAN base d model is the Rutherford regional CGE model (2004). In the Rutherfo rd SAM the intermediate and final demand sectors are importladen. Industry and institution exports are combin ed to form total expor ts. The institutional make and exports are assigned to proprietor income and factor imports are assigned to factor endowment. The base data are adjusted and stan dardized to guarantee that they balance. There are a number of i ndividual regional CGE models that use the IMPLAN SAM (Berck, Goland, et al. (1996); Hoffmann, Robinson, et al., (1996)). The former CGE model was

PAGE 25

25 designed to examine the fiscal policy of the Ca lifornia state tax system. Two other relevant instances of IMPLAN regional gene ral equilibrium models that we re used to evaluate state property tax program initiatives ar e those created by Julia-Wise, et al. (2002) and Waters, et al. (1997). Because the programs that they analyzed were linked to public education expenditures, their models used a balanced budget incidence approach whereby a change in revenue is accompanied by a corresponding change in expenditure so as to maintain a balanced budget. Equal-yield differential tax analys is is in contrast to the Julia -Wise et al. and Waters et al. method with a revenue-neutral appr oach where government activity is held fixed in real terms, and the direct incidence of taxes is shifted from one set of economi c factors to another (Waters et al. (1997), p. 75). However, the balanced budget type of anal ysis method precludes comprehensive welfare comparisons (Waters et al. (1997), p. 75). Both papers use the same methodology and result in the income distributional impacts of property tax policy. These articles are thus exemplars for this dissertation and serve as the basis for a cr ucial extension. Knowle dge of the change in income distribution given a change in the consumption of public goods does not permit a judgment as to who is better or worse off due to the change in tax policy. Given a similar tax policy situation and method this di ssertation conducts a revenue-neu tral or equal-yield tax policy analysis and examines the distributional effects. Tax Policy Analysis There are a number of taxes that the govern ment may employ to collect revenue. Tax policy in general analyzes the diffe rent taxes as to their efficiency and equity. The latter concept is related to the incidence of a ta x or who actually pays it. Equity consists of how that burden is distributed across those indi viduals paying the tax.

PAGE 26

26 The inequity of the income distribution of households and whether it is increasing over time has been the subject of numerous articles studies and editorials (Berliner 2007; Wheelan 2007; and Levy 2002). A few have l ooked specifically at the State of Florida (Kim 2004; Lynch 2003 and the Economic Policy Institute 2002). A co mplete set of papers on the topic of tax policy and income inequality can be found in the edited books by Bradford (1995) and Hassett and Hubbard (2001). The hypothesis of who pays the property tax has been explained from at least two different theoretical perspectives. The different argumen ts are covered in an extensive collection of sources such as Aaron (1975), Blake ( 1979 and 1981), Fisher (1996), Raimondo (1992), Hamilton (1976), Mieszkowski ( 1972), and Zodrow (1986, 2001). The new or capital view represents the property tax as a tax on capital and the owners of capital. The tax cost is capitalized into the value of the land and improvements. The old or traditional view is that the tax burden falls upon consumers and producers who own real property. Business firms depending on th e elasticity of demand for their product are able to shift the tax onto the pur chasers of their goods and servi ces as an increase in costs. Households are unable to shift the tax. Ho wever, households are seen as receiving a corresponding benefit from their contribution towards the provisi on of public services. Thus property tax is viewed as a be nefit payment or user charge. Mieszkowski (1972) attempted to reconcile the two viewpoints making a distinction between the national and local eff ects of property taxes. Local di fferences from a global average property tax rate would create an excise-like tax that affects prices and land use allocation between low and high tax areas. The reduction or elimination of the stat es property tax results in a regional difference from the national average. The transfer of real property ownership title

PAGE 27

27 to out-of-state residents is cruc ially important to the Florida r eal estate market. There is a contrast between the exchange of productive fact ors and the exchange of the commodities made up of those factors. The application of a quasi national model w ith fixed factors of production and an open exchange of goods seems appropriate to the st udy of the local components of tax policy where land is immobile but its owners hip is highly mobile. The CGE model solution represents the equilibrated rate of return on cap ital. Investment in the model is endogenous and responds to the price of capital. Property tax is definitely seen as a tax on capital assets which includes land and improvements to the land. Two types of property are modeled: residential and non-residential. Residential property is categorized as owner-o ccupied and rental housing. Non-residential includes industrial and commercial property. Harberger is a forerunner of empirical ta x policy analysis (1959, 1962 and 1966). His major focus was corporate income tax but the methodology that he created has been used to analyze other taxes. His approach to tax policy analysis is call ed equal-yield equilibrium where the yield refers to the amount of revenue collec ted. Harbergers rudiment ary general equilibrium model was composed of two goods and two consumer s. The problem with examining the impact of changing, introducing or eliminating a tax is that the resulting change in public expenditures would confound the welfare effects and prevent the separate measur ement of the impact of the tax as opposed to the altered consumption bundle de manded by households. If there could be an offsetting change in another revenue source so as to maintain a consta nt level of government, then the unique effect of the subject tax could be estimated. This approach to examining the

PAGE 28

28 welfare consequences of the ta x policy analysis is also refe rred to as revenue-neutral or differential tax analysis (Musgrave, 1959). The technique of equal-yield differential tax policy analysis holds the real value of government expenditures constant by adjusting an a lternative tax instrument while the impact of the existing tax is estimated. The level of the former tax rate becomes an endogenous variable that adjusts so as to maintain th e value of public spending constant.

PAGE 29

29 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The General Equilibrium Model The general equilibrium model is composed of market excha nges and transactions between economic agents such as households, firms, govern ment, capital, and the foreign sectors. It describes the interdependent beha vior of economic agents. Each product and factor market is characterized by a demand equation, a supply eq uation and a market clearing condition. The behavior of firms is character ized by the purchase of factors of production from households and intermediate goods from other firms in order to produce commodities so as to maximize its profits. Commodity sector supply is bui lt up from the individual prod ucers within th at sector. Each sector, Y, produces a domestic commodity, D, and an export commodity, E, according to a constant elasticity of tr ansformation (CET) function ) 1 /( 1 1 1) 1 ( i i i i iE D Y 3-1 The production process is represented by a ne sted function of intermediate goods, labor and capital. At the lowest level the composite intermediate inputs are made up of domestic and imported commodities. These inputs are a consta nt elasticity of substitution (CES) Armington function of domestic and imported commodities. / 11i i i i iXM XD X 3-2 The composite intermediate goods enter the production process via a Leontief function where ai is a share parameter greater than zero and summing to one. i i ia x Y/ min 3-3

PAGE 30

30 Capital and labor factors ente r as a Cobb-Douglas value adde d function. Capital is an inclusive term which contains th e flow of services from all pr oductive assets whether they are physical equipment or improved land and real property. Finally, th e value added and the composite intermediate goods are incorporated into a Leontief function at the highest level of nesting. These technological equations enter in to a cost minimizing optimization process to derive cost and demand functions that are components of the CGE model. Taxes are introduced into the CG E model either as a tax on out put or as a tax on the inputs to production. The sales tax which is a tax on outp ut is paid for on a gross basis (1 + tax rate) and the capital tax which is a tax on inputs is paid for on a net basis (1 tax rate). Given the tax system in Florida the majority of taxes will enter as indirect bu siness taxes on output. Property taxes are introduced as a tax on the capital input. Final demands by households, government and investment are modeled by a CobbDouglas (CD) Armington function of domestic and imported goods. i iM j D j iM D A 3-4 The structure of the CGE model is illustrated by Figure 3-1 which was used by Rutherford and Paltsev (1999) and Rutherford and Light (20 01). Output (Y) is produced by means of labor (L) and capital (K) which are supplied by house holds. Intermediate goods (A) which are an Armington aggregate of domestic (D) and impo rted goods (M) are also an input to the production of output. Output is distributed be tween the export sector (E) and domestic market via a constant elasticity of tr ansformation function. The Arming ton composite good is purchased by final consumption (C), government (G) and i nvestment (I). Households consume final goods (C), public services (G) and save or borrow funds (I).

PAGE 31

31 G I C M A D E Y Households L K Figure 3-1: CGE framework In addition to the household block with its endowment of labor a nd capital, there is a government block with analogous endowments of labor and capital tax re venue. Capital tax revenue contains the corporate income tax as we ll as property tax. Besides consuming final goods and borrowing funds the government makes tran sfers to other institutions. The investment blocks capital endowment repres ents accrued depreciation. One special characteristic of general equilibrium models is that they are solved only in terms of relative prices. This result was establis hed in the first equation system of Walras. A modeling convention is to choose a numraire such that prices are equal to one in the benchmark model. Thus, the variables are expressed in quantity terms.

PAGE 32

32 The final demand commodity structure contai ns a composite good called housing service and eleven other goods and services. The compos ite good housing service is composed of owner occupied dwelling units as defined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and real estate which includes rental units. There is a nested demand structure for consumption goods in the CGE model whereby households decide between their housing expenditures and all other goods and then they decide between a home purchase an d renting. Other commodities included in the model are the standard major aggregated NAI CS categories (Appendix D). The NAICS codes are the North American industry coding system for the classification of industrial sectors. Each economic agent or institution is defi ned by an income and expenditure equation condition. Households earn income from the sale of their endowme nt of capital and labor plus inter-institutional transfers. They also receiv e dividends, transfer payments and borrow from the investment agent. They use this income to buy private consumption goods, save and pay taxes so as to maximize utility. / 1 i iy y U 3-5 Public goods enter the utility function as a commodity aggregate. The benefit of this approach is that it allows for the focus to be ap plied to the revenue side of the analysis which is the purpose of this dissertation. An obvious ex tension of the analysis would be to break out public services as a separate commodity. The behavioral equation and budget constrai nt enter into a utility maximizing or expenditure minimizing optimization process to derive expenditure and demand functions that are components of the CGE model. The income equation for the firms in a constant returns to scale production technology takes th e form of a zero profit conditio n where the value of output is exhausted by the cost of production.

PAGE 33

33 Households and firms display constrained opti mizing behavior from which the product and factor market supply and demand equations ar e derived. The simultaneous solution of the models equations is specified by the equilibrium price and quantity values to which the agents respond. These prices and quant ities in turn determine the inco me of the economic agents. Government collects tax revenue in order to fi nance public expenditure s. It supplies and receives transfers from other institutions. Th e income definition of government states that revenue is equal to expenditures plus transfer s. These relationships, one for each level of government, are represented in a social accounting matrix (SAM). Revenue corresponds to row entries and expenditures and transfers are represented by column entries. Row totals equal column totals as the income definition requir es. The SAM is populated with data from the IMPLAN modeling system. The IMPLAN definition of investment is the purchase of commodity by industry for capital formation. Investment expenditures are represented by the SAM column which contains domestic and imported commodities, investment accounts for households and government, the withdrawal from which can be interpreted as lo ans. The source of investment spending is denoted by the row entries which consist of depreci ation, savings and direct foreign investment. The income definition for the investment sector states that row items are equal to column expenditures. For the Florida economy, the equa tion is nonbinding since there is generally a surplus of foreign savings. The income definition for the foreign sector states that imports are equal to exports plus foreign savings (balance of payments). In a static model the supply of foreign savings is fixed. The Social Accounting Matrix A CGE model is built from a SAM which is a consistent dataset representing the full range of transactions within the economy. Initially the parameters of the model need to be calibrated.

PAGE 34

34 The calibration process moves backward from the SAM to construct the model given the functional forms of its equations. The behavior of the agents in the model should replicate the observed data. An essential part of a SAM is the use table which describes the inte rindustry flow of goods and services. It is equivalent to the transaction matrix of an input-output model. The use matrix along with the factors of production and indi rect taxes determines domestic output. This production is either consumed domestically or exported. The final demand and import matrix shows the consumption of institutions. The SAM includes the distribution of factor income to institutions. There are certain transactions that do not involve the exchange of goods and services for money such as interinstitutional transfers betw een household and governme nt agents. Household information displayed by income class allows fo r the analysis of the distributional impact of public policy. A SAM is balanced in the sense that institutional income equals expenditures. The SAM used in the construction of the CGE m odel in this dissertation is supplied by the IMPLAN software program. The Florida SA M is displayed in Appendices A and B. The detailed IMPLAN industrial codes which correspond to the four digit US Census Bureau NAICS codes have been aggregated up to twelve major s ectors including owner occupied housing. The following section fr om the IMPLAN manual describes the owner occupied housing sector: Owner occupied dwellings is a special s ector developed by BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). It estimates what owner/occupants w ould pay in rent if they rented rather than owned their homes. This sector creates an industry out of owni ng a home. Its sole product (or output) is ownership, purchased entirel y by personal consumption expenditures A household owning a house pays property ta xes and other related permits and taxes but not directly to the government. A household makes these payments to the owner-occupied dwelling sector that then passes it on to the government as indirect business taxes (IMPLAN Pro Users Guide, p. 229).

PAGE 35

35 Homeownership is a unique durable consumpti on good for households. It is a long-term investment for which they receive a flow of cont inuous housing services. Recognizing this fact, BEA distinguishes between the two measures and calculates the short-term costs in maintaining a home such as upkeep, insurance and real estate taxes. The impact of tax cuts which are targeted towards the housing services sector can be modeled. When property taxes are eliminated or reduced, the owner-occupied housing industry in relation to other industrial sectors experiences a decline in th eir cost of production. This results in an increase in the production of owner-occupied housing and the use of intermedia te inputs from the construction industry. Households reallocate their c onsumption between housing serv ices and all other goods in response to a change in price. Tax Policy Analysis and Simulation A change in tax policy has an effect on the behavior of households and firms. The CGE model presents an explanation for the responses that these agents have to alternative policies. It also can account for any consequent realloca tion of resources across economic sectors and institutions. The impacts of policies on the welf are of households and th e distribution of income among them can be estimated as a result of this analysis. The CGE can be used for a comparative stat ic simulation of a policy change by altering policy variables or introducing exogenous shocks. A new counterfactual equilibrium solution is calculated with an altern ative set of prices, factor demands, production levels and income values which can be compared to the benchmark equilibrium values. The benefit of the policy decision in terms of consumer welfare can be determined using an income based measure. Because a CGE is ba sed on the household maximization of utility, the welfare index can be calculated as the amount of income the consumer would need to achieve a

PAGE 36

36 specific level of utility or welfare. The indir ect utility function formulations in MPSGE code permit a straightforward reporting of this measure. The CGE model simulation consists of decreasing taxes on real tangible property which, in the model, takes the form of eliminating the capital tax on owner-occupied housing (Simulation I) or on the composite good housing services (Sim ulation II). Finally, property tax will be eliminated on residential and non-residential property (Simulation III). For each model simulation there will be a corresponding increase to a replacement tax revenue source such as sales taxes so as to keep the real value of public expenditures constant. It is important to hold the provision of public goods fixed since a compar ison of welfare changes across households would be problematic in that the public consumption pa tterns would differ among income classes. The outcome of the property tax simulation will vary depending on the alternative chosen. The standard short-term static model restricts the level of investments to a fixed exogenous amount. Alternative tax policies have no effect on a fixed capital stock and investment in such a model. The model used in this dissertation depicts capital investment as a final demand sector which is endogenous and adjusts instantaneously to changes in tax policy. The steady-state capital closure of the CGE model was propos ed by Rutherford and Light (2001). The formulation is consistent with a long-run equilibrium solution. CGE Model Code Implementation In essence, a CGE model is composed of a system of equations such as excess demand functions, a reference dataset based on empirical information and parameter values calibrated by means of the solution process. This system an d process can be assembled and executed with a traditional programming language. The solution algorithm may also be coded or the system may be linked to an appropriate numerical routine. The CGE system of equations may be represented in spreadsheet software and its internal solution routine used to solve for the equilibrium values.

PAGE 37

37 Higher level modeling systems, such as Ma tlab and General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) combine a matrix-based programming language with numerical solvers. These products facilitate model representation and execution. GAMS was initially developed for economic modeling by the World Bank and has been available since 1987. It has been used for a wide variety of model building projects and research activities. The mathematical programming system for general equilibrium (MPSGE) extension to GAMS was developed to formulate and solve CGE models. CGE models are based on a sophisticated set of equations whic h can be difficult to set out in a detailed structured system that incorporates actual economic data. MPSGE o ffers a condensed and efficient operational representation for a system of no nlinear equations thus reducing the initial setup time and effort. Users can devote more of their time to the conclusions of the model and less time in programming. Most programmed CGE models are set up as quasi-optimization problems with their equations corresponding to equilibrium conditio ns. Developing the underlying production and utility equations into supply and demand functions can be somewhat involved. MPSGE is based on nested CES utility and production functions. Its framework provides for the direct incorporation of data into model statements. The importance of the numerical algorithm that establishes a models equilibrium has been mentioned previously. MPSGE is set up as a mixed complementary problem as suggested by Mathiesen (1985). This formulation offers an insight into the unique role that prices and quantities or activity levels play within the mo del system. There are three MPSGE classes of equations that are analogous to mathematical programming statements. The complementary

PAGE 38

38 problem refers to the dual mathematical programming problem corresponding to the primal specification. First, there is a market clearance inequali ty that takes the form of an excess demand inequality with supply minus demand times a price variable that acts like a Lagrange multiplier. If supply is greater than demand then the price variable is zero so that the overall complementary condition is satisfied. If supply is equal to dema nd then there is a positive price variable. Next there is a zero excess profit inequality with the firms activity level acting as the Lagrangian multiplier. It states that if the value of production is less than th e cost of inputs then the activity level is zero. If they are equal, then the firm produces a positiv e quantity. Finally, there is an income balance for the institutions or agents such as households or government which specifies the relationship between endowments and expenditures. The Florida CGE presented in this dissertation is written in and solved with MPSGE. The model code is located in Appendix G. As the co de illustrates there are four major elements to the model: sectors, commodities, consumers and auxiliary constraints. The sectors are associated with the production blocks which represent a cost equation based on a nested CES production function. As a corollary to the market clearan ce equation, commodities enter as prices in the production blocks. Exogenous and endogenous ta xes also enter the pr oduction block. The demand block represents consumer endowments and preferences. It corresponds to an expenditure equation which is based on a nested CES utility function. The auxiliary variable represents an external c onstraint and is used to represent endogenous taxes.

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS The share tables (Tables 4-1 4-4) display ca lculated ratios which provide information on the major industry sectors (NAICS) in the State of Florida. The value added share Table 4-1 presents the proportion of labor and capital factor inputs that are used in the production process. It indicates value added over and above raw mate rials. A corollary of the table would be the relative amount of intermediate inputs used in production. Manufactur ing and construction use the greatest amount of intermedia te goods and other services uses the least. Othe r services and owner occupied housing have th e largest percentage value adde d components. Owner-occupied housing is exclusively produced by means of capita l and intermediate input s which according to the input-output table (Appendix B) are predominantly composed of financial activities and professional services. Table 4-1: Florida industry value added shares, 2003 (Capital + Labor) / Production Percent Other services 73.50 Owner occupied housing 66.10 Education and health services 61.10 Trade 60.09 Financial activities 59.69 Real estate 56.35 Natural resources and mining 56.09 Professional and business services56.05 Transportation and utilities 53.41 Leisure and hospitality services 50.51 Construction 42.51 Manufacturing 31.36 Industry average 55.47 In Table 4-2, Florida industry import shar es, the proportion of impo rts in production also indicates that manufacturing a nd construction have the greatest relative quantity of imported inputs in the production pr ocess whereas owner-occupied housing has the least.

PAGE 40

40 Table 4-2: Florida industry import shares, 2003 Imports / Production Percent Manufacturing 34.52 Construction 28.04 Natural resources and mining 21.60 Transportation and utilities 18.14 Leisure and hospitality services 18.09 Professional and business services 13.92 Education and health services 13.56 Financial activities 11.61 Other services 10.53 Real estate 8.55 Trade 7.25 Owner occupied housing 6.64 Industry average 15.98 Table 4-3, Florida industry labor intensity shares displays a measure of labor intensity in production. The most labor intens ive sectors are education and h ealth services, other services, construction and professional and business services. Real estate is seen as the most capital intensive. Table 4-4 displays sector labor as a percentage of total la bor supply. The table indicates that over half of the labor resource is employed in other serv ices, professional and business services, trade and edu cation and health services. Table 4-3: Florida industry labor intensity shares, 2003 Labor / (Capital + Labor) Percent Education and health services 89.06 Other services 84.82 Construction 83.45 Professional and business services79.14 Leisure and hospitality services 74.94 Trade 74.74 Manufacturing 68.08 Transportation and utilities 64.55 Financial activities 57.31 Natural resources and mining 55.50 Real estate 27.90 Owner occupied housing 0.00 Industry average 69.38

PAGE 41

41 Table 4-4: Distribution of labo r across Florida industries, 2003 Sector labor / Total labor Percent Other services 20.43 Professional and business services20.26 Trade 13.35 Education and health services 11.29 Construction 7.93 Financial activities 6.61 Manufacturing 6.29 Leisure and hospitality services 5.67 Transportation and utilities 4.77 Real estate 2.34 Natural resources and mining 1.05 Owner occupied housing 0.00 Total 100.00 The share of indirect business taxes in output is shown in Table 4-5. The highest share of taxes is collected from the trade, leisure and hospitality services and real estate sectors. Table 46 displays the ratios of ad valore m taxes to the capital factor input. It is evident that the owneroccupied housing and real estate industry pay th e greatest share of the tax. Housing can be construed as a physical stock or as the flow of services provided by that stock. The value of housing stock is different from the use value of housing services. The value of owner-occupied housing and real estate repres ents the latter amount. The ad valorem tax was distributed across indu stries according to the just and taxable value by usecode table (Appendix E) supplied by the Economic and Demographic Research Office of the Florida State Legislature. A ppendix F contains the crosswalk between the Department of Revenue codes and the aggregated NAICS industry sectors.

PAGE 42

42 Table 4-5: Indirect business tax as percent of production Indirect business taxes / ProductionState & local Trade 12.52 Leisure and hospitality services 4.74 Real estate 4.64 Transportation and utilities 3.49 Financial activities 2.10 Professional and business services 1.36 Other services 1.31 Natural resources and mining 0.65 Manufacturing 0.58 Education and health services 0.54 Construction 0.43 Owner occupied housing 0.03 Table 4-6: Ad valorem tax as percent of capital Ad valorem tax / Capital State & local Owner occupied housing 18.71 Real estate 15.96 Leisure and hospitality services 7.49 Trade 6.74 Natural resources and mining 5.05 Transportation and utilities 4.64 Professional and business services3.05 Education and health services 1.76 Manufacturing 1.55 Construction 0.37 Financial activities 0.37 Other services 0.33

PAGE 43

43 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS This dissertation consists of three scenario s ranging from removing property taxes on owner-occupied housing to eliminating property ta xes on all real property There is a set of tables for each simulation. All result tables show the percentage change between the benchmark and counterfactual solutions. For these simulations it is assumed that the term indirect business taxes is an aggregation of several individual ta xes and is synonymous with sales tax (Appendix C). Property tax is broken out and treated separa tely for the purpose of this analysis. The output results tables display the change in total pro duction (some industry output may decline and some may increase). The domestic inputs results tabl es contain changes in th e input-output table due to the elimination of real property taxes. The im ported inputs results tables are a foreign (other U.S. states or other countries) analog to the i nput-output table in that th ey represent the changes in imported intermediate goods used in the produc tion process. The factor inputs results tables show the amount of change in the use of labor and capital. The CET (constant elasticity of transformation) result tables represent the process whereby output is produced for domestic use or for the export market (other U.S. states or other countries). There are correspon ding domestic and export CET tabl es showing changes in their respective outputs. Another name for the CET domestic results table is the make matrix. An explanation of the structure of these tables is necessary for th ose who are unfam iliar with inputoutput matrices. If an industrial sector only produced a single type of commodity, then only the diagonal cells would be populated. However, some industries produce multiple types of goods called by-products. Thus, an industry in a row may have more than one commodity activity as indicated by the columns.

PAGE 44

44 The total export and import results tables re port the changed levels in industrial and institutional external trade. An explanation of the difference between the CET export results table and the total export results table is that the former is the e xport component of total industrial production, the other component being domestic sale s. The latter table shows aggregate exports which include industri al as well as institutional exports. A construct of the MPSGE model is that expo rts are transformed into a commodity that functions as foreign exchange. In MPSGE a commod ity is represented by its price. The price of foreign exchange is in turn transformed into im ports. This complement ary variable contributes to the balancing of exports and imports. The in terinstitutional transfers are represented in the income blocks by this balancing variable. Th us, domestic and foreign savings enter into the equilibrating equation. Savings is fixed in th e model while exports a nd imports are endogenous. The household consumption results tables c ontain the change in final consumption by households. It can be interpreted as the change in total welfare from the change in tax policy. The equivalent variation measure as implemen ted in MPSGE represents a Hicksian moneymetric welfare index which compares the initial reference welfare level with the post simulation level. The following equivalent variation formula is from Rutherford and Paltsev (1999). EV = 100*(W1 W0)/W0 5-1 It is used to evaluate the impact of tax polic y in terms of an economic welfare measure. The Armington Household Results Tables show the ch ange in the components of total consumption by household group. Scenario I: Owner Occupied Housing Tax Results In the first simulation only the property tax on owner-occupied housing is eliminated. Practically, this may be interpreted as increasing the homestead exemption to the local resident homeowners. Output of trade, transportation and utilities, fina ncial activities, real estate,

PAGE 45

45 education and health services and leisure and hosp itality services decline fro m the initial shock to the model. Owner-occupied housing has the larges t increase in output. There is a substitution away from real estate in favor of owner-occ upied housing which accounts for its significant decline. The output results (Table 5-1) seen here occu r because in differential tax analysis a cut in real property taxes on owner-occupied housing must be compensated for by an increase in indirect business taxes so as to k eep the real value of government output constant in the resulting final consumption allocation. Thus, the costs to industries have increased and they are passed along to the purchasers who reallocate their co nsumption spending. Output declines due to increased prices. The industries most affected ar e those that have the highest ranking in terms of indirect business taxes paid as indicated in Table 4-5. The relatively extensive change in the real estate sector is due to a substitution in favo r of owner-occupied housing in the nested demand function. The domestic and imported input results (Tables 5-2 and 5-3) reveal the assorted increases and decreases in the various intermediate comm odities levels. Generally the sectors with declining output have falling demand for inputs and in turn their level as an intermediate input into the production of other goods declines. However, this is not a universal outcome with some individual instances of increases in their input amounts. Labor and capital utilization decreased in the tr ade, transportation and utilities, real estate and leisure and hospitality service industries (T able 5-4). The factor input effects to these industries correspond to the overa ll decline in their pr oduction resulting from the fiscal shock to the model. Capital inputs decline in the co nstruction, manufacturing, financial activities, professional and business services, education and health services and other service industries.

PAGE 46

46 The largest increase in capital use is in the owner occupied housing sector. There is the apparent substitution from rental to owner-occupied hous ing in the households nested consumption allocation and in addition there is a reallocation of capital from the other industries due to the implied subsidy to the owner-occupied housing sector. Table 5-1 denotes the change in total output. Output is produced for either the domestic market or for foreign trade. Table 5-5, CET domestic results owner occupied housing simulation shows the detailed changes in output supplied to the domestic markets and Table 5-6 CET export results owner occupied housing simu lation records the amount of output supplied to the external sector. Table 5-5 focuses the information in Table 5-1 in terms of the change in industry production. The relationship betw een the initial change in prop erty taxes and the subsequent economic output is also reflect ed in Table 5-6. Owner-occupi ed housing increases in both dimensions with exports showing a large rise. Table 5-7 indicates that exports of the trade, tr ansportation and utilities, financial activities, real estate and leisure and health services in dustries decline. On ce again, owner-occupied housing shows the highest increase. In Florid a, a large number of homes are owned by nonresidents and by residents who live for the mo st part outside of the state but who may be attracted to the states favorable tax system and ideal climate. This phenomenon can be construed as the export of owne r-occupied housing. Imports dec line for all indus tries except for trade and owner-occupied housing (Table 5-8). The consumption levels of the bottom two in come classes of households have increased slightly according to Table 5-9. The welfare le vels for the other seven household income classes decline. These amounts can be considered as the equivalent variation meas ures of the costs or

PAGE 47

47 benefit of the property tax reduct ion by income class. The elim ination of property tax on owneroccupied housing can be seen as a subsidy for that industry. The average impact by household group is about a tenth of a percen t, somewhat insignificant. The largest percentage changes in the consum ption of various goods are for higher income levels (Table 5-10). Of some interest is the change in commodities consumed by household group. There is a decline in manuf acturing, trade, transportation and utilities, financial activities, real estate, professional and business services, leisure and hospitality services. Consumption of the owner-occupied housing sector increases and real estate decreases across all the income levels. This occurs due to the substitution effect within the nested housing services composite. Owner-occupied housing expenditures increase for the lower income classes to a greater degree than they do for the upper income classes. Real estate expenditures decrease for the higher income classes to a greater degree than they do for the lower income classes. The consumption of natural resources and mining, professional and business services, education and health services and other services also increases for the lower income classes. Investment as a final demand sector increases by 0.05 percent. This is not shown in a table since there is only one common investment good or capital stoc k, and it is not mapped to individual sectors or commodities. Indirect business taxes increase by 23.89 percent to make up for the reduction in property tax revenue so as to keep the level of real state government output constant. This amounts to an increase of the existing six percent sales tax (.06) to seven point four percent (.074). Scenario II: Housing Services Tax Results In the second simulation, the property tax on all housing services which includes both real estate (rental) and owner-occupied housing is eliminated. The impacts on the economy are greater than the previous simulation since the in direct business taxes now increase by 34.7

PAGE 48

48 percent to make up for the reduc tion in property tax revenue. This amounts to an increase of a six percent (.06) sales tax to ei ght point one percent (.081). Table 5-11 shows that production of natural resources and mining, manufacturing, trade, transportation and utilities, financial activities and leisure and hospitality services de clines. Real estate a nd owner-occupied housing increases along with construction, professional and business services, education and health services and other services. The relative increase in expenditures indicates an exchange in favor of real estate or rental housin g from owner-occupied housing. R eal estate can take advantage of a lower cost of production as it substitutes th e use of capital for labor. Owner-occupied housing can not act accordingly. The large increase in real estate can be accounte d for by the fact that it is a major input to the owner-occupied housing sector as indicated by Table 5-12. Real estate is also a prime input to other sectors mostly in the form of office rental Imports of real estate decline sharply with a substitution towards domestic production under the housing services simulation (Table 5-13). This can be interpreted as Florida businesses rent ing space outside of the state. Compared to the previous simulation, more returns to factors have fallen in value due to the transfer of resources toward housing services (Table 5-14). Factor inputs decrease for those industries whose levels of production have fallen. There is a larger response in exports than domestic output as indicated by the CET domestic results and export housing services simulations (Tables 5-15 and 5-16). The byproducts of real estate increase in export trade but decline domestically. Leisure and hospitality services commodity output by the real estate sector declines as the overall production of leisure and hospitality services decreases. Other services commodity output by the real estate sector declines but for a different reas on than the previous fall off. The major by-products of the other

PAGE 49

49 services sector are transportation and utilities an d financial activities. Total output of these sectors has declined, thus lowering the demand for the by-product output of real estate. The overall pattern of exports reflects those of tota l production as evidenced by Tables 5-17 5-11 with the housing services simulation. Imports of real estate decline due to the fact that a lower cost of production from the reduced capital tax favors domestic output over imports (Table 518). The consumption levels of all but the bottom income class of households have declined (Table 5-19). Whereas, the purchase of real es tate increases for the lower and middle income classes, it decreases for the upper income cla sses. Owner-occupied housing expenditures have a greater increase for the lower income classes than the other income groups (Table 5-20). There is an increase in capital investment expenditures of 1.6 percent. As stated previously the final demand investment sector purchases commodities for capital formation. Scenario III: Capital Tax Results In the last simulation, the pr operty tax on every sector is eliminated. The production of manufacturing, trade, transportation and utilitie s, financial activities, leisure and hospitality services declines with the capital tax simula tion (Table 5-21). The combination of the elimination of property taxes and a corresponding increase in indirect business taxes so as to maintain constant real government output is spread out over all of the indu strial sectors. Trade, transportation and utilities, financial activity and leisure and hospitality services pay a substantial amount of the indirect business ta xes which can account for those sectors resulting decline in production. Once again there are declines in th e levels of intermediate input usage by the declining industries and a corollary decrease of those industry goods as intermediate inputs to other sectors as evidenced by Tables 5-22 and 5-23.

PAGE 50

50 The previous patterns exist for the current si mulation in that there is a decrease in both factors for those industries experiencing a decline in production and a substitution in favor of labor for the other sectors except for real estate (T able 5-24). The latter sector has a relatively higher level of property tax than indirect business tax and has a high level of capital intensity so that it benefits from the capital tax scenarios de sign. The industry sectors with increases in factor inputs are real estate, owner-occupied housing and natural resources and mining. The output and factor usage in the housing services se ctor are up. The real estate industry has the greatest increase in capital. This could be due to the fact that in a capital intensive industry decreasing the relative price of the intensive f actor of production increases the output of that good and the use of the fact or in that industry. Table 5-25 indicates that natu ral resources and mining, cons truction, real estate, owneroccupied housing, professional and business services and educatio n and health services increase across all commodities. Manufacturing, trade, tran sportation and utilities, financial activities and leisure and hospitality services decline across all commodities. Other services show mixed results. There seems to be a larger response in exports than domestic output as in the other simulations. Exports (Table 5-26 ) mirror the effects observed in Table 5-25 except for leisure and hospitality services and ot her services. Owner-occupied housing displays the largest increase. The by-products of real estate increase in export trade but decline domestically as they did in the second scenario. The explanation is analogous to that given for the second scenario. As with the previous simulation, the pattern of commodity exports follows those of overall output (Table 5-27). The large increase in expo rts of owner-occupied housing is due to the very small initial value. A small in crease will register as a significant percentage change. The

PAGE 51

51 quantity of total imports shows almost no decline (T able 5-28). There is a substitution in favor of domestic production of real estate. The consumption levels of each income class of households have declined (Table 5-29). However, there is a large increase in owne r-occupied housing expenditures with the lower income groups experiencing the greatest increase (Table 5-30). The consumption of real estate increases for the two lower income classes and it decreases for the upper income classes. The nested demand structure for the housing se rvices composite good represents the tradeoff in consumption between a home purchase and rental units. Its parameters are calibrated using the benchmark data. The final consum ption block of the detailed IMPLAN SAM in Appendix B indicates that higher income gr oups consume more owner-occupied housing and less real estate including rentals. The opposite situation is indicated for lower income groups. Thus there should be a bias towards rental units for the lower income classes and towards owneroccupied housing for the higher income groups. Now that the tax incide nce is spread over all industry groups one would expect the shifts among income groups found for owner-occupied housing and real estate under the capital tax simulation. There is an increase of 2.0 percent in the i nvestment sectors expenditures on commodities for the purpose of capital formation which is the la rgest of all the simulations. Thus, there is a reallocation of final demand goods and services to the capital investment sector. Indirect business taxes now must increase by 46.5 percent to make up for the reduction in property tax on all sectors and still maintain a constant level of real government output. This amounts to an increase of a six percent sales tax (. 06) to eight point eight percent (.088). Summary The final seven tables (Tables 5-31 through 5-37) summarize the results in dollar values rather than percentage terms for the thr ee simulations and the benchmark amounts for

PAGE 52

52 investments, output, labor and capital inputs, ex ports and imports and household consumption. The same three simulations are presented for the output and factor use situations. First, owner occupied housing and real estate experience an increase in output, labor and capital except for simulation one where owner-occupied housing is substi tuted for real estate in the nested demand function (Tables 5-32 5-34). Next, manufacturing, financial activities, trade, transportation and utilities, and leisure and hospitali ty services undergo a decrease in output, labor and capital. There are a two exceptions again for simulation on e. Finally, construc tion, professional and business services, education and health services and other services display an increase in output and labor but a decrease in capital. The first situ ation can be accounted for by the fact that the capital tax directly impacts the capital intensive industr y sectors of owner occupied housing and real estate. The next group of industries is no t capital intensive and its members are particularly affected by the compensating increase in indirect business taxes. The final collection of industries are all labor intensive and are as a whole not as impacted by indirect business taxes as th e second group. The labor in tensive production process can account for the substitution of labor for capital as output increases. Considering the adjustment under a partial equilibrium framew ork first, the market equilibr ium condition for a tax on an input is characterized as the pri ce times (1 + tax rate) equal to the marginal factor cost. The marginal cost of supplying an additional input up to the fixed factor supply level is zero. The marginal cost of producing an amount in excess of the fixed input supply level is essentially infinite. A tax on an inelastic supplied good is paid by entirely by the provider. A decrease in the tax will solely benefit the supplier. Demand and output will be unchanged. By contrast, in the general equilibrium setting, output and factor use are altered in each scenario as inputs are reallocated among markets.

PAGE 53

53 Total output declines between the benchmark and each consecutive scenario. Owneroccupied housing increases from the benchmark across all the simulations and real estate increases from the benchmark in Scenarios II and III. Household consumption decreases between the benchmark and each consecutive sc enario (Table 5-37). Owner-occupied housing consumption increases from the benchmark in each simulation. Exports and imports decline from the benchmark in each of the simulations (Tables 5-35 and 5-36). Whereas real estate consumption in Scenario III is slig htly below its benchmark, real estate exports in Scenario III are above its benchmark. Investment is the only aggregate final demand variable that increases consistently from the benchmark (Table 5-31).

PAGE 54

54 Table 5-1: Output results owner occupied housing simulation2 Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner Occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services 3.46 0.03 1.12 -5.42 -2.71 -0.38 -8.50 15.59 1.57 -0.11 -3.16 1.11 2 All result tables show the percentage change between the benchmark and counterfactual solutions

PAGE 55

55 Table 5-2: Domestic inputs results owner occupied housing simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Natural resources & mining 4.98 2.81 2.77 -4.07 -0.76 2.09 -7.46 18.73 2.94 1.48 -1.12 3.03 Construction 4.20 0.75 1.85 -4.74 -2.03 0.34 -7.87 16.08 2.30 0.61 -2.46 1.78 Manufacturing 4.67 1.08 2.11 -4.51 -1.58 0.75 -7.56 16.74 2.57 0.81 -2.20 2.15 Trade 2.16 -1.03 -0.34 -6.88 -6.45 -6.54 -9.49 14.42 -0.87 -1.28 -4.31 -1.41 Transportation& utilities 3.09 -0.36 0.67 -5.83 -3.25 -0 .91 -8.79 15.19 1.06 -0.59 -3.53 0.64 Financial activities 3.45 0.03 1.12 -5. 42 -2.71 -0.38 -8.50 15. 59 1.57 -0.11 -3.16 1.11 Real estate 1.10 -2.25 -1.19 -7.57 -4.93 -2.65 -10.58 12.96 -0.74 -2.39 -5.37 -1.20 Owner occupied housing Professional& business services 4.18 0.61 1.98 -4.66 -1.88 0.37 -7.85 16.20 2.59 0.72 -2.32 1.98 Education & health services 4.56 1.10 2.23 -4.41 -1.69 0.62 -7.53 2.60 0.36 -2.39 1.96 Leisure & hospitality services 2.51 -0.57 0.54 -5.94 -3.09 -0.95 -9.06 0.79 -0.56 -4.12 0.34 Other services 4.31 0.71 1.75 -4.85 -2.20 0.36 -7.97 17.18 2.20 0.51 -2.58 1.64

PAGE 56

56Table 5-3: Imported inputs results owner occupied housing simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Natural resources & mining 1.95 -0.16 -0.20 -6.84 -3.63 -0.86 -10.13 15.30 -0.04 -1.45 -3.97 0.05 Construction 2.67 -0.73 0.35 -6.14 -3.47 -1.14 -9.23 14.37 0.79 -0.87 -3.90 0.28 Manufacturing 3.27 -0.26 0.75 -5.78 -2.89 -0.60 -8.79 15.18 1.20 -0.54 -3.51 0.78 Trade 15.70 12.09 12.88 5.47 5.95 5.85 2.50 29.59 12.27 11.81 8.38 11.66 Transportation & utilities 4.87 1.36 2.41 -4.20 -1.57 0.81 -7.22 17.18 2. 80 1.13 -1.86 2.38 Financial activities 3.46 0.03 1.12 -5. 41 -2.71 -0.37 -8.49 15. 60 1.57 -0.11 -3.16 1.11 Real estate 9.01 5.40 6.54 -0.34 2.51 4.97 -3.59 21.80 7.02 5.25 2.03 6.53 Owner occupied housing Professional & business Services 0.64 -2.81 -1.49 -7.91 -5.22 -3.05 -10.98 12.25 -0.90 -2.71 -5.65 -1.49 Education & health services 0.70 -2.63 -1.54 -7.94 -5.31 -3.09 -10.94 -1.19 -3.34 -5.99 -1.80 Leisure & hospitality services 6.14 2.96 4.11 -2.61 0.35 2.57 -5.83 4.36 2.97 -0.72 3.90 Other services -0.11 -3.55 -2.56 -8.88 -6.34 -3.89 -11.87 12.22 -2.13 -3.75 -6.71 -2.66 Table 5-4: Factor inputs results owner occupied housing simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Labor 4.69 0.46 1.97 -4.76 -1.78 0.74 -6.70 2.14 0.18 -2.50 1.51 Capital 2.01 -2.11 -0.65 -7.20 -4.30 -1.85 -9.09 15.59 -0.48 -2.39 -5.00 -1.09

PAGE 57

57 Table 5-5: CET domestic results ow ner occupied housing simulation CET domestic table Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Natural resources & mining 1.77 -1.50 -3.74 1.36 Construction 0.02 Manufacturing 3.36 0.42 1.23 Trade -3.59 5.88 Transportation & utilities -2.21 2.55 Financial activities -0.34 1.97 Real estate -6.05 0.06 5.98 Owner occupied housing 15.59 Professional & business services -0.04 0.33 -4.99 0.67 Education & health services 0.60 -0.38 Leisure & hospitality services 6.52 -2.08 3.26 Other services -4.63 -2.41 0.42

PAGE 58

58 Table 5-6: CET export results ow ner occupied housing simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Natural resources & mining 4.80 1.44 -0.88 4.37 Construction 1.51 Manufacturing 4.76 1.77 2.60 Trade -14.87 -6.51 Transportation & utilities -3.87 0.81 Financial activities -0.34 1.96 Real estate -12.86 -7.20 -1.71 Owner occupied housing 93.59 Professional & business services 3.48 3.86 -1.64 4.21 Education & health services 4.46 3.43 Leisure & hospitality services 2.87 -5.44 -0.28 Other services -0.41 1.90 4.86 Table 5-7: Export results owne r occupied housing simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services 3.36 0.15 0.59 -11.16 -2.69 -0.25 -9.39 73.58 2.87 1.73 -4.14 3.49

PAGE 59

59Table 5-8: Import results owne r occupied housing simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services -0.72 -1.05 -0.63 1.09 -0.22 -0.28 -0.14 0.05 -1.16 -1.33 -0.09 -0.52 Table 5-9: Final household consumption re sults owner occupied housing simulation Households LT10k10-15k15-25k2535k35-50k50-75k 75-100k100-150k150k+ Armington 0.340.08-0.24-0.49-0.27-0.51 -0.06-0.27-0.52 Table 5-10: Armington household results owner occupied housing simulation LT10k10-15k15-25k25-35k35-50k 50-75k75-100k100-150k150k+ Natural resources & mining 0.12-0.18-0.50-0.71-0.75 -1.24-1.04-1.25-1.49 Construction Manufacturing -0.18-0.48-0.80-1.01-1.05 -1.55-1.36-1.57-1.81 Trade -3.02-3.28-3.58-3.79-3.82 -4.33-4.14-4.35-4.57 Transportation & utilities -0.57-0.86-1.18-1.38-1.42 -1.92-1.71-1.93-2.16 Financial activities -0.24-0.54-0.85-1.06-1.10 -1.61-1.41-1.62-1.86 Real estate -8.70-9.43-9.71-10.02-11.67 -13.65-14.51-14.70-14.90 Owner occupied housing 21.3120.3419.9619.5517.36 14.7313.5813.3413.07 Professional & business services0.290.00-0.32-0.54-0.59 -1.09-0.90-1.11-1.35 Education & health services 0.610.30-0.02-0.23-0.27 -0.78-0.59-0.81-1.04 Leisure & hospitality services -0.99-1.28-1.59-1.80-1.85 -2.35-2.14-2.36-2.59 Other services 0.700.370.06-0.16-0.18 -0.69-0.50-0.72-0.95

PAGE 60

60 Table 5-11: Output results housing services simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services -9.53 1.27 -4.97 -8.61 -6.39 -4 .77 22.69 10.49 1.12 0.55 -5.33 1.10 Table 5-12: Domestic inputs results housing services simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Natural resources & mining -11.94 -3.67 -7.77 -10.97 -9.74 -8.93 20.15 5.22 -1.35 -2.33 -8.90 -2.33 Construction -9.52 1.28 -4.96 -8.60 -6.38 -4.76 22.70 10.50 1.13 0.56 -5.33 1.11 Manufacturing -12.52 -1.76 -7.63 -11.10 -9.48 -7.81 19.12 7.37 -1.71 -2.09 -8.01 -1.85 Trade -11.49 -0.59 -7.33 -11.04 -12.52 -14.65 20.37 8.55 -3.05 -1.48 -7.27 -3.22 Transportation & utilities -10.96 -0.53 -6.86 10.40 -8.71 -7.04 20.91 8.75 -1.17 -1 .61 -6.93 -0.98 Financial activities -11.36 -0.79 -6.87 -10.43 -8.34 -6.75 20.17 8.18 -0.91 -1 .47 -7.23 -0.92 Real estate -1.84 9.87 3.10 -0.84 1.56 3.32 33.12 19.88 9.71 9.10 2.71 9.70 Owner occupied housing Professional & business services -9.12 1.65 -4.45 -8.14 -5.88 -4.31 23.26 10.87 1.78 1.09 -4.80 1.67 Education & health services -8.17 2.79 -3.50 -7.24 -5.01 -3.43 24.53 2.56 1.22 -4.27 2.30 Leisure & hospitality services -11.33 -0.05 -6.15 -9.72 -7.19 -5.97 21.04 -0.58 -0.44 -7.37 -0.57 Other services -8.80 1.94 -4.39 -8.08 -5.91 -4.09 23.37 11.96 1.73 1.16 -4.79 1.62

PAGE 61

61Table 5-13: Imported inputs results housing services simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Natural resources & mining -7.11 1.61 -2.71 -6.08 -4.79 -3.94 26.74 10.99 4.06 3.02 -3.91 3.02 Construction -9.53 1.26 -4.98 -8.61 -6.40 -4.78 22.68 10.48 1.11 0.55 -5.34 1.10 Manufacturing -9.06 2.12 -3.98 -7.59 -5.90 -4.16 23.83 11.62 2.18 1.79 -4.37 2.03 Trade 9.22 22.67 14.36 9.77 7.95 5.32 48.54 33.95 19.64 21.57 14.42 19.43 Transportation & utilities -3.90 7.36 0.53 -3.29 -1. 47 0.34 30.50 17.38 6. 67 6.20 0.46 6.88 Financial activities -5.60 5.66 -0.82 -4.60 -2. 38 -0.68 27.99 15.22 5. 54 4.94 -1.19 5.53 Real estate -26.83 -18.10 -23.14 -26.08 -24.29 -22.98 -0.77 -10.64 -18.22 -18.68 -23.44 -18.23 Owner occupied housing Professional & business services -11.13 -0.60 -6.56 -10.17 -7.96 -6.43 20.53 8.42 -0.47 -1.14 -6.91 -0.58 Education & health services -12.92 -2.52 -8.48 -12.03 -9.92 -8.42 18.09 -2.74 -4.01 -9.22 -2.98 Leisure & hospitality services -4.38 7.78 1.21 -2.64 0.08 1.41 30.53 7.22 7.36 -0.11 7.23 Other services -12.55 -2.25 -8.32 -11.85 -9.78 -8.03 18.31 7.36 -2.45 -3.00 -8.70 -2.55 Table 5-14: Factor inputs results housing services simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Labor -6.61 2.44 -2.82 -6.91 -3.99 -1.90 15.66 2.63 1.33 -3.58 2.18 Capital -12.87 -4.42 -9.33 -13.15 -10.43 -8.48 25.13 10.49 -4.25 -5.46 -10.04 -4.67

PAGE 62

62Table 5-15: CET domestic results housing services simulation Resources & CET domestic table Natural mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Natural resources & mining -6.85 -0.52 -6.35 2.91 Construction 1.27 Manufacturing -9.01 -3.06 4.11 Trade -5.73 8.56 Transportation & utilities -4.28 4.52 Financial activities -3.05 4.98 Real estate 8.92 -20.57 -13.39 Owner occupied housing 10.49 Professional & business services -6.21 0.33 -7.32 1.08 Education & health services -0.66 0.16 Leisure & hospitality services -4.91 -3.06 4.73 Other services -9.15 -7.67 0.43

PAGE 63

63 Table 5-16: CET export result s housing services simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Natural Resources & Mining -11.69 -5.69 -11.22 -2.44 Construction 1.29 Manufacturing -12.47 -6.75 0.15 Trade -23.61 -12.02 Transportation & Utilities -11.32 -3.16 Financial Activities -8.97 -1.43 Real Estate 46.11 6.55 16.19 Owner Occupied Housing 65.97 Professional & Business Services -4.09 2.60 -5.22 3.37 Education & Health Services 4.75 5.62 Leisure & Hospitality Services -11.82 -10.10 -2.88 Other Services -5.26 -3.72 4.73 Table 5-17: Export results housing services simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services -8.20 0.13 -2.22 -17.71 -8.04 -6.51 33.78 51.88 1.92 2.84 -7.70 3.09 Table 5-18: Import results housing services simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services -1.62 1.13 -1.11 2.75 1.60 1.01 -6.36 1.62 -0.10 -1.28 1.25 0.36

PAGE 64

64 Table 5-19: Final household consumption results housing services simulation Households LT10k 10-15k 15-25k 25-35k 35-50k 50-75k 75-100k 100-150k 150k+ Armington 0.07 -0.28 -0.57 -0.85 -0.75 -1.25 -0.44 -0.76 -1.10 Table 5-20: Armington household re sults housing services simulation LT10k10-15k15-25k25-35k35-50k 50-75k75-100k100-150k150k+ Natural resources & mining -0.89-1.22-1.50-1.70-1.69 -2.32-1.75-2.07-2.38 Construction Manufacturing -0.41-0.74-1.03-1.22-1.20 -1.82-1.22-1.54-1.86 Trade -4.89-5.16-5.43-5.62-5.60 -6.22-5.66-5.96-6.28 Transportation & utilities -1.68-2.02-2.30-2.48-2.46 -3.06-2.43-2.74-3.06 Financial activities -1.30-1.63-1.92-2.11-2.10 -2.71-2.12-2.44-2.76 Real estate 2.311.791.491.240.61 -0.66-0.50-0.82-1.16 Owner occupied housing 13.1412.5612.2311.9611.25 9.8510.039.689.31 Professional & business services0.10-0.23-0.52-0.72-0.71 -1.34-0.74-1.06-1.39 Education & health services 0.960.600.310.120.14 -0.500.08-0.24-0.57 Leisure & hospitality services -1.86-2.18-2.46-2.66-2.66 -3.27-2.66-2.97-3.30 Other services 0.670.300.01-0.19-0.15 -0.78-0.19-0.51-0.85

PAGE 65

65Table 5-21: Output results capital tax simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services 6.82 1.52 -3.49 -9.39 -4.40 -6.29 15.60 9.68 2.25 0.67 -4.09 1.10 Table 5-22: Domestic inputs results capital tax simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Natural resources & mining 10.43 8.09 0.12 -6.43 0.00 -0.92 18.59 16.60 5.40 4.35 0.59 5.52 Construction 6.84 1.54 -3.48 -9.38 -4.39 -6.28 15.61 9.69 2.26 0.69 -4.08 1.12 Manufacturing 4.34 -0.61 -5.39 -11.12 -6.61 -8.39 13.24 7.51 0.24 -1.18 -5.99 -0.97 Trade 4.17 -0.61 -6.23 -12.15 -11.52 -17.29 13.10 7.48 -2.56 -1.66 -6.34 -3.83 Transportation & utilities 5.77 0.40 -4.68 10.49 -5.87 -7.68 14.56 8.61 0.81 -0. 67 -5.09 -0.19 Financial activities 3.91 -1.24 -6.09 -11.81 -7.07 -8.90 12.41 6.61 -0.50 -2.05 -6.66 -1.61 Real estate 13.62 7.98 2.64 -3.63 1.68 -0.33 22.95 16.66 8.75 7.07 2.01 7.53 Owner occupied housing Professional & business Services 7.65 2.18 -2.58 -8.59 -3.50 -5.51 16.51 10.32 3.39 1.60 -3.17 2.07 Education & health services 8.58 3.19 -1.85 -7.91 -2.85 -4.85 17.49 3.84 1.41 -2.91 2.42 Leisure & hospitality services 5.35 0.61 -4.32 -10.15 -4.96 -7.10 14.52 1.06 -0.01 -5.52 -0.05 Other services 7.62 2.15 -2.95 -8.90 -3.95 -5.67 16.19 11.04 2.82 1.24 -3.57 1.58

PAGE 66

66Table 5-23: Imported inputs results capital tax simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Natural resources & mining 3.27 1.08 -6.37 -12.50 -6.48 -7.35 10.90 9.04 -1.44 -2.42 -5.94 -1.32 Construction 6.81 1.51 -3.51 -9.40 -4.42 -6.31 15.58 9.66 2.23 0.66 -4.11 1.08 Manufacturing 7.21 2.12 -2.79 -8.68 -4.05 -5.87 16.35 10.47 2.99 1.54 -3.41 1.75 Trade 32.22 26.15 19.02 11.51 12.31 4.98 43.55 36.42 23.68 24.83 18.88 22.07 Transportation & utilities 10.92 5.29 -0.05 -6.14 -1.29 -3.19 20.13 13.89 5. 71 4.16 -0.48 4.66 Financial activities 13.06 7.45 2.18 -4.05 1.11 -0.89 22.30 15.99 8.25 6. 57 1.55 7.05 Real estate -8.61 -13.14 -17.43 -22.48 -18.21 -19.83 -1.10 -6.16 -12.52 -13.87 -17.95 -13.50 Owner occupied housing Professional & Business Services 3.58 -1.68 -6.26 -12.04 -7.15 -9.09 12.11 6.15 -0.52 -2.24 -6.83 -1.79 Education & health services 2.44 -2.64 -7.40 -13.11 -8.34 -10.22 10.85 -2.03 -4.33 -8.40 -3.37 Leisure & hospitality services 11.00 6.01 0.82 -5.33 0.13 -2.12 20.67 6.48 5.35 -0.45 5.31 Other services 3.50 -1.76 -6.66 -12.39 -7.62 -9.28 11.75 6.79 -1.12 -2.64 -7.27 -2.31 Table 5-24: Factor inputs results capital tax simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Labor 8.42 2.84 -1.41 -8.99 -3.12 -3.11 9.98 3.38 1.39 -3.85 2.32 Capital 4.96 -4.87 -7.73 -10.48 -6.58 -10.38 17.53 9.68 -1.82 -4.92 -4.75 -5.40

PAGE 67

67Table 5-25: CET domestic results capital tax simulation CET domestic table Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Natural resources & mining 2.80 -9.74 -6.85 1.09 Construction 1.52 Manufacturing 8.45 -2.13 4.74 Trade -6.20 9.42 Transportation & utilities -3.05 3.50 Financial activities -4.06 5.97 Real estate 6.10 -15.57 -9.52 Owner occupied housing 9.68 Professional & business services -5.21 0.86 -6.31 0.44 Education & health services 0.49 0.24 Leisure & hospitality services 11.82 -2.48 3.83 Other services -6.63 -9.36 0.49

PAGE 68

68Table 5-26: CET export results capital tax simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Natural resources & mining 9.93 -3.48 -0.39 8.10 Construction 1.55 Manufacturing 5.55 -4.75 1.94 Trade -26.10 -13.79 Transportation & utilities -7.54 -1.30 Financial activities -11.82 -2.60 Real estate 31.90 4.96 12.48 Owner occupied housing 59.66 Professional & business services -1.48 4.82 -2.63 4.38 Education & health services 6.51 6.25 Leisure & hospitality services 6.13 -7.45 -1.46 Other services -2.91 -5.75 4.49 Table 5-27: Export results capital tax simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services 6.92 0.16 -1.56 -19.58 -5.34 -8. 57 23.39 46.92 3.57 3.15 -5.67 2.82 Table 5-28: Import results capital tax simulation Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services -2.08 0.74 -0.77 3.43 1.15 1.34 -4 .70 2.00 -0.24 -1.35 1.41 0.71

PAGE 69

69 Table 5-29: Final household consumption results capital tax simulation Households LT10k10-15k15-25k2535k35-50k50-75k 75-100k100-150k150k+ Armington -0.10-0.46-0.77-1.06-0.97-1.52 -0.58-0.93-1.31 Table 5-30: Armington household results capital tax simulation LT10k10-15k15-25k25-35k35-50k 50-75k75-100k100-150k150k+ Natural resources & mining 0.560.19-0.12-0.32-0.29 -0.97-0.23-0.59-0.98 Construction Manufacturing -0.38-0.74-1.04-1.24-1.21 -1.89-1.18-1.54-1.91 Trade -5.51-5.80-6.09-6.28-6.25 -6.93-6.26-6.60-6.95 Transportation & utilities -1.16-1.52-1.82-2.01-1.99 -2.65-1.92-2.28-2.65 Financial activities -1.68-2.03-2.33-2.54-2.51 -3.18-2.48-2.83-3.20 Real estate 0.650.09-0.22-0.48-1.16 -2.54-2.31-2.67-3.03 Owner occupied housing 12.5311.9011.5611.2710.50 8.969.218.828.41 Professional & business services0.33-0.03-0.33-0.55-0.53 -1.22-0.51-0.87-1.24 Education & health services 1.050.670.360.160.19 -0.510.19-0.17-0.55 Leisure & hospitality services -1.38-1.73-2.03-2.24-2.22 -2.90-2.18-2.54-2.91 Other services 0.590.20-0.11-0.32-0.27 -0.96-0.26-0.62-1.00 Table 5-31: Investments results table Investment Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Total Benchmark 1,848 58,596 5,383 12,092 7,619 2,018 14,959 0 41,135 0 15,680 13,778 173,107 Scenario I 1,849 58,626 5,385 12,098 7,623 2,019 14,967 0 41,157 0 15,688 13,785 173,197 Scenario II 1,878 59,547 5,470 12,288 7,742 2,050 15,202 0 41,803 0 15,935 14,001 175,916 Scenario III 1,885 59,768 5,490 12,333 7,771 2,058 15,258 0 41,958 0 15,994 14,054 176,570 All values in millions of dollars.

PAGE 70

70Table 5-32: Output results table Output Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Total Benchmark 11,809 78,326 103,366 104,253 48,453 67,786 52,224 44,482 160,149 72,713 52,536 114,888 910,984 Scenario I 12,217 78,349 104,520 98,606 47,140 67,531 47,787 51,419 162,664 72,633 50,874 116,160 909,901 Scenario II 10,684 79,319 98,228 95,281 45,356 64,552 64,074 49,149 161,946 73,115 49,734 116,157 907,596 Scenario III 12,615 79,517 99,755 94,463 46,321 63,521 60,369 48,789 163,747 73,202 50,386 116,153 908,839 All values in millions of dollars. Table 5-33: Labo r results table Labor Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Total Benchmark 3,676 27,789 22,066 46,820 16,705 23,191 8,210 0 71,042 39,566 19,886 71,627 350,578 Scenario I 3,849 27,917 22,501 44,590 16,408 23,362 7,660 0 72,559 39,636 19,390 72,707 350,578 Scenario II 3,433 28,467 21,444 43,585 16,038 22,749 9,496 0 72,912 40,093 19,174 73,187 350,578 Scenario III 3,985 28,579 21,756 42,609 16,183 22,469 9,030 0 73,444 40,117 19,120 73,285 350,578 All values in millions of dollars.

PAGE 71

71Table 5-34: Capital results table Capital Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Total Benchmark 2,948 5,510 10,348 15,828 9,173 17,274 21,217 29,402 18,728 4,863 6,651 12,820 154,759 Scenario I 3,007 5,393 10,281 14,687 8,779 16,956 19,289 33,987 18,637 4,746 6,318 12,679 154,759 Scenario II 2,568 5,266 9,382 13,747 8,217 15,810 26,550 32,487 17,932 4,597 5,983 12,221 154,759 Scenario III 3,094 5,241 9,548 14,169 8,569 15,481 24,937 32,249 18,386 4,623 6,334 12,127 154,759 All values in millions of dollars. Table 5-35: Export s results table Exports Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Total Benchmark 9,137 5,668 161,664 22,842 20,786 24,451 25,999 0 75,463 10,325 22,056 20,849 399,239 Scenario I 9,444 5,677 162,612 20,294 20,226 24,391 23,558 0 77,627 10,504 21,143 21,575 397,049 Scenario II 8,388 5,675 158,069 18,797 19,115 22,860 34,781 0 76,908 10,618 20,357 21,493 397,061 Scenario III 9,770 5,677 159,138 18,370 19,677 22,356 32,080 0 78,155 10,650 20,806 21,436 398,114 All values in millions of dollars. Table 5-36: Imports results table Imports Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Total Benchmark 9,137 5,668 161,664 22,842 20,786 24,451 25,999 0 75,463 10,325 22,056 20,849 399,239 Scenario I 9,071 5,608 160,648 23,091 20,740 24,382 25,961 0 74,585 10,187 22,036 20,740 397,049 Scenario II 8,989 5,732 159,877 23,471 21,118 24,698 24,344 0 75,384 10,192 22,332 20,924 397,061 Scenario III 8,947 5,710 160,419 23,626 21,024 24,777 24,778 0 75,283 10,186 22,367 20,996 398,114 All values in millions of dollars.

PAGE 72

72Table 5-37: Household results table Households Natural resources & mining Construction Manufacturing Trade Transportation & utilities Financial activities Real estate Owner occupied housing Professional & business services Education & health services Leisure & hospitality services Other services Total Benchmark 2,457 0 84,332 72,336 18,824 32,115 14,567 44,482 26,163 87,322 34,024 28,900 445,523 Scenario I 2,435 0 83,303 69,441 18,530 31,690 12,914 51,419 25,963 86,928 33,320 28,782 444,725 Scenario II 2,412 0 83,193 68,164 18,339 31,379 14,672 49,149 25,935 87,299 33,058 28,801 442,401 Scenario III 2,447 0 83,177 67,688 18,426 31,245 14,415 48,789 25,981 87,343 33,202 28,765 441,479 All values in millions of dollars.

PAGE 73

73 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS The central issue of this dissertation is how changes in property taxes affect the states economy and the distribution of household consump tion. This topic is a timely one since the Florida legislature is currently considering chan ges in the property tax system. The tax policy analysis in this dissertation has gone beyond the usual estima tion of changes to the general revenue funds. It employs a CGE model to es timate the property tax impact on production, consumption and income in the economy. The CGE model provides a comprehensive outline of the results of a change in tax policy which in forms and supports any decision making. The dissertation attempts to accomplish two objectives. First, it is an application of CGE modeling at a regional level. Second, it is a property ta x study that analyzes the economic and equity implications of public policy. The impact of a change in the tax system can be estimated and evaluated by means of the equivalent variation measure of the property ta x elimination within the context of constant government revenue. Public policy impact was foun d to be of little conse quence in terms of the total consumption of households. There are sign ificant differences across income groups as to their consumption of owner-occupied housing. Ther e certainly have been winners and losers in terms of the industrial sectors. The winners ap pear to be the housing se ctors and those industries associated with them. The reduction in the property tax can be seen as having a beneficial effect on the housing sector. A summary of the policy implications includes two major conclusions. First, the level of the overall impact of the simulated changes in ta x policy is relatively insignificant in the context of the overall economy. Conceivably a different policy parameter amount or combination could have a larger effect. Second, on an individual sector or household level there are some relatively

PAGE 74

74 significant results. The policy instrument is targeted at the housing services sector. Corespondingly, the production and consumpti on of owner-occupied housing is dramatically larger under all three alternat ive scenarios. Household groups are impacted according to the varying proportion of housing se rvices in their commodity cons umption bundle. Low income groups benefit to a greater degree from the redu ction in property taxes in terms of their consumption of owner-occupied housing. In all three scenarios, about ha lf of the industrial sectors show an increase in output with the other half of the sectors declining. Own er-occupied housing, construction, business and professional services and other services increase in each simula tion. The property tax on owneroccupied housing is lowered in each of the coun terfactual situations. The property tax reduction along with the fact that owner-occupied housing has the largest share of property taxes as a percentage of capital input (Table 4-6) and the lowest share of indirect business taxes as a percentage of output (Table 4-5) account for the sectors increase ac ross all scenarios. The method of equal-yield differential tax an alysis necessitates a ri se in the level of indirect business taxes. An i ndustry with a low level of indir ect business taxes will escape the increase. Construction has the next lowest share of indirect business taxes but it also has a low share of property taxes. Even though it is somewhat unaffected directly by the property tax shock, construction is a necessary input to thos e industries that are a ffected, and is therefore indirectly affected. Business and professional services have a mode rate share of indirect business taxes and a slightly higher level of property taxes. It is a significant input to those sectors that are positively affected by the change in tax policy. Other serv ices have a small share of indirect business taxes and the lowest share of property taxes. The average increase in c onstruction and other services is

PAGE 75

75 around one percent (1%) and the av erage increase in professional and business services is around a percent and a half (1.5%). These mi nor changes are relatively insignificant. Clearly, the real estate sector output increases in simulations II and III since its property taxes are lowered. The increase (22.7% and 15.6%) can be attribut ed to the fact that the industry is highly capital intensive (Table 4-3). Trade, transportation and utilitie s, financial activity and leisure and hospitality services output decreas e in each simulation. These industries pay the highest share of indirect busine ss taxes and thus their increase has a large effect on their economic activity. Lower capital tax would have an effect on the financial sector which is a capital intensive industry but for the fact that th e sector pays a small share of property tax and thus is somewhat unaffected by the lower capital tax. Transportation and utilities and leisure and hospitality services do pay a relatively signifi cant share of property ta xes but they are labor intensive industries and thus are not gr eatly affected by a lower capital tax. The productive factors, labor and capital, follo w primarily a general pattern noted earlier. Both capital and labor inputs decr ease in those industries with de clining levels of production. For those industries with an increasing output, th ere are two outcomes. First, there are a few industries that experience an in crease in both labor and capital. These sectors (real estate and owner-occupied housing) are predominantly thos e immediately impacted by the change in tax policy. Second, some sectors substitute labor for capital in their production process. The factor market closer of the CGE model used in this dissertation can be characterized as short-term and static. The total supply of labor and capital as pr oductive factors is fixed in the model simulations, so for the use of capital in some industries to increase, there must be a reallocation away from it in othe r industries. This accounts for the behavior of those industries with increasing output in the seco nd outcome. The substitution of labor for capital is in fact the

PAGE 76

76 movement of capital to those sector s that are described in the first outcome with increases in both labor and capital. In each simulation, the level of expenditures by the investment final demand sector increases in order to create capital. In the first sc enario it increases by a ha lf of a percent (0.5%), in the second one point six percent (1.6%) and in the third two percent (2%). A dynamic model could explore the long-term implications of the change in capital formation. The changes in exports mirror the particular ch anges in industrial s ector production. The individual variations in sector quantities are due to large CE T commodity substitutions. Of particular interest is the tr ade-off between the direct and by-product amounts produced domestically and for extern al trade. The increase in real esta te production due to a change in tax policy identified in simulations two and three is accompanied by a decrease in its domestic byproduct output and by an increa se in exports. Imports have increased for many of the commodities produced domestically by those industries whose production has fallen off. The smallest change in aggregated household consumption levels, an $800 million reduction, is associated with the first counte rfactual scenario. The next largest change corresponds to the second simulation (-$3.1 billion) and the largest with the third (-$4 billion). Consumption levels for the two lowest household in come classes increase in the first scenario, but only for the lowest income group in the second scenario. There are no consumption increases for any of the household income groups in the third scenario. Even though the overall level of consumption of household income classes has changed by a relatively insignificant amount, the reallo cation of commodities by households exhibits important changes. The changes in the consum ption of owner-occupied housing are sizable and they are greater for lower income classes. In the baseline model, the lower income groups

PAGE 77

77 purchase more real estate (rent al housing) and less owner-occu pied housing than upper and middle income groups. As a result, in the counterfactual simulations, the lower income groups demonstrate the largest increase in the consumption of owner-occupied housing. In general, the size of the resulting changes is quite small relative to total consumption and output. There are two explanations for this. Firs t, the numeric conclusions of the analysis are affected by the scale of revenue relative to th e states overall economy. The size of revenues in Florida relative to the overall level of economic activity is small, thus changes in the level of taxes will have a minimum impact. Second, as indicated by Table 4-3 for the most part industries in Florida are labor inte nsive so a change in a tax on capital will also have a small impact on output. Even though the impact of the change in ta x policy is slight in terms of household consumption, there is an order of magnitude difference between the impact on lower and upper income groups. This outcome is consistent ac ross scenarios and lends credence to the hypothesis that tax policy affects income groups differently. One implication of this research is that a complete evaluation of any policy change should ta ke into consideration th e impact on different income groups. There is a proportionately gr eater increase in the consump tion of owner-occupied housing for lower income groups across the scenarios. These groups consume less of this good in the benchmark data set. If the encouragement of home ownership is a pubic goal, then the model results imply that there is an additiona l benefit from the proposed tax policy. There is a difference in the outcome for the re al estate industry sector between the capital tax and housing services simulations and the owne r occupied housing simulation. The reduction in property taxes is applied in the capital tax an d housing services simu lations. In the owner

PAGE 78

78 occupied housing simulation, howev er, the tax reduction does not target the real estate industry sector. In keeping with the interpretation of re al estate exports as Fl orida seasonal property rentals by non-residents, in the capital tax and housing services simulations the increase in the sectors by-product export of leisure and hosp itality services commod ity and the associated reduction in its domestic by-products commodity ou tput implies a trade-off in favor of transient compared to permanent residents in contrast to the owner-occupied housing scenario which primarily affects permanent residents. There are essentially two major limitations on the research in this dissertation. First, the IMPLAN SAM may be an imperfect representation of the Florida economy due to the particular regionalization process applied to the BEA Inpu t-Output (I-O) matrix. Even thought the I-O matrix which is called the use matrix in the SAM is only one section of the total structure, it is crucial for the conclusions in this dissertation. There are three methods that IMPLAN applies to scale the national I-O matrix for sub-regions The user chooses between a method based on regional purchase coefficients, supply-demand p ooling or locations quotients. The default regional purchase coefficient method was used. A major issue with this procedure is its assumption of a common technology among divers e areas. This criticism could be leveled against any use of the IMPLAN system for economic impact modeling. However, the widespread use of IMPLAN in the private and ac ademic fields for estimating the impact of economic activity in terms of employment, income and production metrics has provided valuable information to decision making processes. The second limitation is that the CGE model is characterized by a closed factor market which is a restrictive assumption for the Florida economy. In the study of the impact of the reduction in federal defense spending in California using IMPLAN data done by Hoffmann,

PAGE 79

79 Robinson, et al., (1996) there was a significant difference between the assumption of a closed and open factor market. The overall economic ef fect of the open factor market model was less that the closed factor market model as impact ed workers moved out of the state. Similar differences in the results would be anticipated w ith an open labor market model used in this dissertation. The closed labor model can be de scribed as an applica tion of a national model which is in line with Mieszkowskis theory of the incidence of pr operty tax. The model simulation results are the local effects of the tax policy. One possible difference between the application of a quasi national model and a model with open factor markets would be a smaller change in the substitution to ward owner-occupied housing. An objective of further research would be to relax the restriction of fixed factor markets and compare the results between the different specif ications. Future research could also include the simulation and analysis of alternative tax instruments. Converti ng the current CGE model into a dynamic one has been mentioned in earlie r chapters. Such a model would allow for the study of the pattern of change in the housing stock, factor inpu ts and income distribution over time. Finally, another direction for future rese arch could be to break out governmental services and public goods which are included in the other services aggregate sector and treat them as a separate sector. This would permit the additional investigation of tax policy. Ad valorem tax could be considered as a user charge for public services and the marginal cost of funds could be calculated and used in the evaluation of public policy.

PAGE 80

80APPENDIX A AGGREGATE IMPLAN SAM, 2003 Table A-1: Aggregate IMPLAN SAM, 2003 Industry Commodity Labor Capital Indirect taxes Households Federal govt State/local govt Enterprises Investment Trade Total Industry 687,416 223,568 910,984 Commodity 217,456 317,335 26,321 69,389 73,092 703,594 Labor 350,578 350,578 Capital 154,760 154,760 Indirect taxes 42,597 42,597 Households 95 311,388 54,907 14, 742 79,219 6,835 34,424 22,160 562 524,332 Federal govt 107 37,800 101 4,452 1227 30,059 9,526 79,582 115 162,967 State/local govt 13,888 547 -36 38,146 3935 13,196 37,636 5,587 11,087 1,145 125,130 Enterprises 50,275 2,176 5 52,456 Investment 2,088 70,333 58810 2,919 321 63,218 197,688 Trade 145,593 843 -20,820 128,283 11,995 11,265 11,447 25 288,632 Total 910,984 703,594 350,578 154,760 42,597 524,332 162, 967 125,130 52,456 197,688 288,632 3,513,717 All values are in millions of dollars Source: IMPLAN

PAGE 81

81 APPENDIX B DETAILED IMPLAN SAM, 2003 Table B-1: Detailed IMPLAN SAM, 2003 NRM CNS MNF TRD TUT FNI REL OCC PBS EHS LHS SRV NRM CNS MNF TRD TUT INF FNI REL PBS EHS LHS SRV NRM 9.2 0.4 16.5 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.3 2.4 CNS 0.1 0.6 1.6 1.7 1.2 1.1 5.1 3.7 3.8 2.5 2.8 5.3 MNF 1.9 50.5 102.0 8.1 5.4 0.6 1.5 3.2 20.8 21.7 19.9 20.9 TRD 2.0 68.3 56.1 13.0 7.0 0.8 2.5 5.6 18.9 10.2 14.7 15.0 TUT 2.3 16.3 39.2 21.3 35.5 6.2 15.2 0.6 30.6 13.8 14.9 18.5 FNI 1.0 12.6 13.6 12.4 9.0 110.9 10.2 20.5 21.2 11.1 8.2 10.9 REL 1.9 4.0 4.3 24.4 4.6 10.5 32.1 9.3 39.8 33.6 18.2 22.3 OCC PBS 2.9 60.7 83.1 87.5 33.4 36.7 45.5 12.5 258.4 62.1 32.4 53.1 EHS 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.2 6.5 0.3 0.4 LHS 0.2 1.5 5.4 4.3 4.4 4.3 2.6 19.7 8.9 9.1 3.6 SRV 2.3 11.7 22.2 9.7 6.4 6.7 3.1 4.3 34.0 8.5 9.9 13.7 LAB 37 278 221 468 167 232 82 710 396 199 716 CAP 29 55 103 158 92 173 212 294 187 49 67 128 HH1 HH10 HH15 HH25 HH35 HH50 HH75 HH100 HH150 FED 0.3 0.4 0.9 16.5 2.5 1.7 6.8 6.4 3.2 0.6 3.5 1.8 STL 2.3 3.6 7.6 141.2 21.2 14.9 58.1 55.1 27.4 4.7 29.9 15.4 INV 9.3 5.3 20.5 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.5 0.1 3.4 4.4 NRM 0.1 0.6 1.5 1.6 1.0 1.0 4.3 1.5 3.5 2.3 2.6 4.4 CNS 12.6 180.1 273.7 19.9 33.8 3.0 4.7 8.8 56.2 46.7 55.7 66.6 MNF 0.2 6.1 7.0 1.8 3.1 0.8 0.2 0.5 4.4 1.0 1.5 3.6 TRD 0.6 4.9 13.6 7.3 16.9 2.8 3.5 0.1 12.8 5.3 4.1 6.7 TUT 0.5 6.0 6.3 5.7 4.4 54.1 4.9 10.1 9.8 5.2 3.8 5.0 FNI 0.8 1.7 1.8 10.5 2.0 4.5 13.8 4.0 17.1 14.4 7.8 9.5 REL OCC 0.7 12.4 27.3 26.3 10.9 10.1 11.9 2.3 106.0 19.8 10.9 17.7 PBS 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.1 0.1 EHS 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.5 5.5 1.3 3.6 1.0 LHS 0.5 2.2 3.8 1.6 0.9 1.4 0.5 2.0 5.7 1.4 1.6 1.9 SRV 0.3 0.4 0.9 16.5 2.5 1.7 6.8 6.4 3.2 0.6 3.5 1.8

PAGE 82

82 NRM CNS MNF TRD TUT FNI REL OCC PBS EHS LHS SRV LAB CAP NRM 50.9 2.9 0.1 CNS 777.5 MNF 0.0 494.4 5.1 TRD 871.2 TUT 0.1 337.8 0.5 FNI 464.4 25.0 REL 333.3 OCC 444.8 PBS 0.2 0.7 1040.0 0.5 EHS 675.1 LHS 1.1 1.6 353.8 SRV 0.5 48.2 0.3 7.4 0.3 0.6 935.9 NRM CNS MNF TRD TUT FNI REL OCC PBS EHS LHS SRV LAB CAP HH1 29.2 5.3 HH10 51.4 7.8 HH15 176.9 31.6 HH25 260.0 48.8 HH35 450.1 95.8 HH50 783.2 131.1 HH75 472.0 142.5 HH100 469.8 120.9 HH150 429.6 95.7 FED 378.0 96.3 STL 5.5 55.5 INV 716.3 NRM CNS MNF TRD TUT INF FNI REL PBS EHS LHS SRV

PAGE 83

83 HH1 HH10 HH15 HH25 HH35 HH50 HH75 HH100 HH150 FED STL INV NRM CNS MNF TRD TUT FNI REL OCC PBS EHS LHS SRV NRM 0.6 0.5 1.1 1.3 2.0 2.4 1.6 1.4 1.1 -0.4 0.0 0.4 CNS 35.6 126.3 586.0 MNF 7.6 6.1 13.1 15.1 23.8 26.8 15.6 13.7 11.0 37.7 17.0 53.8 TRD 35.1 25.9 55.9 67.1 118.1 139.3 81.1 71.2 57.1 1.7 8.7 -3.6 TUT 8.9 6.9 14.8 16.2 23.1 27.8 16.5 14.5 11.6 5.4 22.7 3.5 FNI 7.6 7.2 15.5 21.4 40.8 48.6 29.6 26.0 20.9 0.0 5.7 REL 10.4 7.2 15.5 17.2 21.9 15.8 5.4 4.7 3.8 1.0 8.5 25.3 OCC 15.6 12.5 26.9 31.1 68.9 100.0 73.5 64.5 51.7 PBS 8.2 6.7 14.5 16.7 26.3 32.8 20.6 18.1 14.5 37.6 36.6 46.0 EHS 45.4 34.3 73.9 78.9 116.7 145.8 108.0 94.9 76.1 2.6 -110.8 0.0 LHS 10.7 9.7 20.9 27.1 50.8 63.7 42.9 37.7 30.2 0.9 -4.1 0.0 SRV 10.9 8.9 19.1 24.0 36.5 47.6 38.2 33.6 26.9 140.0 444.4 -1.3 LAB CAP HH1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 22.3 2.8 167.4 HH10 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.9 63.0 3.3 51.1 HH15 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.8 3.0 151.6 19.0 HH25 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.3 1.6 2.6 4.5 143.6 36.7 HH35 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.3 2.3 2.9 4.5 7.7 117.7 49.5 3.0 HH50 1.1 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.2 4.1 5.0 7.9 13.5 78.6 46.5 HH75 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.4 2.5 3.0 4.8 8.2 29.9 27.8 HH100 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.4 2.5 3.0 4.8 8.2 14.7 19.5 HH150 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.2 2.3 2.8 4.4 7.5 9.3 30.3 FED 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.2 3.0 2.0 2.7 2.7 300.6 795.8 STL 0.1 0.3 1.2 1.8 5.0 11.0 6.4 7.2 6.4 315.2 323.8 110.9 INV -1.5 -2.2 -3.8 39.3 -28.1 135.7 68.8 81.9 98.3 0.0 16.2 3.2 NRM 0.7 0.6 1.2 1.4 2.1 2.5 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.2 1.2 18.1 CNS 23.4 8.7 MNF 36.3 29.2 63.8 77.5 126.0 145.9 88.8 77.3 65.6 79.8 64.7 TRD 3.6 3.0 6.4 7.7 13.8 15.4 8.8 7.7 6.2 0.1 1.0 124.5 TUT 2.8 2.1 4.6 5.2 7.4 9.5 6.4 5.6 4.5 1.8 6.6 72.7 FNI 3.6 3.4 7.3 10.1 19.3 23.1 14.2 12.5 10.0 0.0 5.2 20.2 REL 4.5 3.1 6.6 7.4 9.4 6.8 2.3 2.0 1.6 0.4 3.7 124.3 OCC 0.0 PBS 5.1 4.1 8.9 10.7 17.3 21.4 13.7 12.1 9.7 12.6 17.1 365.4 EHS 5.1 4.3 9.3 9.7 13.4 18.4 15.1 13.2 10.6 0.6 1.3 LHS 1.7 1.6 3.4 4.3 7.6 9.8 7.1 6.3 5.0 0.2 1.3 156.8 SRV 1.7 1.7 3.6 4.6 6.1 7.9 6.9 6.0 4.8 0.7 1.9 139.0

PAGE 84

84 NRM CNS MNF TRD TUT FNI REL OCC PBS EHS LHS SRV NRM 63.9 0.2 0.1 CNS 5.7 MNF 0.5 532.6 1.1 TRD 171.3 TUT 0.0 146.0 0.1 FNI 177.3 11.2 REL 188.9 OCC 0.0 PBS 0.0 0.8 559.2 0.1 EHS 52.0 LHS 0.6 0.3 168.0 SRV 0.0 6.0 0.1 4.2 0.0 0.1 145.2 NRM CNS MNF TRD TUT INF FNI REL PBS EHS LHS SRV LAB CAP HH1 0.1 0.4 HH10 0.1 0.3 HH15 0.2 0.5 HH25 0.2 0.5 HH35 0.4 0.7 HH50 0.4 0.7 HH75 0.2 0.3 HH100 0.2 0.3 HH150 0.1 0.2 FED 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 STL 1.7 1.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 3.2 4.1 INV 25.0 50.9 1079.8 56.8 55.8 66.8 66.3 0.0 193.4 48.0 48.3 47.5 NRM CNS MNF TRD TUT FNI REL OCC PBS EHS LHS SRV

PAGE 85

85 APPENDIX C IMPLAN INDIRECT BUSINESS TAXES Table C-1: IMPLAN indi rect business taxes Indirect bus tax Federal government Excise taxes 2693 Custom duty 844 Fed nontaxes 915 State & local govt Sales tax 18196 Property tax 14370 Motor vehicle lic354 Severance tax 38 Other taxes 3333 S/l nontaxes 1855 All values are in Millions of Dollars Source: IMPLAN

PAGE 86

86 APPENDIX D NAICS CATEGORIES Table D-1: NAICS categories Model sector Abbreviation Natural resources & mining NRM Construction CNS Manufacturing MNF Trade TRD Transportation & utilities TUT Financial activities FNI Real estate REL Owner occupied housing OCC Professional & busin ess services PBS Education & health services EHS Leisure & hospitality services LHS

PAGE 87

87 APPENDIX E JUST AND TAXABLE VALUE BY USECODE Table E-1: Just and ta xable value by usecode Usecode Description Count Just Value Taxable Value 0 Vacant residential 1,705,370 70,207,645,797 68,873,754,110 1 Single family 4,234,581 854,600,759,530 566,241,081,361 2 Mobile homes 442,858 24,773,944,993 14,793,710,669 3 Multi-family 10+ units 14, 126 44,980,935,352 43,698,225,831 4 Condominium 1,479,155 272,540,727,113 218,464,164,260 5 Cooperatives 41,593 3,954,968,490 3,023,690,206 6 Retirement homes 1,044 2,323,865,744 1,876,600,810 7 Miscellaneous residential 17,953 1,532,992,213 1,465,878,457 8 Multi-family < 10 units 156,143 31,469,330,697 27,317,406,587 9 Undefined 657 4,917,867 3,218,133 10 Vacant commercial 82,107 16,885,153,432 16,359,792,123 11 Stores, one story 38,892 22,958,290,738 22,770,663,078 12 Mixed use store & office, etc. 21,484 7,273,321,089 6,875,603,221 13 Department stores 831 4,187,517,730 4,180,989,836 14 Supermarkets 2,540 2,309,595,305 2,305,993,057 15 Regional shopping centers 487 8,123,305,532 8,022,103,790 16 Community shopping centers 6,562 18,048,684,143 18,024,988,435 17 Office buildings non-professional services, one story 26,111 11,717,142,785 11,357,638,424 18 Office buildings non-professional services, multi story 8,881 23, 434,034,340 22,829,420,893 19 Professional services buildings 15,345 10,137,687,255 9,434,867,202 20 Airports, bus terminals, marine terminals, piers, marinas 1,369 1,953,107,001 1,038,310,381 21 Restaurants, cafeterias 7,895 4,890,819,217 4,870,953,079 22 Drive-in restaurants 4,353 2,778,529,527 2,771,469,588 23 Financial institutions 4,303 4,658,881,287 4,646,311,046 24 Insurance company offices 307 215,938,437 214,226,919 25 Repair service shops (excluding automotive) 4,969 1,188,090,985 1,180,983,218 26 Undefined 3,876 2,152,360,993 2,147,238,226 27 Undefined 15,471 8,174,769,795 8,108,141,598 28 Parking lots, mobile home parks 13,510 8,593,431,725 8,278,469,082 29 Wholesale outlets, produce houses, manufacturing outlets 879 612,837,149 608,205,548 30 Florist, greenhouses 449 94,023,754 90,631,067 31 Drive-in theaters, open stadiums 37 173,952,610 139,463,486 32 Enclosed theaters, enclosed auditoriums 219 638,846,600 512,116,272 33 Nightclubs, cocktail lounges, bars 2,125 741,525,251 726,616,023 34 Bowling alleys, skating rinks, pool halls, enclosed arenas 545 760,861,057 581,687,466 35 Tourist attractions, permanent exhibits, other entertainment facilities, fairgrounds (private) 929 3,456,082,772 3,359,579,836 36 Camps 537 544,129,813 484,332,959 37 Race tracks: horse, auto, or dog 131 311,978,754 308,227,109 38 Golf courses, driving ranges 3,212 3,857,842,005 3,718,248,284 39 Hotels, motels 6,380 20,858,293,804 20,577,706,264 40 Vacant industrial 18,502 4,085,191,977 3,933,986,533 41 Light manufacturing, small equipm ent manufacturing plants, small machine shops, instrument manufacturing, print plants 15,960 10,098,426,191 9,965,151,374 42 Heavy industrial, heavy equipmen t manufacturing, large machine shops, foundries, steel fabricating plants, auto or aircraft plants 762 1,856,005,511 1,578,256,332 43 Lumber yards, sawmills, planning mills 586 460,184,278 451,769,669 44 Packing plants: fruit & vegetable, meat packing plants 616 566,231,297 564,733,147 45 Canneries, fruit & vegetable, bottlers & brewers distilleries, wineries 106 381,115,996 380,105,891

PAGE 88

88 Usecode Description Count Just Value Taxable Value 46 Other food processing, candy factories, bakeries, potato chip factories 355 381,093,915 378,820,253 47 Mineral processing, phosphate processing, cement plants, refineries, clay plants, rock & gravel plants 940 663,477,690 660,914,044 48 Warehousing, distribution terminal s, trucking terminals, van & storage warehousing 34,664 28,059,680,486 27,630,078,133 49 Open storage, new & used building supplies, junk yards, auto wrecking, fuel storage, equipment & material storage 3,789 999,594,157 979,869,273 50 Improved agricultural 25,744 5,499,266,567 1,992,982,200 51 Cropland soil capability class i 7,515 1,935,972,663 401,711,914 52 Cropland soil capability class ii 8,886 1,545,078,403 319,427,005 53 Cropland soil capability class iii 8,228 4,159,033,313 908,310,659 54 Timberland site index 90 and above 7,485 1,590,765,355 265,492,030 55 Timberland site index 80 to 89 21,635 4,346,362,151 592,117,648 56 Timberland site index 70 to 79 24,298 3,913,021,553 595,305,497 57 Timberland site index 60 to 69 7,003 1,638,918,520 183,491,891 58 Timberland site index 50 to 59 2,511 384,523,573 53,755,837 59 Timberland not classified by site inde x to pines 5,944 1,029,771,282 130,649,489 60 Grazing land soil capability class i 32,772 11,079,567,528 1,352,466,811 61 Grazing land soil capability class ii 15,365 4,694,843,930 709,614,728 62 Grazing land soil capability class iii 7, 347 2,800,072,009 460,982,865 63 Grazing land soil capability class iv 13, 931 4,074,355,920 698,996,666 64 Grazing land soil capability class v 1,575 1,025,482,685 65,861,990 65 Grazing land soil capability class vi 1,443 395,278,175 66,129,626 66 Orchard groves, citrus, etc. 21,951 8,088,401,381 1,981,238,158 67 Poultry, bees, tropical fish, rabbits, etc. 896 227,480,008 90,545,511 68 Dairies, feed lots 2,762 1,288,569,301 494,970,554 69 Ornamentals, miscellaneous agricultural 9,055 2,573,803,887 781,015,136 70 Vacant institutional 5,201 527,604,306 49,291,338 71 Churches 24,838 14,410,542,430 272,196,749 72 Private schools & colleges 3,598 4,336,873,935 744,669,816 73 Privately owned hospitals 809 5,675,766,329 2,611,161,627 74 Homes for the aged 4,597 3,918,865,219 2,291,612,071 75 Orphanages, other non-profit or charitable services 7,192 1,784,496,950 133,279,499 76 Mortuaries, cemeteries, crematoriums 2,839 1,020,781,084 519,957,611 77 Clubs, lodges, union halls 5,866 2,054,297,663 800,376,039 78 Sanitariums, convalescent & rest homes 511 1,348,009,766 1,005,399,945 79 Cultural organizations, facilities 830 626,218,057 28,128,440 80 Undefined reserved for future use 2,992 823,745,903 35,454,446 81 Military 436 2,744,947,676 161,477 82 Forest, parks, recreational areas 31,962 7,301,146,829 36,542,208 83 Public county schools include a ll property of board of public instruction 6,381 18,092,004,095 24,916,512 84 Colleges 491 5,483,469,131 22,905,580 85 Hospitals 460 3,433,336,630 323,959,618 86 Counties (other than public schools, colleges, hospitals) 47,760 25,615,311,332 207,229,666 87 State other than military, forests, parks, recreational areas, colleges, hospitals 65,369 13,217,439,099 58,881,549 88 Federal other than military, forests, parks, recreational areas, hospitals, colleges 20,867 11,138,536,533 63,245,514 89 Municipal other than parks, recreational ar eas, colleges, hospitals 35,573 15,919,784,019 271,580,364 90 Leasehold interests (government owned property leased by a nongovernmental lessee) 2,435 3,059,879,068 1,544,942,505

PAGE 89

89 Usecode Description Count Just Value Taxable Value 91 Utility, gas & electricity, telephone & telegraph, locally assessed railroads, water & sewer service, pipelines, canals, radio/tv communication 11,109 4,347,111,741 3,236,868,726 92 Mining lands, petroleum lands, or gas lands 1,127 257,587,866 253,164,548 93 Subsurface rights 32,527 186,063,942 165,050,325 94 Right-of-way, streets, roads, irrigation cha nnel, ditch, etc. 24,232 528,461,347 48,418,396 95 Rivers & lakes, submerged lands 9,148 149,322,642 39,798,095 96 Sewage disposal, solid waste, bo rrow pits, drainage reservoirs, waste lands, marsh, sand dunes, swamps 14,797 298,738,733 88,572,963 97 Outdoor recreational or park land subject to classified use assessment 14,138 204,560,157 82,343,828 98 Centrally assessed 1,522 120,778,314 21,517,970 99 Acreage not zoned agricultural 125,824 10,340,376,443 9,673,475,888 Source: 2005 Florida Department of Revenue

PAGE 90

90 APPENDIX F DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TO NAICS CROSSWALK Table F-1: Department of Revenue to NAICS Crosswalk NAICS sectors Department of Revenue Natural resources and mining 47, 50 to 69 Construction 42 Manufacturing 41 to 46 Trade 10 to 16, 26 to 30 Transportation and utilities 20, 48, 49, 91 Financial activities 23, 24 Owner occupied housing, real estate0 to 9 Professional and business services 17 to 19 Education and health services 72 to 75, 78, 83 to 85 Leisure and hospitality se rvices 21, 22, 31 to 39 Other services 25, 71, 76, 77, 79 to 82, 86 to 89

PAGE 91

91 APPENDIX G IMPLAN GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM MODEL PROGRAM $TITLE IMPLAN General Equilibrium Model $ONTEXT $MODEL:IMPLAN $SECTORS: YC(S) Sectoral supply -CET for export and domestic Y(S) Sectoral production AH(G,HH)$AH0(G,HH) Household Armington AG(G,PUB)$AG0(G,PUB) Government Armington AI(G)$AI0(G) Investment Armington X(G) Commodity export M(G) Commodity import GOV(PUB) Public output INV$I0 Investment C(HH)$C0(HH) Consumption $COMMODITIES: PY(S) Sectoral output price index PAH(G,HH)$AH0(G,HH) Household Armington PAG(G,PUB)$AG0(G,PUB) Government Armington PAI(G)$AI0(G) Investment Armington PI$I0 Investment PG(PUB) Government PL Labor wages RK Capital return PFX Balance of payments constraint PD(G) Domestic supply price PX(G) Export supply price PM(G) Import demand price PC(HH) Utility price index $CONSUMERS: RA(HH) Instititutional income GOVT(PUB) Government BANK Investment $AUXILIARY: TAU Tax multipliers CET activity: $PROD:YC(S) t:1 G.TL(t):4

PAGE 92

92 O:PD(G) Q:MAKE(S,G) G.TL: O:PX(G) Q:SEXPRT(S,G) G.TL: I:PY(S) Q:(SUM(G,MAKE(S,G)+SEXPRT(S,G))) Production activity: $PROD:Y(S) s:0 VA:1 G.TL:4 O:PY(S) Q:(SUM(G,MAKE(S,G)+SEXPRT(S,G))) + A:GOVT("FED") T:TX("FED",S) + A:GOVT("STL") N:TAU$TX ("STL",S) M:TX("STL",S)$TX("STL",S) I:PD(G) Q:USE(G,S) G.TL: I:PM(G) Q:SIMPRT(G,S) G.TL: I:PL Q:ld0(s) VA: I:RK Q:KD0(S) P:PT("STL",S) A:GOVT("STL") + T:TF("STL",S) VA: Final demand by institutions modeled as Cobb-Douglas: $PROD:AH(G,HH)$AH0(G,HH) s:1 O:PAH(G,HH)$AH0(G,HH) Q:AH0(G,HH) I:PD(G) Q:DH0(G,HH) I:PM(G) Q:MH0(G,HH) Final demand by institutions modeled as Cobb-Douglas: $PROD:AG(G,PUB)$AG0(G,PUB) s:1 O:PAG(G,PUB) Q:(MAX(AG0(G,PUB),0)) I:PAG(G,PUB) Q:(MAX(-AG0(G,PUB),0)) I:PD(G) Q:(MAX(DG0(G,PUB),0)) O:PD(G) Q:(MAX(-DG0(G,PUB),0)) I:PM(G) Q:(MAX(MG0(G,PUB),0)) O:PM(G) Q:(MAX(-MG0(G,PUB),0)) Final demand by institutions modeled as Cobb-Douglas: $PROD:AI(G)$AI0(G) s:1 O:PAI(G) Q:(MAX(AI0(G),0)) I:PAI(G) Q:(MAX(-AI0(G),0)) I:PD(G) Q:(MAX(DI0(G),0)) O:PD(G) Q:(MAX(-DI0(G),0)) I:PM(G) Q:MI0(G) Final demand by institutions modeled as Cobb-Douglas: $PROD:C(HH)$C0(HH) s:1 h:sigmah O:PC(HH) Q:C0(HH) I:PAH(G,HH) Q:AH0(G,HH) h:$HS(G) $PROD:GOV(PUB) s:1 O:PG(PUB) Q:(MAX(G0(PUB),0))

PAGE 93

93 I:PG(PUB) Q:(MAX(-G0(PUB),0)) I:PAG(G,PUB) Q:(MAX(AG0(G,PUB),0)) O:PAG(G,PUB) Q:(MAX(-AG0(G,PUB),0)) ** Investment: $PROD:INV$I0 O:PI Q:I0 I:PAI(G) Q:AI0(G) Commodity trade (fi xed export and import prices): $PROD:X(G) O:PFX Q:(X0( G)+SUM(HH,XH0(HH,G))+SUM( PUB,XG0(PUB,G))+XI0(G)) I:PX(G) Q:(X0( G)+SUM(HH,XH0(HH,G))+SUM( PUB,XG0(PUB,G))+XI0(G)) $PROD:M(G) s:1 O:PM(G) Q:(M0(G) +SUM(HH,MH0(G,HH))+SUM(PUB,MG0(G,PUB))+MI0(G)) I:PFX Q:(M 0(G)+SUM(HH,MH0(G,HH))+SUM( PUB,MG0(G,PUB))+MI0(G)) Income balance for institutions: $DEMAND:RA(HH) E:PL Q:le0(HH) E:RK Q:ke0(HH) E:PX(G) Q:XH0(HH,G) E:PFX Q:( TRN_HH(HH)+SUM(PUB,TRN_HH_PUB(HH,PUB))) E:PFX Q:(-SUM(PUB,PTAX(PUB,HH))) E:PFX Q:(-SAV_HH(HH)) D:PC(HH) Q:C0(HH) $DEMAND:GOVT(PUB) E:PL Q:tl0(pub) E:RK Q:tk0(pub) E:PX(G) Q:XG0(PUB,G) E:PFX Q:( SUM(HH,PTAX(PUB,HH))+SUM(P_ B, TRNSFER(PUB,P_B))) E:PFX Q:(-SUM (HH,TRN_HH_PUB(HH,PUB))-SU M(P_B,TRNSFER(P_B,PUB))) E:PFX Q:(-SAV_PUB(PUB)) D:PG(PUB) Q:G0(PUB) $DEMAND:BANK E:RK Q:depr0 E:PX(G) Q:XI0(G) E:PFX Q: (SUM(HH,SAV_HH(HH)) + SU M(PUB,SAV_PUB(PUB))) D:PI Q:I0 $CONSTRAINT:TAU GOVT("GOV") =e = GOV("GOV")*Q0("GOV" )*PGOV("GOV");

PAGE 94

94 GOV("STL") =E= 1; $OFFTEXT $SYSINCLUDE mpsgeset IMPLAN tau.l = 1; tau.lo = -inf; GOV.FX("FED") = GOV.L("FED"); IMPLAN.ITERLIM = 0; $INCLUDE IMPLAN.GEN SOLVE IMPLAN USING MCP; IMPLAN.ITERLIM = 10000; ** scenario one *TF("STL","OCC") = 0; ** scenario two *TF('STL',s) = ITAX('STL',S)/FD('cap',s) ; *TF("STL",HS) = 0; ** scenario three *TF("STL",S) = 0; $INCLUDE IMPLAN.GEN SOLVE IMPLAN USING MCP;

PAGE 95

95 LIST OF REFERENCES Aaron, H.J. Who Pays the Property Tax: A New View. Washington, D. C., The Brookings Institution, 1975. Arrow, K.J. "General Economic Equilibrium: Purpose, Analytic Techniques, Collective Choice." Amer. Econ. Rev. 64(1974):253-272. Arrow, K.J. and F. Hahn General Competitive Analysis. San Francisco, Holden-Day. 1971. Berck, P., E. Goland, et al. Dynamic Revenue Analysis for California. Sacramento, Financial and Economic Research, Department of Finance, 1996. Berliner, U. "Have and Have-Nots: Income Ine quality in America." National Public Radio (Feburary 2007). Blake, D.R. "Property Tax Incidence: An Alternate View." Land Econ. 55(Nov. 1979):521-531. ----------. "Property Tax Incidence: Reply." Land Econ. 57(Aug. 1981):473-475. Bradford, D.F., Ed. Distributional Analysis of Tax Policy. Washington D. C., The AEI Press, 1995. Budiyanti, R. Application of General Equilibrium Modeling for Measuring Regional Economic and Welfare Impacts of Quality Cha nges in Sport Fishing in Oklahama. Department of Agricultural Economics Stillwater, Olkahama State University. Doctor of Philosophy, 212(1990). Debreu, G. Theory of Value. New York, Wiley. 1959. Dew-Becker, I. and R. J. Gordon. Where Did the Productivity Gr owth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. B. I. Press, Brookings Institution, 2005. Economic Policy Institute/Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Despite Past Boom Times, Income Gaps Have Widened in 45 States Over The Past Twenty Years. Washington D.C., 2002. Fisher, R.C. State and Local Public Finance: ins titutions, theory, policy, 2nd ed., Richard D. Irwin, 1996. Ginsburgh, V. and M. Keyzer The Structure of Applied General Equilibrium Models. Cambridge, The MIT Press, 1997. Gunning, J.W. and M.A. Keyzer, Eds. Applied General Equilibrium Models for Policy Analysis. Handbook of Development Economics, Elsevier Science, 1995.

PAGE 96

96 Hamilton, B.W. "Capitalization of intrajurisdi ctional differences in local tax prices." American Economic Review 66(December 1975):743-753. Hanson, K. and S. Vogel. A CGE Model for a Regional SAM from IMPRO. Washington, D.C., Economic Research Service, USDA, 1998. ----------. A Note on linking the IMPRO 2. 0 SAM data files for 1996 to a CGE model. Washington, D.C., Economic Research Service, UDSA, 2000. Harberger, A.C. The Corporation Inco me Tax: An Empirical Apprasial. Tax Revision Compendium 1 H. C. o. W. a. Means. Washingt on D. C., House Committee on Ways and Means, 86th Congress, 1959. ----------. "The Incidence of Corporation Income Tax." J. of Pol. Econ. 70(June 1962):215-240. ----------. Efficiency Effects of Taxe s on Income from Capital. Symposium on Business Taxation, Detroit, Wayne State University. 1966. Hassett, K.A. and R.G. Hubbard, Eds. Inequality and Tax Policy. Washington D. C., The AEI Press, 2001. Hoffmann, S., S. Robinson, et al. "The Role of Defense Cuts in the California Recession: Computable General Equilibrium Models and Interstate Factor Mobility." J. of Reg. Sci. 36(November 1996):571-595. Julia-Wise, R., S.C. Cooke, et al. "A Computab le General Equilibrium Analysis of a Property Tax Limitation Initiative in Idaho." Land Econ. 78(May 2002):207-227. Katzner, D.W. The Walrasian Vision of the Microeconomy. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1989. Kehoe, P.J. and T.J. Kehoe "A Primer on Static Applied General Equilibrium Models." Fed. Res. Bank of Minn. Quart. Rev. 18(Winter 1994):2-16. Kim, J. "Growth of regional economy and inco me inequality: county-level evidence from Florida, USA." App. Econ. 36(February 2004):173-183. Koh, Y.K. Analysis of Oklahama's boom and bus t economy by means of a CGE model. Department of Agricultural Economics. Stillwater, Oklahoma State University. Doctor of Philosophy, 186(1991). Kraybill, D.S. and D.Y. Pai. Documentation for a Computable General Equilibrium Model of Ohio, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ohio State University, 1995. Levy, F. Distribution of Income. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, The Library of Economics and Liberty, 2002.

PAGE 97

97 Lofgren, H., R.L. Harris, et al. A Standard Computable General Equilibrium (C GE) Model in GAMS. Washington, D.C., Trade and Macroeco nomics Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, 2001. Lynch, R.G. "Estimates of Income and Income Ineq uality in the United States and in Each of the Fifty States: 1998-1999." J. of Reg. Sci. 43(August 2003):571-581. Mathiesen, L. Computation of economic equi libria by a sequence of linear complementarity problems. Math. Prog. Study 23 (1985). Mieszkowski, P. "The property tax: An excise tax or a profits tax?" J. of Pub. Econ. 1(April 1972):73-96. Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. IMPLAN Professional User Guide, Analysis Guide, Data Guide. Stillwater, 2000. Musgrave, R.A. The Theory of Public Finance: A Study in Public Economy. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959. Partridge, M.D. and D.S. Rickman "Regional Computable General Equilibrium Modeling: A Survey and Critical Appraisal." Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 21(December 1998):205-248. Raimondo, H. J. Economics of State and Local Government. Westport, Connecticut, Praeger Publishers, 1992. Robinson, S.M. Kilkenny, et al. The USDA/ERS Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Model of the United States. Washington, Agricultural and Rural Economy Division Economic Research Service, 1990. Rutherford, T.F. Tools for Building National Economic Models Using State-Level IMPLAN Social Accounts. Department of Economics, Universi ty of Colorado, 1995 (revised 2004). Rutherford, T.F. and M.K. Light. A General Equilibrium Model for Tax Policy Analysis in Colombia, Colombian National Department of Planning, 2001. Rutherford, T. and S. Paltsev. From an Input-Output Table to a General Equilibrium Model: Assessing the Excess Burden of Indirect Taxes in Russia. Boulder, Department of Economics University of Colorado, 1999. Scarf, H. "The Approximation of Fixed Points of a Continuous Mapping." SIAM J. on App. Math. 15 (September 1967). 1328-1243. Scarf, H. and T. Hansen. The Computation of Economic Equilibria. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1973.

PAGE 98

98 Senate Finance and Taxation Committee. 2005 Florida Tax Handbook. Florida State Senate, Tallahassee, Florida, 2005 Seung, C.K. A Dynamic General Equilibrium Analysis of State Tax Incentives for Economic Development. Department of Agricultural Economics, Ohio State University. Doctor of Philosophy: 153(1996). Seung, C.K. and D.S. Kraybill. "Tax Incen tives in an Economy with Public Goods." Growth and Change. 30(Winter 1999):128-147. ----------. "The Effects of Infrastructure In vestment: A Two-Sector Dynamic Computable General Equilibrium Analysis For Ohio." Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 24(April 2001):261-281. Shoven, J.B. and J. Whalley. "Applied Ge neral-Equilibrium Models of Taxation and International Trade: An Introduction and Survey." J. of Econ. Lit. 22(September 1984):1007-1051. ----------. Applying General Equilibrium. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992. Starr, R. M. General Equilibrium Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997. Stodick, L., D. Holland, et al. Documentation for the Idaho-Washington CGE Model, School of Economic Sciences Washington State University, 2004. Vargas, E., D. Schreiner, et al. Computable General Equilibrium Modeling for Regional Analysis, Regional Research Institute We st Virginia University, 1996. Waters, E.C., D.W. Holland, et al. "Economi c Impact of a Property Tax Limitation: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis of Oregon's Measure 5." Land Econ. 73(February 1997):72-89. Wheelan, C. Why Income Inequality Matters: Yahoo Finance, Yahoo, 2007. Zodrow, G.R. "The Property Tax as a Ca pital Tax: A Room with Three Views." Nat. Tax J. 54(March 2001):139-156. ----------. "The New View of the Property Tax: A Reformulation." Reg. Sci. and Urb. Econ. 16(August 1986):309-327.

PAGE 99

99 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH A native of West Palm Beach, Florida, Mike OConnell obtained his B.A. in philosophy from the University of Florida in 1972. Afte r a 15-year career in banking culminating in a position of vice president and focusing on property appraisal and community reinvestment, Mr. OConnell returned to the University of Florid a to pursue an M.A. in economics which he received in from the Warrington School of Business in1991. His professional career with th e State of Florida has included work with the Department of Revenue, the Agency for Workforce Innovation (formerly the Department of Labor) and the Department of Community Affairs. He curren tly works for American Express as a senior econometrician. He has used his extensive kn owledge of economics, finance, and research techniques to provide a wide variety of economi c analyses to specific projects. These include shortand long-term economic forecasting of the economy using advanced statistical and econometric techniques and regional economi c analysis using economic impact modeling software such as REMI and IMPLAN. He has co ordinated large projects with other departments and agencies and. presented findings at state and national workshops and seminars. He also incorporates the use of ArcView and ArcGIS geographic information systems for economic analysis.