IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pubfin/v20y1992i1p3-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Definition of Tax Neutrality: Distributional and Welfare Implications of Policy Alternatives

Author

Listed:
  • John P. Formby

    (University of Alabama)

  • W. James Smith

    (University of Colorado-Denver)

  • Paul D. Thistle

    (University of Alabama)

Abstract

The fairness of a tax change is often judged by examining its impact on tax burdens or net incomes of different income classes. Two competing definitions of tax neutrality give surprisingly different and conflicting answers to the fairness ques tion. If the objective is to maximize welfare, the Lorenz dominance principle offers guidance as to how tax neutrality should be defined. In the presence of asymmetric information the different definitions of tax neutrality make it possible for politicians to adopt the definition that favors their constituency and/or serves a particular political agenda. The median voter model is applied to explore the definition of neutrality in a democracy. In general, decisions by rational self-interested voters and politicians may, but do not necessarily, result in the definition that leads to Lorenz dominance.

Suggested Citation

  • John P. Formby & W. James Smith & Paul D. Thistle, 1992. "On the Definition of Tax Neutrality: Distributional and Welfare Implications of Policy Alternatives," Public Finance Review, , vol. 20(1), pages 3-23, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pubfin:v:20:y:1992:i:1:p:3-23
    DOI: 10.1177/109114219202000101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/109114219202000101
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/109114219202000101?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Formby, John P & Smith, W James & Thistle, Paul D, 1987. "Difficulties in the Measurement of Tax Progressivity: Further Analysis," Public Finance = Finances publiques, , vol. 42(3), pages 438-445.
    2. Feldstein, Martin, 1988. "Imputing Corporate Tax Liabilities to Individual Taxpayers," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 41(1), pages 37-59, March.
    3. R. A. Musgrave & Tun Thin, 1948. "Income Tax Progression, 1929-48," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(6), pages 498-498.
    4. Atkinson, Anthony B., 1970. "On the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 244-263, September.
    5. Kakwani, Nanak C, 1977. "Applications of Lorenz Curves in Economic Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(3), pages 719-727, April.
    6. Feldstein, Martin, 1988. "Imputing Corporate Tax Liabilities to Individual Taxpayers," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 41(1), pages 37-59, March.
    7. Dasgupta, Partha & Sen, Amartya & Starrett, David, 1973. "Notes on the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 180-187, April.
    8. Sen, Amartya, 1973. "On Economic Inequality," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198281931.
    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. Samuel Calonge & Oriol Tejada, 2011. "A Differential Redistributive Analysis of Bilinear Dual-Income-Tax Reforms," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 67(3), pages 193-224, September.
    2. John P. Formby & Steven G. Medema & W. James Smith, 1995. "Tax Neutrality and Social Welfare in a Comptutational General Equilibrium Framework," Public Finance Review, , vol. 23(4), pages 419-447, October.
    3. Hayes, Kathy J. & Lambert, Peter J. & Slottje, Daniel J., 1995. "Evaluating effective income tax progression," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 461-474, March.
    4. Nuria Badenes & Julio López-Laborda & Jorge Onrubia & Jesús Ruiz-Huerta, 2001. "Simplification and Decentralization of the Income Tax," Public Finance Review, , vol. 29(1), pages 49-60, January.

    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. Chakravarty, Satya R. & Sarkar, Palash, 2022. "A synthesis of local and effective tax progressivity measurement," MPRA Paper 115180, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Carbonell-Nicolau, Oriol & Llavador, Humberto, 2018. "Inequality reducing properties of progressive income tax schedules: the case of endogenous income," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(1), January.
    3. John Bishop & K. Chow & John Formby & Chih-Chin Ho, 1997. "Did Tax Reform Reduce Actual US Progressivity? Evidence from the Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 4(2), pages 177-197, May.
    4. repec:zbw:hohpro:331 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Vincenzo Prete & Alessandro Sommacal & Claudio Zoli, 2016. "Optimal Non-Welfarist Income Taxation for Inequality and Polarization Reduction," Working Papers 23/2016, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    6. Udo Ebert, 2011. "The redistribution of income when needs differ," Working Papers V-331-11, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2011.
    7. Duclos, J.Y. & Tabi, M., 1996. "Linear Inequality Measures and the Redistribution of Income," Papers 9613, Laval - Recherche en Politique Economique.
    8. John P. Formby & W. James Smith & Paul D. Thistle, 1990. "The Average Tax Burden and the Welfare Implications of Global Tax Progressivity," Public Finance Review, , vol. 18(1), pages 3-24, January.
    9. Duclos, Jean-Yves, 1998. "Social evaluation functions, economic isolation and the Suits index of progressivity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 103-121, July.
    10. Louis Kaplow, 2005. "Why measure inequality?," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 3(1), pages 65-79, April.
    11. 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.
    12. Malghan, Deepak, 2010. "On the relationship between scale, allocation, and distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2261-2270, September.
    13. Duclos, J.Y., 1995. "Measuring Progressivity and Inequality," Papers 9525, Laval - Recherche en Politique Economique.
    14. repec:old:wpaper:331 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Jorge Onrubia Fernández & María del Carmen Rodado Ruiz, 2015. "oGravamen individual o grupal en el IRPF? Una valoración desde la movilidad distributiva," Studies on the Spanish Economy eee2015-01, FEDEA.
    16. Duclos, J.Y., 1995. "Economic Isolation, Inequality, and the Suits Index of Progressivity," Papers 9510, Laval - Recherche en Politique Economique.
    17. Poddar, Satya N. & Genser, Bernd, 1986. "Measurement of effective tax progression," Discussion Papers, Series I 224, University of Konstanz, Department of Economics.
    18. Satya R. Chakravarty & Pietro Muliere, 2003. "Welfare indicators: A review and new perspectives. 1. Measurement of inequality," Metron - International Journal of Statistics, Dipartimento di Statistica, Probabilità e Statistiche Applicate - University of Rome, vol. 0(3), pages 457-497.
    19. Nanak Kakwani & Marcelo Neri & Hyun H. Son, 2006. "Linkages between Pro-Poor Growth, Social Programmes and Labour Market: The Recent Brazilian Experience," Working Papers 26, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.
    20. Alain Chateauneuf & Patrick Moyes, 2002. "Measuring inequality without the Pigou-Dalton condition," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00156475, HAL.
    21. Stiglitz, Joseph E., 2002. "New perspectives on public finance: recent achievements and future challenges," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(3), pages 341-360, December.
    22. Oscar Bajo & Rafael Salas, 2002. "Inequality foundations of concentration measures: An application to the Hannah-Kay indices," Spanish Economic Review, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 311-316.

    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:sae:pubfin:v:20:y:1992:i:1:p:3-23. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.