IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/32900.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Nontaxable income and necessary consumption: the Rousseau’s paradox of fiscal egalitarianism

Author

Listed:
  • Faíña, Andres / A.
  • Lopez-Rodriguez, Jesus / J.
  • Varela, Laura / L.

Abstract

The traditional concept of a strict minimum of necessary consumption and nontaxable income equal for all taxpayers embedded in most current income-tax systems is the result of a paradox of fiscal egalitarianism. The paper shows that substituting the traditional notion of a strict minimum of nontaxable income (Surplus Income Tax Method) for a scheme of growing personal allowances to meet the amounts of necessary consumption required by the different living standards of the taxpayers (Discretionary Income Tax Method) generates an income-tax scheme more progressive than the traditional one. In the paper we also show that this alternative proposal for nontaxable incomes generates an after-tax income distribution less unequal (Lorenz dominance) and superior in terms of social welfare (Atkinson, 1970).

Suggested Citation

  • Faíña, Andres / A. & Lopez-Rodriguez, Jesus / J. & Varela, Laura / L., 2011. "Nontaxable income and necessary consumption: the Rousseau’s paradox of fiscal egalitarianism," MPRA Paper 32900, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:32900
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/32900/1/MPRA_paper_32900.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/32909/1/MPRA_paper_32909.pdf
    File Function: revised version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keen, Michael & Papapanagos, Harry & Shorrocks, Anthony, 2000. "Tax Reform and Progressivity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(460), pages 50-68, January.
    2. Moyes, Patrick, 2003. "Redistributive effects of minimal equal sacrifice taxation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 111-140, January.
    3. Mitra, Tapan & Ok, Efe A., 1997. "On the Equitability of Progressive Taxation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 316-334, April.
    4. Smith, Adam, 1776. "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number smith1776.
    5. Vito Tanzi, 2010. "Tax Systems in the OECD: Recent Evolution, Competition and Convergence," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1012, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    6. Young, H Peyton, 1990. "Progressive Taxation and Equal Sacrifice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 253-266, March.
    7. Auerbach, Alan J., 2006. "Tax Reform in the 21st Century," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt444479wh, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    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. Eri Nakamura & Fumitoshi Mizutani, 2019. "Necessary demand and extra demand of public utility product: identification using the stochastic frontier model," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 46(1), pages 45-64, March.

    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. Peter J. Lambert & Helen T. Naughton, 2006. "The Equal Sacrifice Principle Revisited," University of Oregon Economics Department Working Papers 2006-4, University of Oregon Economics Department, revised 01 Jun 2006.
    2. Peter J. Lambert & Helen T. Naughton, 2009. "The Equal Absolute Sacrifice Principle Revisited," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 328-349, April.
    3. Satya R. Chakravarty & Palash Sarkar, 2022. "Inequality minimising subsidy and taxation," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 10(1), pages 53-67, May.
    4. D'Antoni, Massimo, 1999. "Piecewise linear tax functions, progressivity, and the principle of equal sacrifice," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 191-197, November.
    5. Tarroux, Benoît, 2019. "The value of tax progressivity: Evidence from survey experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    6. Oriol Carbonell-Nicolau & Humberto Llavador, 2021. "Elasticity determinants of inequality-reducing income taxation," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(1), pages 163-183, March.
    7. Benoît Tarroux, 2017. "The value of progressivity: Evidence from survey experiments," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 2017-13, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
    8. Lambert, Peter J. & Millimet, Daniel L. & Slottje, Daniel, 2003. "Inequality aversion and the natural rate of subjective inequality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(5-6), pages 1061-1090, May.
    9. Moyes, Patrick, 2003. "Redistributive effects of minimal equal sacrifice taxation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 111-140, January.
    10. Weinzierl, Matthew, 2014. "The promise of positive optimal taxation: normative diversity and a role for equal sacrifice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 128-142.
    11. Charles M. A. Clark, 2021. "Editor’s Introduction: Economics and the Option for the Poor," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 80(4), pages 1051-1059, September.
    12. Kristof Bosmans & Z. Emel Öztürk, 2022. "Laissez-faire versus Pareto," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(4), pages 741-751, May.
    13. Junyi Zhu, 2014. "Bracket Creep Revisited - with and without r > g: Evidence from Germany," Journal of Income Distribution, Ad libros publications inc., vol. 23(3), pages 106-158, November.
    14. White, Reilly & Marinakis, Yorgos & Islam, Nazrul & Walsh, Steven, 2020. "Is Bitcoin a currency, a technology-based product, or something else?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    15. Adamson, Jordan, 2020. "Political institutions, resources, and war: Theory and evidence from ancient Rome," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    16. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias & Barkemeyer, Ralf, 2014. "The If, How and Where of assessing sustainable resource use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 274-283.
    17. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Broekel, Tom & Diodato, Dario & Giuliani, Elisa & Hausmann, Ricardo & O'Clery, Neave & Rigby, David, 2022. "Reprint of The new paradigm of economic complexity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(8).
    18. Felfe, Christina & Hsin, Amy, 2012. "Maternal work conditions and child development," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 1037-1057.
    19. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    20. Hamilton,Kirk E. & Helliwell,John F. & Woolcock,Michael, 2016. "Social capital, trust, and well-being in the evaluation of wealth," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7707, The World Bank.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    nontaxable income; necessary consumption; progressivity; tax burden; income distribution;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution
    • H24 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies

    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:pra:mprapa:32900. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.