IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_10242.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Fair Earnings Tax Reforms

Author

Listed:
  • Erwin Ooghe
  • Erik Schokkaert
  • Hannes Serruys

Abstract

We characterize a measure of social welfare for linear production economies in which individuals differ in productive skills and preferences. The key feature of our measure is that it aggregates fairness gaps, defined as the difference between the money-metric utility that the individual currently obtains and the money-metric utility that the individual should obtain in a fair society. Social welfare depends on two normative parameters: society’s aversion to unfairness and the degree to which society wants to compensate individuals for productivity differences. The latter parameter makes it possible to accommodate a whole range of ethical perspectives, from libertarianism to resource-egalitarianism. As an illustration, we use our social welfare measure to evaluate four hypothetical earnings tax reforms for Belgian singles. The degree of compensation for productivity differences turns out to be the most important normative choice for the overall evaluation, while allowing for involuntary unemployment is the most important empirical choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Erwin Ooghe & Erik Schokkaert & Hannes Serruys, 2023. "Fair Earnings Tax Reforms," CESifo Working Paper Series 10242, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_10242
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp10242.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fleurbaey,Marc & Maniquet,François, 2011. "A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521715348.
    2. Samuelson, Paul A & Swamy, S, 1974. "Invariant Economic Index Numbers and Canonical Duality: Survey and Synthesis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(4), pages 566-593, September.
    3. Marc Fleurbaey & François Maniquet, 2018. "Inequality-averse well-being measurement," LIDAM Reprints CORE 2941, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    4. David Madden & Michael Savage, 2020. "Which households matter most? Capturing equity considerations in tax reform via generalised social marginal welfare weights," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 27(1), pages 153-193, February.
    5. Olivier Bargain & Kristian Orsini & Andreas Peichl, 2012. "Comparing Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the US: New Results," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 525, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    6. Magdalou, Brice & Nock, Richard, 2011. "Income distributions and decomposable divergence measures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(6), pages 2440-2454.
    7. Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2016. "Generalized Social Marginal Welfare Weights for Optimal Tax Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(1), pages 24-45, January.
    8. King, Mervyn A, 1983. "An Index of Inequality: With Applications to Horizontal Equity and Social Mobility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(1), pages 99-115, January.
    9. James Konow, 2003. "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 41(4), pages 1188-1239, December.
    10. Ahmad, Ehtisham & Stern, Nicholas, 1984. "The theory of reform and indian indirect taxes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 259-298, December.
    11. Amy Finkelstein & Nathaniel Hendren, 2020. "Welfare Analysis Meets Causal Inference," NBER Working Papers 27640, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Paul Hufe & Ravi Kanbur & Andreas Peichlifo, 2022. "Measuring Unfair Inequality: Reconciling Equality of Opportunity and Freedom from Poverty [Multidimensional Poverty and Inequality]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(6), pages 3345-3380.
    13. John Creedy & Nicolas Hérault & Guyonne Kalb, 2011. "Measuring welfare changes in behavioural microsimulation modelling: Accounting for the random utility component," Journal of Applied Economics, Universidad del CEMA, vol. 14, pages 5-34, May.
    14. Frank A. Cowell, 1985. "Measures of Distributional Change: An Axiomatic Approach," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 52(1), pages 135-151.
    15. Marc Fleurbaey & François Maniquet, 2018. "Optimal Income Taxation Theory and Principles of Fairness," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(3), pages 1029-1079, September.
    16. Fleurbaey, Marc & Schokkaert, Erik, 2009. "Unfair inequalities in health and health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 73-90, January.
    17. Bosmans, Kristof & Lauwers, Luc & Ooghe, Erwin, 2009. "A consistent multidimensional Pigou-Dalton transfer principle," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 1358-1371, May.
    18. Bosmans, Kristof & Decancq, Koen & Ooghe, Erwin, 2018. "Who's afraid of aggregating money metrics?," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(2), May.
    19. Kristof Bosmans & Luc Lauwers & Erwin Ooghe, 2018. "Prioritarian Poverty Comparisons with Cardinal and Ordinal Attributes," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 120(3), pages 925-942, July.
    20. Marc Fleurbaey & François Maniquet, 2018. "Inequality†averse well†being measurement," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 14(1), pages 35-50, March.
    21. Marc Fleurbaey & Koichi Tadenuma, 2014. "Universal Social Orderings: An Integrated Theory of Policy Evaluation, Inter-Society Comparisons, and Interpersonal Comparisons," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(3), pages 1071-1101.
    22. Paolo Giovanni Piacquadio, 2017. "A Fairness Justification of Utilitarianism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 1261-1276, July.
    23. Itai Sher, 2021. "Generalized Social Marginal Welfare Weights Imply Inconsistent Comparisons of Tax Policies," Papers 2102.07702, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    24. Boadway, Robin, 2012. "From Optimal Tax Theory to Tax Policy: Retrospective and Prospective Views," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262017113, December.
    25. Olivier Bargain & Kristian Orsini & Andreas Peichl, 2014. "Comparing Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the United States: New Results," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 49(3), pages 723-838.
    26. Arthur van Soest, 1995. "Structural Models of Family Labor Supply: A Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 30(1), pages 63-88.
    27. Itai Sher, 2021. "Generalized Social Marginal Welfare Weights Imply Inconsistent Comparisons of Tax Policies," Working Papers 2021-009, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    28. Marc Fleurbaey & Francois Maniquet, 1999. "Cooperative production with unequal skills: The solidarity approach to compensation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(4), pages 569-583.
    29. Amy Finkelstein & Nathaniel Hendren, 2020. "Welfare Analysis Meets Causal Inference," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 34(4), pages 146-167, Fall.
    30. Kurt Devooght, 2008. "To Each the Same and to Each his Own: A Proposal to Measure Responsibility‐Sensitive Income Inequality," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 75(298), pages 280-295, May.
    31. Deaton,Angus & Muellbauer,John, 1980. "Economics and Consumer Behavior," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521296762.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthew D. Adler & Koen Decancq, 2021. "Well-Being Measurement," Working Papers 2105, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    2. Decancq, Koen & Nys, Annemie, 2021. "Non-parametric well-being comparisons," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    3. Colas, Mark & Sachs, Dominik, 2022. "The Indirect Fiscal Benefits of Low-Skilled Immigration," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 352, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    4. Daniel Gerszon Mahler & Xavier Ramos, 2019. "Equality of Opportunity in Four Measures of Well‐Being," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 65(S1), pages 228-255, November.
    5. Rolf Aaberge & Ugo Colombino, 2018. "Structural Labour Supply Models and Microsimulation," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 11(1), pages 162-197.
    6. Germain, Antoine, 2023. "Basic income versus fairness: redistribution with inactive agents," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2023022, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    7. Maitreesh Ghatak & François Maniquet, 2019. "Universal Basic Income: Some Theoretical Aspects," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 895-928, August.
    8. DECANCQ Koen & OLIVERA Javier & SCHOKKAERT Erik, 2018. "Program evaluation and ethnic differences: the Pension 65 program in Peru," LISER Working Paper Series 2018-21, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    9. Rolf Aaberge & Ugo Colombino, 2014. "Labour Supply Models," Contributions to Economic Analysis, in: Handbook of Microsimulation Modelling, volume 127, pages 167-221, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    10. Koen Decancq & Marc Fleurbaey & François Maniquet, 2019. "Multidimensional poverty measurement with individual preferences," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 17(1), pages 29-49, March.
    11. Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, 2012. "Optimal Labor Income Taxation," NBER Working Papers 18521, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Henry de Frahan, Lancelot & Maniquet, François, 2021. "Preference responsibility versus poverty reduction in the taxation of labor incomes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    13. Olivier Bargain, 2017. "Welfare analysis and redistributive policies," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 15(4), pages 393-419, December.
    14. Jacobs, Bas & Jongen, Egbert L.W. & Zoutman, Floris T., 2017. "Revealed social preferences of Dutch political parties," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 81-100.
    15. X. Ramos & D. Van De Gaer, 2012. "Empirical Approaches to Inequality of Opportunity: Principles, Measures, and Evidence," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 12/792, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    16. Henk-Wim de Boer & Egbert Jongen, 2017. "Optimal Income Support for Lone Parents in the Netherlands: Are We There Yet?," CPB Discussion Paper 361.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    17. John E. Roemer & Alain Trannoy, 2013. "Equality of Opportunity," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1921, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    18. Matteo Picchio & Giacomo Valletta, 2018. "A welfare evaluation of the 1986 tax reform for married couples in the United States," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 25(3), pages 757-807, June.
    19. Marc Fleurbaey & François Maniquet, 2019. "Well-being measurement with non-classical goods," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(3), pages 765-786, October.
    20. Egor Malkov, 2021. "Welfare Effects of Labor Income Tax Changes on Married Couples: A Sufficient Statistics Approach," Papers 2108.09981, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    fairness; money-metric utility; excess burden; unfair inequality; earnings tax reforms; involuntary unemployment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D30 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - General
    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
    • H20 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - General
    • I30 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General
    • J20 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_10242. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.