DOCSLIB.ORG

02 Policy Memo a Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Has

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
02 Policy Memo a Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Has Gina Gessner HESY 621- 02 Policy Memo A tax on sugar-sweetened beverage tax has been implemented in certain major cities in the United States. Experts argue that these taxes will reduce consumption, therefore reducing caloric intake which may reduce obesity rates. Also, a small tax of about 5% per ounce can generate millions or billions of dollars in revenue for the states; meaning more funding that can be used to alleviate health disparities in the obese population or in whatever way the state chooses (Marr & Brunet, 2009). Critics of the tax include the producers of the product, the food and beverage industry. Some also argue that this tax is regressive in nature, posing the majority of the burden on the poor, who consume these beverages most frequently. Others argue that the government has not right in influencing what we eat and drink by taxation. Information supporting each opposing argument will be synthesized and the most appropriate intervention will be determined. Obesity among children and adults is a known health issue in America. Covering the costs of obesity related illness will become increasingly expensive and burdensome for taxpayers if current trends continue (Marr & Brunet, 2009). A proposed contributor to the obesity epidemic is sugar-sweetened drinks. According to Marr & Brunet (2009), “Per capita consumption of such drinks nearly tripled between 1977-78 and 2000.” Americans of all ages are consuming these beverages in higher quantities which is directly influencing obesity rates among children and adults. Experts argue that consumption of these high calorie beverages does not affect satiety and can typically lead to an increase in overall caloric consumption (Brownell, et. al., 2009). “A recent meta-analysis found that the intake of sugared beverages is associated with increased body weight, poor nutrition, and displacement of more healthful beverages; increasing consumption increases risk for obesity and diabetes” (Brownell, 2009, para 3). The sugar –sweetened products will not be banned or outlawed; they can be purchased at a slightly higher price and enjoyed by consumers. Policy makers argue that taxing these products can reduce overall consumption, therefore aiding in obesity reduction. More than thirty states have implemented a soda tax in some form. The tax is on average 4% or less in many states (Martens). Experts have shown that small taxes do not generally affect consumption; higher taxes are likely to yield better outcomes concerning weight reduction (Brownell, et. al, 2009). What these small taxes are successful in achieving is generating large amounts of revenue for the states which can be used to fund healthcare costs, such as Medicaid. In Arkansas, an excise tax is placed on soda manufacturers and the money generated goes toward the cost of Medicaid (Marr & Brunet, 2009). Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University‟s Center for Food Policy and Obesity states, “A penny-per-ounce excise tax would raise an estimated $1.2 billion in New York State alone. In times of economic hardship, taxes that both generate this much revenue and promote health are better options than revenue initiatives that may have adverse effects” (2009). Gina Gessner HESY 621- 02 Critics of this tax claim that Americans in general disagree with the “sin tax”. A study done by Rassmussen Reports claims that only 33% of Americans think the tax is a “good idea” (2010). Some argue that it is not the government‟s responsibility to tell people what to eat and drink (Rassmussen Reports, 2010). Yet, most Americans want the government to pay for cost of obesity related illness. There is no banning of soda, and Americans will still be able to purchase it as they choose, however the price will be slightly higher. Alcohol and tobacco are taxed because there are known health risks that occur with consumption of the product. Data has shown that the majority of Americans are drinking more sugar sweetened drinks and obesity rates continue to rise in adults and children. Due to these factors, policy makers deem it appropriate to tax a product that results in serious health issues. Not surprisingly, there has been resistance from the food and beverage companies who have created certain anti tax coalitions (Brownell et. al., 2009). Perhaps the most valid argument against the taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages is that it places most of the burden on the poor. Policy makers are criticized that high-end sugary drinks such as sweet Starbucks beverages will be excluded from “sin – taxes”. The regressive nature of this tax will leave the wealthy unaffected. However, the fact remains that lower income Americans are the most obese, suggesting they over consume sugary foods and beverages (Trinko, 2010). The taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages could be considered helping those who are not wise enough to help themselves. “The poor are disproportionately affected by diet-related diseases and would derive the greatest benefit from reduced consumption” (Brownell & Frieden, 2009, para 10). The poor are also more likely to utilize government programs to cover the cost of their healthcare needs. Those with a lower socioeconomic status would benefit disproportionally from the initiation of such taxation (Marr & Brunet, 2009). Critics also forget to consider that sugar is not a necessity for sustaining life, would still be available to purchase and affordable in moderation. As a Registered Nurse who currently works in direct patient care, I can commonly trace the underlying reason for a patient‟s admission back to their state of obesity. Although these taxes do no to significantly reduce consumption, they have the potential to generate millions in revenue that can be used in alleviating health disparities in low income populations. As these populations are more affected by diet-related disease, this would be an appropriate intervention. I would agree with increasing such taxes, to successfully reduce consumption and thus obesity. While this subject is the topic of much discourse in health policy today, it is not a new concept. I tend to agree with Adam Smith, as he said in The Wealth of Nations (1776) “Sugar, rum, and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessaries of life, which are become objects of almost universal consumption, and which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation.” Gina Gessner HESY 621- 02 References Brownell, K. D., Frieden, T. R. (2009) Ounces of prevention. NEJM (360),1805-1808 Brownell K. D., Farley T., Willett W. C., Popkin, B. M., Chaloupka, F. J., Thomspson, J. W., Ludwig, D. S. (2009) The public health and economic benefits of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. NEJM (361),1599-1605. Mangu-Ward, K. (2009, September 27) 5 myths about sin taxes on soda. Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092502015.html Marr, C. & Brunet, G. (2009, May 27) Taxing high-sugar soft drinks could help pay for healthcare reform. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. http://www.cbpp.org/files/5-27-09health2.pdf Martens, K. (2010, April 1). Study: Small soda taxes don't dent child obesity. USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-04-01-soda-tax_N.htm?csp=obinsite Rampell, C. (2010, April 17) For cash strapped states, sin sure is lucrative. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/weekinreview/18rampell.html?_r=2 Rasmussen Reports (2010, March 19) 56% Oppose „Sin Taxes‟ on Junk Food and Soft Drinks http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/march_2010/56_oppose _sin_taxes_on_junk_food_and_soft_drinks Trinko, K. (2010, September, 20) Political cowards love the sin tax. USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-09-21-column21_ST_N.htm .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • German Tax & Corporate Insights
    Flick Gocke Schaumburg German Tax & Corporate Insights — Issue #08 / December 2015 1 Contents Editorial International Tax Dear readers, Proposed abandonment of the tax exemption regime for Again in this new issue of GTCI we highlight a number of portfolio investments — need for action? .................. 2 German legal developments and court rulings particularly relevant CFC income not subject to trade tax in Germany ......... 3 to international corporations and investors in Germany. Tax & Corporate BEPS & information exchange: Tax court affirms principle of confidentiality and secrecy in tax matters ... 4 We start with summing up a discussion draft regarding a Insights Accounting for tax uncertainties under IAS 12 — reform of the German Investment Tax Act published by the new developments .......................................... 5 Federal Ministry of Finance in July. Then, we take a closer Updates on recent business trends, look at a ruling by the Federal Tax Court according to legislation and case law in Germany Real Estate Transfer Tax which income attributed to German shareholders under German real estate transfer tax provisions — substitute the rules on controlled foreign companies (CFCs) is not tax base unconstitutional .................................. 6 subject to trade tax. Investment Taxation On October 5, the OECD presented the final BEPS package Reform of the German Investment Tax Act ............... 8 of measures for a comprehensive and coordinated reform Corporate Law of international tax rules. We explain what consequences Bonn Hamburg Breaking old habits in German corporate finance: New the package will have in practice. Also, we outline the main Johanna-Kinkel-Straße 2-4 Amelungstraße 8–10 53175 Bonn 20354 Hamburg rules on convertible bonds and preference shares and proposals made in the long-awaited draft “Uncertainty Phone +49 228/95 94-0 Phone +49 40/30 70 85-0 their tax implications ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Examination of Taxation on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Alex Smith University of North Georgia, [email protected]
    University of North Georgia Nighthawks Open Institutional Repository Honors Theses Honors Program Spring 2018 Examination of Taxation on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Alex Smith University of North Georgia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/honors_theses Part of the Accounting Commons Recommended Citation Smith, Alex, "Examination of Taxation on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages" (2018). Honors Theses. 32. https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/honors_theses/32 This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Program at Nighthawks Open Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Nighthawks Open Institutional Repository. Examination of Taxation on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages A Thesis Submitted to The Faculty of the University of North Georgia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Business Administration in Accounting With Honors Alex Smith Spring 2018 Examination of the Taxation on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Ellen Best for her support and insight throughout my research. I would like to thank Dr. Stephen Smith for agreeing to serve on my committee and providing support during my research. I would like to thank Dr. Poff for his guidance in the early development of my literature review. I would also like to thank Dr. Parker for agreeing to serve on my thesis committee Examination of the Taxation on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages 3 Contents 1. Introduction 2. Sin Tax 3. Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Overview 4. Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Response 5. Current Research on Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Pigouvian Taxes
    2 Dereliction of duty: Are UK alcohol taxes too low? AN INSTITUTE OF ALCOHOL STUDIES REPORT PUBLISHED MARCH 2016 WRITTEN AND PRODUCED BY AVEEK BHATTACHARYA WITH THANKS TO Rob Pryce, Katherine Brown, Griffin Carpenter, Amanda Spalding, Siladitya Bhattacharya and Will Damazer, Chris Smith, Jon Foster and Habib Kadiri for reviewing earlier drafts of this report. Cover image by Leo Scanlon. About the Institute of Alcohol Studies The core aim of the Institute is to serve the public interest on public policy issues linked to alcohol, by advocating for the use of scientific evidence in policy-making to reduce alcohol- related harm. The IAS is a company limited by guarantee (no. 05661538) and a registered charity (no. 1112671). For more information visit www.ias.org.uk. 3 4 Executive summary There are three standard reasons why governments taX alcohol: 1. Externality Correction: to ensure that alcohol prices reflect the cost to third parties who are harmed by drinking 2. Paternalism: to reduce people’s consumption for their own good 3. Revenue Raising: to fund the government The UK Government estimates that eXternalities associated with alcohol cost England and Wales £21 billion every year Alcohol duty in England and Wales currently generates only £9 billion, less than half of the value of these externalities This suggests higher alcohol taxes can be justified on the basis of the harm drinking causes to wider society alone, without considering the impact on the drinker themselves The lost enjoyment suffered by moderate consumers as a result of alcohol duty is relatively small – we estimate £1.2 billion (less than 2% of market value) to be the absolute possible ceiling of the impact.
    [Show full text]
  • External Support in Building Tax Capacity in Developing Countries
    Enhancing the Effectiveness of External Support in Building Tax Capacity in Developing Countries Prepared for Submission to G20 Finance Ministers July 2016 International Monetary Fund (IMF) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) United Nations (UN) World Bank Group (WBG) 0 Acronyms AEOI Automatic Exchange of Information ATAF African Tax Administration Forum ATAIC Association of Tax Administrations in Islamic Countries ATI Addis Tax Initiative BEPS Base Erosion and Profit Shifting CATA Commonwealth Association of Tax Administrators CIAT Inter-American Center of Tax Administrations CD Capacity Development CREDAF Centre de rencontres et d’études des dirigeants des administrations fiscales DAC Development Assistance Committee DRM Domestic resource mobilization FARI Fiscal Analysis for the Resource Industries FTA Forum on Tax Administration IMF International Monetary Fund IOs International Organizations joined in the Platform for Collaboration on Tax: the IMF, OECD, UN and WBG IOTA Intra-European Organisation of Tax Administrations ISORA International Survey of Revenue Administrations ODA Official Development Assistance OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PITAA Pacific Islands Tax Administrators Association PCT Platform for Collaboration on Tax RA-FIT Revenue Administration’s Fiscal Information Tool RTO Regional Tax Organization SARA Semi-Autonomous Revenue Authority SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SGATAR Study Group on Asian Tax Administration and Research 1 TA Technical assistance TADAT Tax
    [Show full text]
  • The Drawbacks of State Taxes on Financial Transactions
    The Drawbacks of State Taxes on Financial Transactions FISCAL Ulrik Boesen FACT Senior Policy Analyst, Excise Taxes No. 738 Jan. 2021 Key Findings: • A financial transaction tax (FTT) would raise transaction costs, which would result in a lower trading volume, lower liquidity, potentially increased volatility, and lower price of assets. Lower volume limits revenue potential, lower liquidity harms traders’ ability to buy and sell shares at the best price level, and increased volatility can increase risks. • An FTT might be targeted at limiting high frequency trading or speculative short-term investment However, it is highly unlikely that an FTT would only discourage “undesired” trading and would almost certainly result in a host of unintended consequences. The tax code is, moreover, not an appropriate policy tool to limit certain financial transactions. • Estimating revenue from a state-level FTT is difficult given the unknown reaction by the financial markets and high risk of tax avoidance. • States can either tax financial transactions by taxing data processing or stock exchanges, or tax the trader buying and selling financial products. States can either levy the tax at a flat rate or by value (ad valorem). • An FTT results in a version of tax pyramiding as the same instrument is traded multiple times, meaning that even at low rates, an FTT would add a significant tax burden. The Tax Foundation is the nation’s leading independent tax policy research organization. Since 1937, • If several states implement FTTs, the transfer of a security being taxed our research, analysis, and experts have informed smarter tax policy multiple times could emerge.
    [Show full text]
  • Regressive Sin Taxes, with an Application to the Optimal Soda Tax
    Regressive Sin Taxes, with an Application to the Optimal Soda Tax Hunt Allcott, Benjamin B. Lockwood, and Dmitry Taubinsky∗ First version: January 2017 This version: May 2019 Abstract A common objection to \sin taxes"|corrective taxes on goods that are thought to be over- consumed, such as cigarettes, alcohol, and sugary drinks|is that they often fall dispropor- tionately on low-income consumers. This paper studies the interaction between corrective and redistributive motives in a general optimal taxation framework and delivers empirically imple- mentable formulas for sufficient statistics for the optimal commodity tax. The optimal sin tax is increasing in the price elasticity of demand, increasing in the degree to which lower-income consumers are more biased or more elastic to the tax, decreasing in the extent to which con- sumption is concentrated among the poor, and decreasing in income effects, because income effects imply that commodity taxes create labor supply distortions. Contrary to common intu- itions, stronger preferences for redistribution can increase the optimal sin tax, if lower-income consumers are more responsive to taxes or are more biased. As an application, we estimate the optimal nationwide tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, using Nielsen Homescan data and a spe- cially designed survey measuring nutrition knowledge and self-control. Holding federal income tax rates constant, our estimates imply an optimal federal sugar-sweetened beverage tax of 1 to 2.1 cents per ounce, although optimal city-level taxes could be as much as 60% lower due to cross-border shopping. ∗Allcott: New York University and NBER. [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Vapor Products, Harm Reduction, and Taxation Principles, Evidence, and a Research Agenda
    Vapor products, harm reduction, and taxation Principles, evidence, and a research agenda Eric Fruits, Ph.D. ICLE Harm Reduction Research Program October 1, 2018 Summary More than 20 countries have introduced taxation on e-cigarettes and other vapor products. In the United States, several states and local jurisdictions have enacted e-cigarette taxes. Most of the harm from smoking is caused by the inhalation of toxicants released through the combustion of tobacco. Non-combustible nicotine de- livery systems, including e-cigarettes, “heat-not-burn” products, smokeless tobacco and other nicotine delivery systems, are generally considered to be significantly less harmful than combustible cigarettes. Policymakers face a wide range of strategies regarding the taxation of va- por products. On the one hand, principles of harm reduction suggest vapor products should face no taxes or low taxes relative to conventional ciga- rettes, to guide consumers toward a safer alternative to smoking. On the other hand, the precautionary principle as well as principles of tax equity point toward the taxation of vapor products at rates similar to conventional cigarettes. Analysis of tax policy issues is complicated by divergent—and sometimes obscured—intentions of such policies. Some policymakers claim that the objective of taxing nicotine products is to reduce nicotine consumption. Other policymakers indicate the objective is to raise revenues to support government spending. Often missed in the policy discussion is the effect of fiscal policies on innovation and the development and commercialization of harm-reducing products. Also, often missed are the consequences for cur- rent consumers of nicotine products, including smokers seeking to quit us- ing harmful conventional cigarettes.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Sin Taxes Are So Good
    Why Sin Taxes Are So Good Let’s say you’re the government, and there’s an unhealthy, dangerous, costly and environmentally damaging behavior you want to discourage. Plus, you could use some revenue. A handy solution: sin taxes. They’re those benevolent or heavy-handed (depending on who you ask) revenue generators that want to change the world for the better. Call them misguided or enlightened, but sin taxes are here to stay–because they are so darn effective. In fact, you probably already pay at least one. What Merits Taxing? Three things are likely to get a sin tax passed: 1. An obvious externality. This is the side effect of a behavior from health care costs imposed on governments and insurance companies by things like obesity, smoking and deaths from drunk driving accidents. 2. Demonstrable benefit. If possible, legislators and voters like to see that a tax decreases the undesirable behavior before implementing it. 3. Revenue for a good cause. To convince citizens that a brand-new tax merits taking their money, tell them how you’ll spend it. Here are some notable examples of taxes that have passed with flying colors, as well as taxes that have utterly failed. 1. Cigarettes Smoking costs the U.S. nearly $200 billion in health care costs and lost productivity each year. All 50 states have a cigarette tax, ranging from $0.17 per pack in Missouri to $4.35 in New York. Stacked on top of this are separate taxes from the federal government, as well as many cities (New York City has a $5.85 total tax) and even some counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Electoral Competitiveness and Fossil Fuel Taxation
    Changing prices in a changing climate: electoral competitiveness and fossil fuel taxation Jared Finnegan November 2018 Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy Working Paper No. 341 ISSN 2515-5709 (Online) Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper No. 307 ISSN 2515-5717 (Online) The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) was established by the University of Leeds and the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2008 to advance public and private action on climate change through innovative, rigorous research. The Centre is funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council. Its third phase started in October 2018 with seven projects: 1. Low-carbon, climate-resilient cities 2. Sustainable infrastructure finance 3. Low-carbon industrial strategies in challenging contexts 4. Integrating climate and development policies for ‘climate compatible development’ 5. Competitiveness in the low-carbon economy 6. Incentives for behaviour change 7. Climate information for adaptation More information about CCCEP is available at www.cccep.ac.uk The Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment was established by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2008 to bring together international expertise on economics, finance, geography, the environment, international development and political economy to create a world-leading centre for policy-relevant research and training. The Institute is funded by the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment and the Global Green Growth Institute. It has six research themes: 1. Sustainable development 2. Finance, investment and insurance 3. Changing behaviours 4. Growth and innovation 5. Policy design and evaluation 6.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case for Zero Effect of Sin Taxes on Consumption? Evidence from A
    A case for zero effect of sin taxes on consumption? Evidence from a sweets tax reform∗ Sami Jysmä,† Tuomas Kosonen‡ Riikka Savolainen§ June 6, 2019 Work in progress Abstract Excise taxes on soda or other unhealthy products have become in- creasingly popular measures attempting to tackle the increasing obe- sity problem. We study one such attempt in Finland: a sweets tax introduced in 2011, consequent reforms increasing the tax and abol- ishment of the tax in 2017. We study the pass-through to prices and the quantity elasticity of this excise tax that applied to sweets, choco- lates, ice creams and soda. We are able to provide credibly causal estimates on the pass-through to prices and on the quantity elasticity because the tax reforms affected significantly the prices of sweets and soda and we can find credible control groups not affected by the reforms but resembling the sweets. We have access to a unique product- and week-level data on sales from a large Finnish retailer chain containing ∗We would like to thank the participants at numerous conferences and seminars for helpful comments. Miska Raivio provided very helpful research assistance. † Labour Research Institute for Economic Research ‡ Labour Research Institute for Economic Research, Academy of Finland and CESifo, tuomas.kosonen@labour.fi. § King’s College London, [email protected]. 1 the key information on the products and hundreds of millions of ob- servations. Our findings show that in general the tax was fully passed through to prices. Interestingly, we find that the general sweets tax reform-induced price increases did not reduce the demand for sweets or soda.
    [Show full text]
  • Excise Or Excise Tax (Sometimes Called a Duty of Excise Or a Special Tax
    excise or excise tax (sometimes called a duty of excise or a special tax) may be defined broadly as an inland tax on the production for sale; or sale, of specific goods,[1] or narrowly as a tax on a good produced for sale, or sold, within the country. Excises are distinguished from customs duties, which are taxes on importation. Excises, whether broadly defined or narrowly defined, are inland taxes, whereas customs duties are border taxes. An excise is an indirect tax, meaning that the producer or seller who pays the tax to the government is expected to try to recover the tax by raising the price paid by the buyer (that is, to shift or pass on the tax). Excises are typically imposed in addition to another indirect tax such as a sales tax or VAT. In common terminology (but not necessarily in law) an excise is distinguished from a sales tax or VAT in three ways: (i) an excise typically applies to a narrower range of products; (ii) an excise is typically heavier, accounting for higher fractions (sometimes half or more) of the retail prices of the targeted products; and (iii) an excise is typically specific (so much per unit of measure; e.g. so many cents per gallon), whereas a sales tax or VAT is ad valorem, i.e. proportional to value (a percentage of the price in the case of a sales tax, or of value added in the case of a VAT). Typical examples of excise duties are taxes on gasoline and other fuels, and taxes on tobacco and alcohol (sometimes referred to as sin tax) Excise tax is notable for the vagueness of its definition.
    [Show full text]
  • Pass-Through, Tax Avoidance, and Nutritional Effects
    The Impact of Soda Taxes: Pass-through, Tax Avoidance, and Nutritional Effects∗ Stephan Seiler Anna Tuchman Song Yao Stanford Northwestern University of University University Minnesota This draft: March 12, 2019 We analyze the impact of a tax on sweetened beverages, often referred to as a \soda tax," using a unique data-set of prices, quantities sold and nutritional information across several thousand taxed and untaxed beverages for a large set of stores in Philadelphia and its surrounding area. We find that the tax is passed through at an average rate of 97%, leading to a 34% price increase. Demand in the taxed area decreases by 46% in response to the tax. There is no significant substitution to untaxed beverages (water and natural juices), but there is a large amount of cross-shopping to stores outside of Philadelphia. After taking into account cross-shopping, the total demand reduction is equal to only 22%. We do not detect a significant reduction in calorie and sugar intake. ∗We thank seminar participants at Boston University, CKGSB, Cornell University, Northwestern University, UCL, UC Riverside, University of Minnesota, University of Washington, and Washington University in St. Louis, and par- ticipants at the 2017 Marketing in Israel, 2018 Yale Customer Insights, and 2018 INFORMS Marketing Science conferences for useful comments. Yuanchen Su and Weihong Zhao provided excellent research assistance. Thanks also to Piyush Chaudhari and the team at IRI for providing the data used in our analysis. Please contact Seiler ([email protected]), Tuchman ([email protected]), or Yao ([email protected]) for correspon- dence.
    [Show full text]