Kip Hagopian
Kip's Writing
The Health-Insurance Solution
In “The Health-Insurance Solution,” Kip Hagopian and Dana Goldman argue for restructuring American health insurance around universal catastrophic coverage. They contend that the existing system encourages excessive spending by insulating consumers from the true cost of routine care, and propose a model combining high-deductible catastrophic insurance, income-based cost sharing, greater consumer choice, and the elimination of existing tax subsidies for health coverage. Their proposal is intended to expand protection against major medical expenses while creating stronger market incentives for routine health-care spending.
In “The Mismeasure of Inequality,” Kip Hagopian and Lee E. Ohanian challenge commonly cited measures of income inequality in the United States. The authors argue that conventional income statistics omit important components of economic well-being, including taxes, transfers, benefits, and consumption. They examine income and consumption trends, middle-class growth, poverty measures, taxation, and the causes of inequality, ultimately making the case that public policy should focus more on equality of economic opportunity than on equalizing incomes.
The Mismeasure of Inequality
National Affairs, 2012
by Kip Hagopian & Dana Goldman
Hoover Institution - Policy Review, 2012
by Kip Hagopian & Lee Ohanian
ARTICLES
The Inequity of the Progressive Income Tax
In “The Inequity of the Progressive Income Tax,” Kip Hagopian examines the philosophical and economic arguments used to justify progressive income taxation. Beginning with a parable illustrating how different tax systems distribute shared costs, Hagopian considers the benefits principle, sacrifice theory, ability to pay, income inequality, and the relationship between income, aptitude, and work effort. He ultimately argues that progressive taxation lacks a consistent principle of fairness and makes the case for a degressive tax system—one that taxes income proportionately above a basic subsistence exemption—as a less inequitable alternative.Short description here
How To Achieve Universal Health Coverage At Half The Costlth-Insurance Solution
Kip Hagopian and Dana Goldman propose an alternative approach to U.S. health care centered on universal catastrophic insurance coverage. Their plan would provide catastrophic coverage to Americans not covered by Medicare or Medicaid, use income-based deductibles and subsidies, encourage greater price transparency and consumer cost awareness, and simplify the health insurance system. The authors argue that this approach could achieve universal coverage while costing substantially less than the Affordable Care Act.
Hoover Institution - Policy Review, 2012
by Kip Hagopian
FORBES, 2014
BY Kip Hagopian & Dana Goldman
How to Insure Everyone at a Reasonable Cost
BY Kip Hagopian and Dana Goldman
FORBES, 2017
Kip Hagopian and Dana Goldman propose an alternative approach to achieving universal health coverage through government-sponsored catastrophic insurance. Their plan would cover Americans not enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid, use means-tested deductibles to make coverage more affordable for lower-income households, and allow supplemental insurance for broader coverage. The authors argue that this approach could protect people from major medical expenses while simplifying the health insurance system and reducing costs compared with the Affordable Care Act.
Point of View: Expensing Employee Stock Options Is Improper Accounting
BY KIP HAGOPIAN
California Review Management, 2016
In this California Management Review article, Kip Hagopian challenges the accounting treatment of employee stock options under FAS 123R. He argues that employee stock options function as gain-sharing instruments whose economic cost is borne by shareholders through dilution—not as an operating expense of the company—and examines the accounting principles, valuation issues, and economic reasoning behind that position.
The Making of a Perfect Storm: Causes of the Great Mortgage Meltdown of 2008
In “The Inequity of the Progressive Income Tax,” Kip Hagopian examines the philosophical and economic arguments used to justify progressive income taxation. Beginning with a parable illustrating how different tax systems distribute shared costs, Hagopian considers the benefits principle, sacrifice theory, ability to pay, income inequality, and the relationship between income, aptitude, and work effort. He ultimately argues that progressive taxation lacks a consistent principle of fairness and makes the case for a degressive tax system—one that taxes income proportionately above a basic subsistence exemption—as a less inequitable alternative.Short description here
RAND “Politics Aside” public policy forum, 2008
by Kip Hagopian
PRESENTATION
DRAFTS
Alleviating Financial Crisis: “PLAN B” --A Market Based Solution
Why Do We Have a Corporate Income Tax?
BY Kip Hagopian and Professor Ed Leamer
BY KIP HAGOPIAN
Kip Hagopian and Professor Ed Leamer propose a market-based alternative to the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) during the 2008 financial crisis. Their “Plan B” centers on a public-private partnership designed to purchase mortgage-backed securities, restore liquidity and confidence in financial markets, and provide capital to struggling financial institutions while limiting taxpayer exposure.
In “Why Do We Have a Corporate Income Tax?”, Kip Hagopian examines the history, structure, and economic effects of the U.S. corporate income tax. He discusses the double taxation of corporate profits, compares U.S. corporate tax rates with those of other industrialized countries, considers who ultimately bears the tax, and explores alternatives to the existing system. Hagopian ultimately makes the case for eliminating or substantially reducing taxes on corporate and other forms of capital income.
The Inequity of the Progressive Income Tax: The Book
In “The Inequity of the Progressive Income Tax,” Kip Hagopian examines whether progressive income taxation can be justified on grounds of fairness. Using the “Class Wars” parable as a starting point, he explores how aptitude, work effort, occupation, and luck affect income and evaluates the major intellectual arguments for progressive taxation—including the benefits principle, sacrifice theory, ability to pay, income redistribution, and social justice. Hagopian ultimately argues that progressive taxation unfairly penalizes additional work effort and proposes a degressive system, in which income above a subsistence threshold is taxed proportionately, as a less inequitable alternative.
by Kip Hagopian
Debates & Discussions
Stock Option Expensing: Debate Between Kip Hagopian and Professor Mark Rubinstein
On Israel and the Palestinians:
A Conversation between an Israeli and an American
This document presents an extended debate between Kip Hagopian and Professor Mark Rubinstein over the accounting treatment of employee stock options (ESOs). Through a series of e-mails, the participants examine whether ESOs should be treated as a corporate expense, how their economic value and cost should be measured, the role of dilution and shareholder value, and the differences between accounting and economic perspectives on option compensation.
“On Israel and the Palestinians: A Conversation between an Israeli and an American” presents an extended exchange between Asher Susser and Kip Hagopian about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Beginning with Hagopian’s proposed “78% Solution,” the correspondence explores competing interpretations of history, Palestinian and Israeli national aspirations, security, terrorism, settlements, refugees, Jerusalem, borders, economic incentives, and the prospects for a negotiated two-state settlement. The document preserves the participants’ differing views and responses over the course of their dialogue.
Exchange with Professor Samuelson
About Stock Option Expensing
This correspondence records an exchange between Kip Hagopian and economist Paul A. Samuelson concerning the accounting treatment of employee stock options. The letters focus on whether employee stock options should be treated as an expense at grant or vesting, how their economic cost should be understood, and whether standard option-pricing methods appropriately capture the accounting consequences of employee stock-option compensation.