IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Did Tax Reform Reduce Actual US Progressivity? Evidence from the Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program

  • John Bishop
  • K. Chow
  • John Formby
  • Chih-Chin Ho
Registered author(s):

    Micro data from audited tax returns are used to evaluatechanges in the actual progressitivity of U.S. federal incometaxes in 1979 and 1988, which is distinct from apparent progressivity.Statistical inference methods are applied to global measuresof both actual and apparent residual and liability progression.The analysis reveals an absence of change in the overall levelof actual residual progressivity, but statistically significantdeclines in actual liability progression. The results indicatethat in assessing overall tax progression it is important totake sampling errors into account and that measures of actualtax progressivity can deviate significantly from apparent progressivity. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1008642421345
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer in its journal International Tax and Public Finance.

    Volume (Year): 4 (1997)
    Issue (Month): 2 (May)
    Pages: 177-197

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:kap:itaxpf:v:4:y:1997:i:2:p:177-197
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=102915

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Joel B. Slemrod, 1992. "Taxation and Inequality: A Time-Exposure Perspective," NBER Chapters, in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 6, pages 105-128 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Kakwani, Nanak C, 1977. "Applications of Lorenz Curves in Economic Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(3), pages 719-27, April.
    3. Pfahler, Wilhelm, 1987. "Redistributive Effects of Tax Progressivity: Evaluating a General Class of Aggregate Measures," Public Finance = Finances publiques, , vol. 42(1), pages 1-31.
    4. Pechman, Joseph A, 1990. "The Future of the Income Tax," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Feldstein, Martin, 1988. "Imputing Corporate Tax Liabilities to Individual Taxpayers," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 41(1), pages 37-59, March.
    6. Atkinson, Anthony B., 1970. "On the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 244-263, September.
    7. Jakobsson, Ulf, 1976. "On the measurement of the degree of progression," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1-2), pages 161-168.
    8. Formby, John P & Seaks, Terry G & Smith, W James, 1989. "On the Measurement and Trend of Inequality: A Reconsideration," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(1), pages 256-64, March.
    9. Banks, J. & Kapteyn, A. & Smith, J.P. & van Soest, A.H.O., 2004. "International Comparisons of Work Disability," Discussion Paper 2004-36, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    10. John P. Formby & W. James Smith & Paul D. Thistle, 1990. "The Average Tax Burden and the Welfare Implications of Global Tax Progressivity," Public Finance Review, , vol. 18(1), pages 3-24, January.
    11. Bishop, John A & Chiou, Jong-Rong & Formby, John P, 1994. "Truncation Bias and the Ordinal Evaluation of Income Inequality," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 12(1), pages 123-27, January.
    12. Bishop, John A & Formby, John P & Smith, W James, 1991. "International Comparisons of Income Inequality: Tests for Lorenz Dominance across Nine Countries," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 58(232), pages 461-77, November.
    13. John P. Formby & W. James Smith & David Sykes, 1986. "Income Redistribution and Local Tax Progressivity: A Reconsideration," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 19(4), pages 807-11, November.
    14. Beach, Charles M & Richmond, James, 1985. "Joint Confidence Intervals for Income Shares and Lorenz Curves," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 26(2), pages 439-50, June.
    15. Davies, David G, 1980. "Measurement of Tax Progressivity: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(1), pages 204-07, March.
    16. Martin Feldstein, 1987. "Imputing Corporate Tax Liabilities to Individual Taxpayers," NBER Working Papers 2349, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Suits, Daniel B, 1977. "Measurement of Tax Progressivity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(4), pages 747-52, September.
    18. Beach, Charles M & Davidson, Russell, 1983. "Distribution-Free Statistical Inference with Lorenz Curves and Income Shares," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(4), pages 723-35, October.
    19. Clotfelter, Charles T, 1983. "Tax Evasion and Tax Rates: An Analysis of Individual Returns," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 65(3), pages 363-73, August.
    20. John A. Bishop & John P. Formby & W. James Smith, 1993. "International Comparisons of Welfare and Poverty: Dominance Orderings for Ten Countries," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 26(3), pages 707-26, August.
    21. Pechman, Joseph A, 1987. "Tax Reform: Theory and Practice," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 11-28, Summer.
    22. Hayes, Kathy J. & Lambert, Peter J. & Slottje, Daniel J., 1995. "Evaluating effective income tax progression," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 461-474, March.
    23. Kakwani, Nanok C, 1977. "Measurement of Tax Progressivity: An International Comparison," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 87(345), pages 71-80, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:itaxpf:v:4:y:1997:i:2:p:177-197. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn)

    or (Christopher F. Baum)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.