IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cor/louvrp/2829.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Taxation and poverty

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher P. CHAMBERS
  • Juan D. MORENO-TERNERO

Abstract

Abstract We explore the implications of four natural axioms in taxation: continuity (small changes in the data of a taxation problem should not lead to large changes in the tax allocation), equal treatment of equals (agents with the same pre-tax incomes pay equal taxes), consistency (the way in which a group allocates a tax burden is immune to secessions of taxpayers) and composition down (an increase in the tax burden is handled according to agents’ current post-tax incomes). The combination of the four axioms characterizes a large family of rules, which we call generalized equal-sacrifice rules, encompassing the so-called equal-sacrifice rules (such as the flat tax), as well as constrained equal-sacrifice rules (such as the head tax), and exogenous poverty-line rules (such as the leveling tax, and some of its possible compromises with the previous ones).
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher P. CHAMBERS & Juan D. MORENO-TERNERO, 2017. "Taxation and poverty," CORE Discussion Papers RP 2829, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  • Handle: RePEc:cor:louvrp:2829
    Note: In : Social Choice and Welfare, 48(1), 153-175, 2017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Youngsub Chun, 1999. "Equivalence of Axioms for Bankruptcy Problems," Working Paper Series no1, Institute of Economic Research, Seoul National University.
    2. Abram Burk, 1936. "Real Income, Expenditure Proportionality, and Frisch's "New Methods of Measuring Marginal Utility"," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 33-52.
    3. Juan D Moreno-Ternero & John E Roemer, 2006. "Impartiality, Priority, and Solidarity in the Theory of Justice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(5), pages 1419-1427, September.
    4. Dagan, Nir & Serrano, Roberto & Volij, Oscar, 1997. "A Noncooperative View of Consistent Bankruptcy Rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 55-72, January.
    5. John E. Roemer, 1986. "Equality of Resources Implies Equality of Welfare," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 101(4), pages 751-784.
    6. Stovall, John E., 2014. "Asymmetric parametric division rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 87-110.
    7. Chambers, Christopher P. & Thomson, William, 2002. "Group order preservation and the proportional rule for the adjudication of conflicting claims," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 235-252, December.
    8. Thomson, William, 2003. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 249-297, July.
    9. Young, H. P., 1988. "Distributive justice in taxation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 321-335, April.
    10. Young, H. P., 1987. "Progressive taxation and the equal sacrifice principle," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 203-214, March.
    11. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    12. Milgrom, Paul & Shannon, Chris, 1994. "Monotone Comparative Statics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(1), pages 157-180, January.
    13. Young, H Peyton, 1990. "Progressive Taxation and Equal Sacrifice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 253-266, March.
    14. Hervé Moulin, 2000. "Priority Rules and Other Asymmetric Rationing Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 643-684, May.
    15. Aumann, Robert J. & Maschler, Michael, 1985. "Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 195-213, August.
    16. Diego Dominguez & William Thomson, 2006. "A new solution to the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 28(2), pages 283-307, June.
    17. Chun-Hsien Yeh, 2006. "Protective Properties and the Constrained Equal Awards Rule for Claims Problems: A Note," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(2), pages 221-230, October.
    18. Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Roemer, John E., 2012. "A common ground for resource and welfare egalitarianism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 832-841.
    19. Plott, Charles R, 1973. "Path Independence, Rationality, and Social Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(6), pages 1075-1091, November.
    20. Thomson, William, 2012. "On The Axiomatics Of Resource Allocation: Interpreting The Consistency Principle," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(03), pages 385-421, November.
    21. Youngsub Chun, 1999. "Equivalence of axioms for bankruptcy problems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 28(4), pages 511-520.
    22. Thomson, William, 1983. "Problems of fair division and the Egalitarian solution," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 211-226, December.
    23. Chambers, Christopher P., 2006. "Asymmetric rules for claims problems without homogeneity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 241-260, February.
    24. Ju, Biung-Ghi & Miyagawa, Eiichi & Sakai, Toyotaka, 2007. "Non-manipulable division rules in claim problems and generalizations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 1-26, January.
    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. William Thomson, 2015. "For claims problems, compromising between the proportional and constrained equal awards rules," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 60(3), pages 495-520, November.
    2. René Brink & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2017. "The reverse TAL-family of rules for bankruptcy problems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 254(1), pages 449-465, July.
    3. Thomson, William, 2015. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: An update," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 41-59.
    4. William Thomson, 2015. "For claims problems, another compromise between the proportional and constrained equal awards rules," RCER Working Papers 592, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    5. Flores-Szwagrzak, Karol, 2015. "Priority classes and weighted constrained equal awards rules for the claims problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 36-55.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    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:cor:louvrp:2829. 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: (Alain GILLIS). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/coreebe.html .

    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.