IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/ecoprv/ecop_0249-4744_2003_num_160_4_6925.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

L’individualisation de l’impôt sur le revenu : équitable ou pas ?

Author

Listed:
  • Damien Échevin

Abstract

[eng] An estimate using a microsimulation model suggests that approximately 46% of married couples in France benefit from a tax gain as a result of marriage and 22% suffer a tax penalty. Influenced by factors such as tax allowances, minimum thresholds and specific deductions, the annual average tax gain per household is 1080, and the penalty is 185. Tax individualisation cancels gains and losses resulting from marriage at a total cost to households of approx. 3.7 billion, or7% of income tax revenue (2002 Finance Act). The tax on earned income is reduced by 286 on average for women. Astudy of the redistributive effects of the reform, taking into account the potential effects of female participation in the labour market, shows that redistribution increases overall after the reform. Vertical fairness increases, while horizontal unfairness remains unchanged. The specific effect on the female labour supply slightly but significantly reduces the redistributive effects of the reform. [fre] À partir d’un modèle de micro-simulation, on évalue à près de 46% la proportion de couples mariés en France bénéficiant d’un gain fiscal moyen annuel au mariage de + 1080 et à 22% la proportion de couples mariés pénalisés par le mariage pour un montant de -185 en moyenne par ménage (du fait de l’existence de la décote, du minimum de perception, d’abattements spécifiques…). L’individualisation de l’impôt sur le revenu (IR) annule les gains et les pertes au mariage pour un coût global pour les ménages de l’ordre de 3,7 Md , soit 7% de l’IR (loi de finances pour 2002). La taxe sur l’activité est réduite de 286 en moyenne pour les femmes. Une analyse des effets redistributifs de la réforme prenant en compte les effets potentiels sur la participation féminine au marché du travail montre que la redistribution augmente globalement suite à la réforme, du fait d’un renforcement de l’équité verticale et sans modification de l’inéquité horizontale. L’effet propre à l’offre de travail des femmes réduit légèrement mais significativement les effets redistributifs de la réforme.

Suggested Citation

  • Damien Échevin, 2003. "L’individualisation de l’impôt sur le revenu : équitable ou pas ?," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 160(4), pages 149-165.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:ecoprv:ecop_0249-4744_2003_num_160_4_6925
    Note: DOI:10.3406/ecop.2003.6925
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/ecop.2003.6925
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/ecop_0249-4744_2003_num_160_4_6925
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alm, James & Whittington, Leslie A., 1996. "The Rise and Fall and Rise ... of the Marriage Tax," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 49(4), pages 571-89, December.
    2. Marc Gurgand & David Margolis, 2001. "RMI et revenus du travail : une évaluation des gains financiers à l'emploi," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 346(1), pages 103-122.
    3. Duclos, Jean-Yves, 1997. "The asymptotic distribution of linear indices of inequality, progressivity and redistribution," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 51-57, January.
    4. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/3469 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Michel Glaude, 1991. "L'originalité du système du quotient familial," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 248(1), pages 51-67.
    6. Harvey S. Rosen, 1987. "The Marriage Tax is Down But Not Out," NBER Working Papers 2231, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Russell Davidson & Jean-Yves Duclos, 2000. "Statistical Inference for Stochastic Dominance and for the Measurement of Poverty and Inequality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(6), pages 1435-1464, November.
    8. Donaldson, David & Weymark, John A., 1980. "A single-parameter generalization of the Gini indices of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 67-86, February.
    9. Karine Van der Straeten & Alain Trannoy & Nathalie Picard & Cyrille Hagneré, 2003. "L’importance des incitations financières dans l’obtention d’un emploi est-elle surestimée ?," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 160(4), pages 49-78.
    10. Feenberg, Daniel R. & Rosen, Harvey S., 1995. "Recent Developments in the Marriage Tax," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 48(1), pages 91-101, March.
    11. Henri Sterdyniak, 1992. "Pour défendre le quotient familial," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 256(1), pages 5-24.
    12. Sophie Buffeteau & Damien Echevin, 2003. "Taxation, Marriage and Labor Supply: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in France," Cahiers de recherche 0340, CIRPEE.
    13. Stéphane Paillaud & Didier Eyssartier, 1998. "Pâris, un outil d'évaluation dynamique du système fiscalo-social," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 318(1), pages 41-64.
    14. James Alm & Stacy Dickert-Conlin & Leslie A. Whittington, 1999. "Policy Watch: The Marriage Penalty," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 193-204, Summer.
    15. Jean-Marie Monnier, 2000. "L'équivalence fiscale des revenus et la réforme de l'impôt sur le revenu," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00677605, HAL.
    16. Réjane Hugounenq & Hélène Périvier & Henri Sterdyniak, 2002. "Faut-il individualiser l'impôt sur le revenu ?," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/3469, Sciences Po.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Monemou, Ouo-Ouo Waïta, 2015. "Contribution à l'amélioration de la performance en matière d'imposition sur le revenu en République de Guinée," Economics Thesis from University Paris Dauphine, Paris Dauphine University, number 123456789/15109 edited by Castagnède, Bernard.

    More about this item

    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:prs:ecoprv:ecop_0249-4744_2003_num_160_4_6925. 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: (Equipe PERSEE). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/ecop .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.