The Growth of Government in the United States

The Growth of Government in the United States The U.S. government grew substantially beginning with President Franklin Roosevelts administration. In an attempt to end the unemployment and misery of the Great Depression, Roosevelts New Deal created many new federal programs and expanded many existing ones. The rise of the United States as the worlds major military power during and after World War II also fueled government growth. The growth of urban and suburban areas in the postwar period made expanded public services more feasible. Greater educational expectations led to significant government investment in schools and colleges. An enormous national push for scientific and technological advances spawned new agencies and substantial public investment in fields ranging from space exploration to health care in the 1960s. And the growing dependence of many Americans on medical and retirement programs that had not existed at the dawn of the 20th century swelled federal spending further. How Government Has Affected Employment While many Americans think that the federal government in Washington has ballooned out of hand, employment figures indicate that this has not been the case. There has been significant growth in government employment, but most of this has been at the state and local levels. From 1960 to 1990, the number of state and local government employees increased from 6.4 million to 15.2 million, while the number of civilian federal employees rose only slightly, from 2.4 million to 3 million. Cutbacks at the federal level saw the federal labor force drop to 2.7 million by 1998, but employment by state and local governments more than offset that decline, reaching almost 16 million in 1998. (The number of Americans in the military declined from almost 3.6 million in 1968, when the United States was embroiled in the war in Vietnam, to 1.4 million in 1998.) The Privatization of Services The rising costs of taxes to pay for expanded government services, as well as the general American distaste for big government and increasingly powerful public employee unions, led many policy-makers in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to question whether government is the most efficient provider of needed services. A new word - privatization - was coined and quickly gained acceptance worldwide to describe the practice of turning certain government functions over to the private sector. In the United States, privatization has occurred primarily at the municipal and regional levels. Major U.S. cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Dallas, and Phoenix began to employ private companies or nonprofit organizations to perform a wide variety of activities previously performed by the municipalities themselves, ranging from streetlight repair to solid-waste disposal and from data processing to management of prisons. Some federal agencies, meanwhile, sought to operate more like private enterprises; the United States Postal Service, for instance, largely supports itself from its own revenues rather than relying on general tax dollars. Privatization of public services remains controversial, however. While advocates insist that it reduces costs and increases productivity, others argue the opposite, noting that private contractors need to make a profit and asserting that they are not necessarily being more productive. Public sector unions, not surprisingly, adamantly oppose most privatization proposals. They contend that private contractors in some cases have submitted very low bids in order to win contracts, but later raised prices substantially. Advocates counter that privatization can be effective if it introduces competition. Sometimes the spur of threatened privatization may even encourage local government workers to become more efficient. As debates over regulation, government spending, and welfare reform all demonstrate, the proper role of government in the nations economy remains a hot topic for debate more than 200 years after the United States became an independent nation. - This article is adapted from the book Outline of the U.S. Economy by Conte and Carr and has been adapted with permission from the U.S. Department of State.

Multijurisdictional tax final exam (emergency - has limited time) Coursework

Multijurisdictional tax final exam (emergency - has limited time) - Coursework Example Treaty with Country X PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT 1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "permanent establishment" means a fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on. 2. The term "permanent establishment" includes especially: a) a place of management; b) a branch; c) an office; d) a factory; e) a workshop; and f) a mine, an oil or gas well, a quarry, or any other place of extraction of natural resources. 3. A building site or construction or installation project, or an installation or drilling rig or ship used for the exploration of natural resources, constitutes a permanent establishment only if it lasts, or the exploration activity continues for more than twelve months. 4. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Article, the term "permanent establishment" shall be deemed not to include: a) the use of facilities solely for the purpose of storage, display or delivery of goods or merchandise belonging to the enterp rise; b) the maintenance of a stock of goods or merchandise belonging to the enterprise solely for the purpose of storage, display or delivery; c) the maintenance of a stock of goods or merchandise belonging to the enterprise solely for the purpose of processing by another enterprise; d) the maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for the purpose of purchasing goods or merchandise, or of collecting information, for the enterprise; e) the maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for the purpose of carrying on, for the enterprise, any other activity of a preparatory or auxiliary character; f) the maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for any combination of the activities mentioned in subparagraphs a) through e), provided that the overall activity of the fixed place of business resulting from this combination is of a preparatory or auxiliary character. MASSACHUSETTS LAW Except as otherwise provided in this section, every business corporation, organized under th e laws of the commonwealth, or exercising its charter or other means of legal authority, or qualified to do business or actually doing business in the commonwealth, or owning or using any part or all of its capital, plant or any other property in the commonwealth, shall pay an income measure tax. A business corporation shall not be subject to the income measure of tax under if it is engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property and taxation of that business corporation under this chapter is precluded by the constitution or laws of the United States, or would be so precluded except for the fact that the business corporation stored tangible personal property in a licensed public storage warehouse, but no portion of any warehouse which is owned or leased by a consignor or consignee of the tangible personal property shall be considered a licensed public warehouse. 1. Does the treaty provision protect Corporation A from taxation by the US? Why or why not? The treaty provi sion protects Corporation A from taxation in the US on multiple fronts. Under regular Massachusetts law, any business that has a de minimis physical presence in the form of any assets, employees, contracted obligations, rented property etc. in Massachusetts is subject to taxation. This clause applies equally well to any foreign corporations doing