IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2605.30081.html

Tax Salience: How Requiring Transparency Affects the Price of Equality

Author

Listed:
  • Ashley Craig
  • Itai Sher

Abstract

Less-salient taxes can ease the classic equality-efficiency trade-off by making people respond less to taxation. But deliberately obscuring taxes may be viewed as dishonest. This creates a three-way trade-off between equality, efficiency, and honesty. We analyze this trade-off in a simple setting with a linear income tax. We define and characterize the morally efficient frontier, trading off utilitarian welfare against honesty or transparency. Complete honesty is Pareto inefficient but not morally inefficient. More generally, any increase in honesty reduces utilitarian welfare. When utilitarian welfare is decomposed into equality and efficiency, the cost of honesty falls most robustly on equality: higher salience always reduces equality, while the effect on efficiency is ambiguous. This asymmetry is explained by the fact that salience increases the price of equality, which is the efficiency cost of a marginal increase in equality. Our approach could be applied to other settings in which utilitarian and procedural or deontological values conflict.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashley Craig & Itai Sher, 2026. "Tax Salience: How Requiring Transparency Affects the Price of Equality," Papers 2605.30081, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2605.30081
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.30081
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gamage, David & Shanske, Darien, 2011. "Three Essays On Tax Salience: Market Salience and Political Salience," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt8gf0b1cj, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    2. Zamir, Eyal & Medina, Barak, 2010. "Law, Economics, and Morality," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195372168.
    3. 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.
    4. Dmitry Taubinsky & Alex Rees-Jones, 2018. "Attention Variation and Welfare: Theory and Evidence from a Tax Salience Experiment," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(4), pages 2462-2496.
    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. Ashley C. Craig & Itai Sher & Ashley Craig, 2026. "Tax Salience: How Requiring Transparency Affects the Price of Equality," CESifo Working Paper Series 12712, CESifo.
    2. Ashantha Ranasinghe & Xuejuan Su, 2023. "When social assistance meets market power: A mixed duopoly view of health insurance in the United States," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 61(4), pages 851-869, October.
    3. Persson, Petra, 2018. "Attention manipulation and information overload," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 78-106, May.
    4. Dohmen, Thomas & Meyer, Frauke & Walkowitz, Gari, 2026. "Basic Needs Satisfaction as a Fundamental Distributive Principle: Evidence from the Lab and the Field," IZA Discussion Papers 18409, IZA Network @ LISER.
    5. Joseph P. Newhouse, 2021. "An Ounce of Prevention," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 35(2), pages 101-118, Spring.
    6. Støstad, Morten Nyborg & Cowell, Frank, 2024. "Inequality as an externality: Consequences for tax design," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    7. Blaufus, Kay & Chirvi, Malte & Huber, Hans-Peter & Maiterth, Ralf & Sureth-Slaone, Caren, 2020. "Tax misperception and its effects on decision making: A literature review," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 261, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    8. Maitreesh Ghatak & François Maniquet, 2019. "Universal Basic Income: Some Theoretical Aspects," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 895-928, August.
    9. Kocourek, Pavel & Steiner, Jakub & Stewart, Colin, 2024. "Boundedly rational demand," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 19(4), November.
    10. M. Adam & O. Bonnet & E. Fize & T. Loisel & M. Rault & L. Wilner, 2023. "How does fuel demand respond to price changes? Quasi-experimental evidence based on high-frequency data," Documents de Travail de l'Insee - INSEE Working Papers 2023-17, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques.
    11. Robert Scherf & Matthew Weinzierl, 2020. "Understanding Different Approaches to Benefit‐Based Taxation," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(2), pages 385-410, June.
    12. Eduardo Dávila & Ansgar Walther, 2021. "Corrective Regulation with Imperfect Instruments," NBER Working Papers 29160, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Karl Schulz, 2021. "Redistribution of Return Inequality," CESifo Working Paper Series 8996, CESifo.
    14. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köster, Mats & Sutter, Matthias, 2020. "To buy or not to buy? Price salience in an online shopping field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    15. Yannic Rehm & Lucas Chancel, 2022. "Measuring the Carbon Content of Wealth Evidence from France and Germany," PSE Working Papers halshs-03828939, HAL.
    16. Jack Lum, 2018. "Approximating the Marginal Revenue Maximizing Point: A Brief Analysis Employing the Laffer Curve," Bulletin of Business and Economics (BBE), Research Foundation for Humanity (RFH), vol. 7(3), pages 94-96, September.
    17. Cristian F. Sepulveda, 2025. "“Public goods, labor supply and benefit taxation”," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 32(3), pages 872-894, June.
    18. Marc Fleurbaey & Rossi Abi-Rafeh, 2016. "The Use of Distributional Weights in Benefit–Cost Analysis: Insights from Welfare Economics," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 286-307.
    19. John Cawley & Chelsea Crain & David Frisvold & David Jones, 2018. "The Pass-Through of the Largest Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: The Case of Boulder, Colorado," NBER Working Papers 25050, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Bartosz Maćkowiak & Filip Matějka & Mirko Wiederholt, 2023. "Rational Inattention: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 226-273, March.

    More about this item

    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:arx:papers:2605.30081. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.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.