232 



MULTIPLE PURPOSE RIVER DEVELOPMENT 



The foregoing analysis of the regional incidence of the change in 

 taxes under Model B suggests results not dissimilar from those 

 shown under Model A. To preserve the symmetry in exposition, 

 however, we will apply these results regarding tax incidence to 

 the problem of determining the regional incidence of costs, as we 

 did with the results of our tax Model A. 



Keeping all elements of the problem the same except for the 

 incidence of the unmet opportunity costs and shifted tax incidence, 

 we show, in Table 46, the regional incidence of the cost of federal 

 development under tax Model B. 



•TABLE 46. Regional Incidence of the Cost of Federal Development of 

 the Hypothetical Willamette River Power Site, 

 Assuming Tax Model B 



Unmet 

 opportunity 



Costs covered costs and shifted Per cent 



by power incidence of Total distribu- 



charges taxes costs tion of 



Regions ($ thousand) (5 thousand) (5 thousand) total cost 



New England — 64.0 64.0 2.7 



Middle Atlantic ... — 226.6 226.6 9.4 



South Atlantic — 88.0 88.0 3.7 



East South Central . — 29.0 29.0 1.2 



East North Central — 199.3 199.3 8.3 



West North Central — 60.4 60.4 2.5 



West South Central . — 55.8 55.8 2.3 



Mountain — 22.6 22.6 0.9 



Pacific Coast 1,554.4 103.6 1,658.0 69.0 



Total 1,554.4 • 849.3 " 2,403.7 100.0 



" Discrepancies in total caused by rounding. 



The regional incidence of cost associated with federal develop- 

 ment of this hypothetical Willamette River hydroelectric site — 

 when our tax model assumes an emphasis on upper income and 

 investment — is not too unlike the results obtained from use of 

 consumption Model A, in Table 42. Essentially the same propor- 

 tion of the total cost is borne by the Pacific Coast region under 

 either assumption with respect to the functional sectors from which 

 the tax funds will be raised or to which tax savings would other- 



