IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ntj/journl/v71y2018i2p379-398.html

Is the Haig‐Simons Standard Dead? The Uneasy Case for a Comprehensive Income Tax

Author

Listed:
  • James Alm

Abstract

Discussions of the "ideal" form of individual income taxation have largely been based on some variant of the standard suggested by Haig (1921) and Simons (1938). This "Haig‐Simons" (H‐S) standard argues that an ideal income tax should be imposed on "comprehensive income," and the H‐S standard has been used to justify the frequently heard call for a "Broad-based, Low-rate" tax reform strategy. However, I argue in this paper that a truly comprehensive individual income tax has in fact never been fully applied, either in the design of a new income tax or in the reform of an existing one. Indeed, my first conclusion is that the H‐S standard is effectively "dead" in terms of its actual real-world relevance to income tax design or reform. This conclusion obviously does not demonstrate that the H‐S standard should be discarded as the basis for an ideal individual income tax, including any reform of the income tax. However, my second conclusion is that the "death" of the H‐S standard is entirely appropriate; that is, there are compelling arguments that can be made for an individual income tax that is in fact imposed on an even narrower tax base, with even more extensive use of the many exclusions, adjustments, deductions, and exemptions that currently populate most all income taxes. Even so, my final conclusion is that there is no one-size-fits-all income tax standard; that is, any standard must consider the specifics of the current environment, especially the underlying goals of taxation.

Suggested Citation

  • James Alm, 2018. "Is the Haig‐Simons Standard Dead? The Uneasy Case for a Comprehensive Income Tax," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 71(2), pages 379-398, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:ntj:journl:v:71:y:2018:i:2:p:379-398
    DOI: 10.17310/ntj.2018.2.07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2018.2.07
    Download Restriction: Access is restricted to subscribers and members of the National Tax Association.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17310/ntj.2018.2.07?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rolf Aaberge & Marco Francesconi & Jørgen Modalsli & Ola L. Vestad, 2024. "How Business Income Measures Affect Income Inequality and the Tax Burden," CESifo Working Paper Series 11496, CESifo.
    2. Gemmell, Norman, 2021. "Economic Lessons for Tax Policy Advisers," Working Paper Series 21109, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.
    3. Gemmell, Norman, 2021. "Economic Lessons for Tax Policy Advisers," Working Paper Series 9463, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.
    4. James Alm, 2024. "Do we have the tools for achieving distributive tax justice?," South African Journal of Accounting Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(3), pages 211-228, September.
    5. repec:tul:wpaper:2306 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H2 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
    • H7 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations

    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:ntj:journl:v:71:y:2018:i:2:p:379-398. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: The University of Chicago Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.ntanet.org/ .

    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.