Networks of knowledge or just old wives' tales? A diary-based analysis of women's self-care practices and everyday lay expertise

Impact Factor:1.137 | Ranking:21/36 in Social Sciences, Biomedical | 81/136 in Public, Environmental & Occupational Health | 5-Year Impact Factor:1.396Source:2012 Journal Citation Reports® (Thomson Reuters, 2013)
Alex Broom a.broom{at}uq.edu.au

The University of Queensland, AustraliaCarla Meurk

The University of Queensland, AustraliaJon Adams

University of Technology Sydney, AustraliaDavid Sibbritt

University of Technology Sydney, AustraliaComplementary and alternative medicine is increasingly popular in Australia and particularly among women. While existing research provides some understanding of women’s engagement with complementary and alternative medicine and biomedicine, there has been comparatively little examination of the day-to-day character of their experiences. In this study, we utilise solicited diaries with women aged 60–65 years drawn from the 1946–1951 cohort of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health to capture the temporal dimension of their therapeutic engagement. Focusing on 30 active complementary and alternative medicine users, we explore women’s experiences of managing their health, illness and well-being over a 1-month period. The themes that emerge from their diaries illustrate the day-to-day enactment of lay expertise through informal knowledge networks, practices of self-trialling and experimentation and the moralities underpinning self-care. The diaries provide unprecedented temporal insight into the (often problematic) enactment of lay expertise at the nexus of complementary and alternative medicine and biomedicine. They also point to the value of longitudinal techniques of data collection for augmenting more traditional sociological ways of exploring therapeutic pluralism.

© 2013 SAGE Publications. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC

View the original article here

"Mauled by a Bear": Narrative analysis of self-injury among adolescents in US news, 2007-2012

Impact Factor:1.137 | Ranking:21/36 in Social Sciences, Biomedical | 81/136 in Public, Environmental & Occupational Health | 5-Year Impact Factor:1.396Source:2012 Journal Citation Reports® (Thomson Reuters, 2013)
Warren Bareiss wbareiss{at}uscupstate.edu

University of South Carolina Upstate, USASelf-injury among adolescents has been widely documented in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Asia; however, news coverage of self-injury has not been examined. This study analyzes 78 news accounts of self-injury among adolescents in the United States from 2007 to 2012, using critical cultural studies as a theoretical foundation and a methodology informed by Kenneth Burke’s dramatism. Narrative elements within the sample are examined in relationship to one another in order to reveal implicit meanings within the news stories. Looking across the sample, I then use a framework developed by Labov and Waletzky to examine a dominant meta-narrative that downplays social causes of self-injury—notably, various forms of trauma such as childhood sexual abuse—and instead frames self-injury as a personal choice. As a result, the remedy to the problem is not constructed as redress of contemporary pressures placed upon young people, but rather, as the responsibility of adolescents to conform to the social system that causes them to hurt themselves.

© 2013 SAGE Publications. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC

View the original article here

Secondary Data Analysis Initiative phase 1 - 2012

We are inviting proposals under phase 1 of this new £10.8 million initiative. The initiative will deliver high impact policy and practitioner relevant research through the deeper exploitation of the major data resources created by the ESRC and other agencies.

The first phase will fund around 20 small scale projects of up to £200,000 (at full economic cost) each and with a maximum duration of 18 months. This call is not thematically driven and proposals are welcome in any area which can generate policy and practitioner impact. However, there are significant opportunities to address key issues in our strategic priorities.

The closing date for proposals is 16.00 on 19 April 2012, with the expectation that most projects will commence in October 2012. Proposals should be submitted electronically using the Research Councils’ Joint Electronic Submissions (Je-S). Detailed guidance on the information required as part of proposals is provided in the Je-S guidance notes for applicants. All applicants should consult the ESRC Research Funding Guide, which sets out the rules and regulations governing funding.

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research (PHR) programme is commissioning a number of research projects to evaluate public health interventions by utilising pre-existing data collected by health services, local authorities, or other organisations, or pre-existing research data. For details see studies using pre-existing data.

Enquiries relating to the Secondary Data Analysis Initiative funding rules and application procedure should be addressed to:

Enquiries relating to the Je-S application procedure should be addressed to the Je-S Helpdesk at:

View the original article here

Preliminary Revenue Estimates and Distributional Analysis of the Tax Provisions in the Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act of 2010

Preliminary Revenue Estimates and Distributional Analysis of the Tax Provisions in the Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act of 2010Jim Nunns, Jeff Rohaly

The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full report in PDF format.

The Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act of 2010 ("Wyden-Gregg," introduced as S. 3018) is a broad reform of the federal income tax system. Some provisions would also expand the Social Security payroll tax base. This paper presents the Tax Policy Center's estimates of the revenue and distributional effects of the income and payroll tax provisions in Wyden-Gregg.

Compared with a baseline that assumes all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are extended and that the 2009 AMT exemption level is maintained and indexed, the Tax Policy Center estimates that Wyden-Gregg would Be roughly revenue-neutral over the next decade, with an increase in individual income and payroll tax revenues offsetting a decline in corporate tax revenues. Make the federal tax system more progressive, with after-tax incomes declining on average for the top 20 percent of tax units and increasing on average for the other 80 percent of tax units.

These estimates are all static, in that they do not incorporate potential behavioral responses to the tax changes. On balance, such responses would likely reduce revenues under the proposal.

(End of excerpt. The entire report is available in PDF format.)

View the original article here

An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans

An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax PlansLeonard E. Burman, Surachai Khitatrakun, Greg Leiserson, Jeff Rohaly, Eric Toder, Roberton Williams

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Updated tables analyzing the August 14, 2008 revision of the Obama tax plan are available here.

The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full report in PDF format.

Tax and fiscal policy will loom large in the next president's domestic policy agenda. Nearly all of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 expire at the end of 2010 and the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) threatens to ensnare tens of millions of Americans. While a permanent fix palatable to both political parties has proven elusive, both candidates have proposed major tax changes. This report describes how we performed our modeling and analysis, outlines the major tax proposals, and discusses the implications of their policies for the revenue raised, taxpayer economic activity, and the distribution of the tax burden.

Tax and fiscal policy will loom large in the next president’s domestic policy agenda. Nearly all of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 expire at the end of 2010. The individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) threatens to ensnare tens of millions of Americans in a web of pointless complexity and higher taxes, but a permanent fix palatable to both political parties has proven elusive. In the past year, the federal budget deficit has ballooned, and, more worrisome, large projected increases in spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will put unprecedented demands on federal government revenue sources in the coming decades.

Fundamental reform of our tax system is one way to resolve these problems, but, at least in part because reform creates both winners and losers, the leading presidential candidates have not addressed it seriously. Nonetheless, both candidates have proposed major changes to the nation’s tax laws. Senator McCain would permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, increase deductions for taxpayers supporting dependents, reduce the corporate income tax rate, and allow immediate deductions for investments in certain capital equipment. Senator Obama would permanently extend certain provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts primarily affecting taxpayers with incomes under $250,000 but repeal the cuts in the top two marginal income tax rates ahead of their scheduled expiration in 2010; increase the maximum rate on capital gains; raise the top tax rate on qualified dividends from its current level (but keep it below pre-2001 levels); and enact new and expanded targeted tax breaks for workers, retirees, homeowners, savers, students, and new farmers. Senator McCain proposes to extend permanently and increase the AMT “patch” that has prevented most individuals and families with incomes below $200,000 from being affected by the tax and lowered the tax for others, and in our interpretation of his proposal, Senator Obama would also extend the patch. Each candidate would also increase the estate tax exemption and reduce the estate tax rate compared with current law in 2011 and beyond, although Senator McCain would cut the tax much more than Senator Obama. Finally, each candidate promises to broaden the tax base and reduce corporate loopholes. McCain lists eight breaks for oil companies as targets but, other than that, is short on details for his pledge to eliminate “corporate welfare.” Obama identifies a variety of steps, including basis reporting for capital gains, taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and enacting sanctions on international tax havens that don’t cooperate with enforcement efforts, but he would also need additional as-yet-unspecified policies to achieve his revenue target for base broadening.

Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by an estimated $4.2 trillion (McCain) and $2.8 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years. Both candidates argue that their proposals should be scored against a “current policy” baseline instead of current law. Such a baseline assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT patch made permanent. Against current policy, Senator Obama’s proposals would raise $800 billion and Senator McCain’s proposals lose $600 billion.

The two candidates’ tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise significantly.

The impact of the tax code on economic activity under each candidate’s policies would differ in several important ways. Under Senator McCain’s proposed policies, the top marginal rates (35 percent on individual income and 25 percent on corporate income) would be significantly lower than under Senator Obama’s plan (39.6 and 35 percent, respectively). McCain’s reduced individual and corporate rates could improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger future deficits would reduce and might completely negate any positive effect. In contrast, Senator Obama’s proposed new tax credits could encourage desirable behavior, particularly if the childless EITC and payroll tax rebate encourage additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals. However, he would also direct new subsidies at an already favored group—seniors —and an already favored activity—homeownership—which could probably be better directed elsewhere.

(End of excerpt. The entire report is available in PDF format.)

View the original article here

An Analysis of the 2004 House Tax Cuts

Leonard E. Burman

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

© TAX ANALYSTS. Reprinted with permission.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

Summary

The House of Representatives has passed variants on four provisions in President Bush's FY2005 Budget: marriage penalty relief (H.R. 4181), a temporary increase in the AMT exemption (H.R. 4227), an increase in the 10-percent tax bracket thresholds (H.R. 4275), and an increase in the child credit and making it available to taxpayers with higher incomes (H.R. 4359). This paper discusses the potential implications of those bills on revenues, the distribution of tax liabilities, and the economy.2

With the exception of AMT relief, the other three bills would expand on provisions enacted in 2001. The 2001 legislation, the Economic Growth and Taxpayer Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), phased in all three provisions, but would "sunset" all the relief after 2010-meaning that they would return to the levels specified by pre-EGTRRA law. Legislation enacted in 2003, the Jobs and Growth Taxpayer Relief Reconciliation ACT of 2003 (JGTRRA), increased all three provisions to their fully phased in levels, but only for 2003 and 2004, after which the EGTRRA phase-in schedule resumes. The House-passed legislation would make permanent the temporary increases enacted in JGTRRA and would eliminate the sunset after 2010. (See Table 1.) It would also expand eligibility for the child tax credit to many high-income taxpayers and index the AMT exemption level for inflation, but only for one year.

Revenue. Overall, the four bills would reduce federal tax revenues by $531 billion over the next 10 years, assuming that AMT relief is allowed to expire on schedule. (See Table 2.) That scenario however, seems very unlikely, given that, without relief, nearly 30 million people would become subject to the AMT by 2010.3 In fact, the four bills together would actually increase the number of people subject to the AMT compared with current law, unless the temporary AMT provision is extended. But indexing the AMT permanently would increase the 10-year cost of the tax measures to almost $1 trillion.

Because all of the provisions made permanent were set to expire in 2010, the cost of the package grows dramatically after 2010. About 70 percent of the cost is incurred in the last four years. The costs for the whole package decline modestly after 2011, as more and more taxpayers become subject to the AMT. AMT taxpayers receive no benefit from the 10-percent bracket expansion or marriage penalty relief (although the child credit provision is explicitly exempted from the AMT and thus continues to increase in cost over time). But if AMT relief is made permanent, its cost is made significantly larger by the other provisions. The cost of AMT relief grows over time much faster than the overall economy because AMT parameters are not indexed for inflation under current law, which means that more and more people are set to fall prey to the AMT and the average tax rate under the AMT increases as inflation pushes more people into the higher AMT tax brackets.4

Distributional Effects. The four bills have been called middle-class tax relief, but that is a misnomer. With the exception of the expansion of the 10-percent tax bracket, all of these provisions would yield more than half of their benefits to the 20 percent of households with the highest incomes. (See Figure 1.) Overall, in 2005, the top quintile would get 73 percent of the benefits while only 27 percent would go to the middle three quintiles. Less than 0.1 percent goes to the bottom quintile.

AMT relief is the most skewed component. Over 95 percent of the benefits would accrue to the top 20 percent. More than 71 percent of marriage penalty relief would go to that group—largely because the expansion of the 15-percent bracket for married couples only aids those who are in higher brackets. Although increasing the child credit from $700 to $1,000 provides a substantial benefit to middle-class households, the largest gainers on a per capita basis are those with high incomes who become newly eligible for the entire $1,000 credit. As a result, more than half of the benefits of the child credit increase go to the top 20 percent. Only the 10-percent bracket expansion benefits primarily middle-income families. Almost two-thirds of benefits of that provision would accrue to the middle three-fifths of the income distribution.

These distributional estimates implicitly assume that as much as $1 trillion of revenues may be forgone over the next decade with no effect on the level of future taxes or the supply of government services that citizens value. In fact, the tax cuts will have to be paid for, which mean that, over the long term, there will be both winners and losers. The actual incidence of the net change in benefits depends on exactly how the lost revenues are made up, but many apparent beneficiaries of this package, which would be the fourth major tax cut in as many years, could end up worse off over the long term.

Economic Effects. Tax cuts have often been rationalized on the grounds that they would stimulate long-run economic growth, but that argument is implausible for this package. Relatively few taxpayers would see a reduction in their marginal tax rate beyond 2005 when the temporary AMT relief is set to expire. As a result, there would be negligible effect on incentives to work, save, or invest in unproductive tax shelters. Moreover, by adding to the burgeoning budget deficits, the tax cuts would raise interest rates and discourage investment by businesses and purchases of homes and cars by consumers. These responses would tend to stifle economic growth.

Notes from this section

1. I am grateful to Joel Friedman, Bill Gale, Bob Greenstein, Jeff Rohaly, and Isaac Shapiro for helpful comments and to Troy Kravitz and Adeel Saleem for excellent research assistance. Views expressed are the author's alone and should not be attributed to the Tax Policy Center or the Urban Institute, its board, or its funders.

2. For a discussion of the House tax cuts and their budgetary implications, see Joel Friedman and Isaac Shapiro, "Who Would Pay for the House's "Free Lunch" Tax Cuts?", Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 18, 2004.

3. See Leonard E. Burman, William G. Gale, and Jeffrey Rohaly, "The AMT: Projections and Problems," Tax Notes, July 7, 2003, 105-117, for a discussion. Estimates presented in Table 1 have been updated to reflect current assumptions about inflation rates and income growth.

4. Although the AMT nominally has only two rates, 26 and 28 percent, the AMT exemption phases out over a range of income. This phase-out creates an implicit surtax of 25 percent of the AMT rate, effectively producing two additional tax brackets of 32.5 and 35 percent. Since the phase-out range is not indexed for inflation, increases in price levels can substantially increase average tax liabilities by pushing people into these phantom tax brackets. See Burman, Gale, and Rohaly, "The AMT," for further discussion.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

View the original article here