Table 5 Phasing-out the FES: effect on municipality characteristics
From: Tiebout sorting with progressive income taxation and a fiscal equalization scheme
FES effect | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\(\kappa\) | 100% | 40% | 0% | ||
Housing price | p | 1 | 13.331 | 13.430 | 19.707 |
2 | 13.352 | 13.396 | 0.001 | ||
Tax rate multiplier | t | 1 | 0.828 | 0.624 | 0.935 |
2 | 1.137 | 0.948 | 1.032 | ||
Public consumption | g | 1 | 12.606 | 12.621 | 16.192 |
2 | 17.407 | 16.673 | 10.828 | ||
Public expenditure | G/N | 1 | 3.059 | 3.167 | 3.717 |
2 | 4.573 | 4.295 | 0.001 | ||
Population | N | 1 | 142.934 | 132.699 | 360.000 |
2 | 217.066 | 227.301 | 0.000 | ||
Average income | Y/N | 1 | 97.902 | 106.669 | 75.639 |
2 | 60.980 | 57.524 | NaN | ||
FES payment | FES | 1 | − 1.787 | − 0.903 | 0.000 |
2 | 1.456 | 1.936 | 0.000 | ||