IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/red/sed014/344.html

Revisiting the Classical View of Benefits-Based Taxation

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Weinzierl

    (Harvard Business School)

Abstract

Commentary and political rhetoric on taxes in the United States have long included appeals to Smith's (1776) "classical" logic of benefit based taxation in which an individual's benefit from the state is tied to his or her income-earning ability. Modern optimal tax theory, in contrast, largely ignores the principle of benefit based taxation. This paper shows that the classical logic of benefit based taxation can be readily incorporated into the formal structure of modern theory. Moreover, by applying Lindahl's well-known methods, optimal policy according to that principle can be characterized analytically as depending on a few potentially estimable statistics. An objective for policy that gives weight to both this principle and the familiar utilitarian criterion can explain a variety of features of existing policy that are difficult to reconcile in standard theory, consistent with its apparent role in real-world normative reasoning over tax design.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Weinzierl, 2014. "Revisiting the Classical View of Benefits-Based Taxation," 2014 Meeting Papers 344, Society for Economic Dynamics.
  • Handle: RePEc:red:sed014:344
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://red-files-public.s3.amazonaws.com/meetpapers/2014/paper_344.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Matthew Weinzierl, 2025. "Comment on "Public Finance in the Age of AI: A Primer"," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Transformative AI, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Alexis Anagnostopoulos & Eva Carceles‐Poveda & Yair Tauman, 2021. "Value Preserving Welfare Weights For Social Optimization Problems," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 62(4), pages 1627-1653, November.
    3. Alberto Alesina & Armando Miano & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2023. "Immigration and Redistribution," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(1), pages 1-39.
    4. Bird, Richard M. & Zolt, Eric M., 2015. "Fiscal Contracting in Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 323-335.
    5. Robert Scherf & Matthew Weinzierl, 2020. "Understanding Different Approaches to Benefit‐Based Taxation," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(2), pages 385-410, June.
    6. Spencer Bastani & Daniel Waldenström, 2021. "Perceptions of Inherited Wealth and the Support for Inheritance Taxation," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(350), pages 532-569, April.
    7. Daiki Kishishita & Hans H. Tung & Charlotte Wang, 2024. "Ambiguity and self-protection: evidence from social distancing under the COVID-19 pandemic," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 269-300, April.
    8. 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.
    9. Alberto Alesina & Stefanie Stantcheva & Edoardo Teso, 2018. "Intergenerational Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(2), pages 521-554, February.
    10. Lockwood, Benjamin B. & Weinzierl, Matthew, 2016. "Positive and normative judgments implicit in U.S. tax policy, and the costs of unequal growth and recessions," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 30-47.
    11. Klaus Prettner & Davud Rostam‐Afschar, 2020. "Can taxes raise output and reduce inequality? The case of lobbying," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 67(5), pages 455-461, November.
    12. Bo Hyun Chang & Yongsung Chang & Sun-Bin Kim, 2018. "Pareto Weights in Practice: A Quantitative Analysis of 32 OECD Countries," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 28, pages 181-204, April.
    13. Voyiakis, Emmanuel, 2025. "The moral force of the benefit principle," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 127293, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Bo Hyun Chang & Yongsung Chang & Sun-Bin Kim, 2016. "Pareto Weights in Practice: A Quantitative Analysis Across 32 OECD Countries," Working papers 2016rwp-92, Yonsei University, Yonsei Economics Research Institute.
    15. Weinzierl, Matthew, 2017. "Popular acceptance of inequality due to innate brute luck and support for classical benefit-based taxation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 54-63.
    16. Bo Hyun Chang & Yongsung Chang & Sun-Bin Kim, 2016. "Ex-ante Heterogeneity and Equilibrium Redistribution(Preliminary)," Working papers 2016rwp-93, Yonsei University, Yonsei Economics Research Institute.
    17. Víctor Mauricio Castañeda-Rodríguez & Gaetano Lisi, 2024. "Can public efficiency increase tax morale? Evidence from 18 Latin American countries," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 209-231, June.
    18. Felix Bierbrauer, 2016. "Effizienz oder Gerechtigkeit? Ungleiche Einkommen, ungleiche Vermögen und die Theorie der optimalen Besteuerung," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2016_03, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    19. Corazzini, Luca & Cotton, Christopher S. & Longo, Enrico & Reggiani, Tommaso, 2024. "Coordinated selection of collective action: Wealthy-interest bias and inequality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods

    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:red:sed014:344. 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: Christian Zimmermann (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sedddea.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.