IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2102.07702.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Generalized Social Marginal Welfare Weights Imply Inconsistent Comparisons of Tax Policies

Author

Listed:
  • Itai Sher

Abstract

This paper concerns Saez and Stantcheva's (2016) generalized social marginal welfare weights, which aggregate losses and gains due to tax policies, while incorporating non-utilitarian ethical considerations. The approach evaluates local tax changes without a global social objective. I show that local tax policy comparisons implicitly entail global comparisons. Moreover, whenever welfare weights do not have a utilitarian structure, these implied global comparisons are inconsistent. I argue that broader ethical values cannot in general be represented simply by modifying the weights placed on benefits to different people, and a more thoroughgoing modification of the utilitarian approach is required.

Suggested Citation

  • Itai Sher, 2021. "Generalized Social Marginal Welfare Weights Imply Inconsistent Comparisons of Tax Policies," Papers 2102.07702, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2102.07702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.07702
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fleurbaey,Marc & Maniquet,François, 2011. "A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521715348, September.
    2. Marc Fleurbaey & Bertil Tungodden & Howard F. Chang, 2003. "Any Non-welfarist Method of Policy Assessment Violates the Pareto Principle: A Comment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(6), pages 1382-1386, December.
    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. Emmanuel Saez, 2001. "Using Elasticities to Derive Optimal Income Tax Rates," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(1), pages 205-229.
    5. Sen, Amartya K, 1977. "On Weights and Measures: Informational Constraints in Social Welfare Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1539-1572, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Paolo Giovanni Piacquadio, 2017. "A Fairness Justification of Utilitarianism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 1261-1276, July.
    8. Louis Kaplow & Steven Shavell, 2001. "Any Non-welfarist Method of Policy Assessment Violates the Pareto Principle," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(2), pages 281-286, April.
    9. Kristoffer Berg & Paolo Giovanni Piacquadio, 2020. "The Equal-Sacrifice Social Welfare Function with an Application to Optimal Income Taxation," CESifo Working Paper Series 8505, CESifo.
    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. Erwin Ooghe & Erik Schokkaert & Hannes Serruys, 2023. "Fair Earnings Tax Reforms," CESifo Working Paper Series 10242, CESifo.

    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. Itai Sher, 2021. "Generalized Social Marginal Welfare Weights Imply Inconsistent Comparisons of Tax Policies," Working Papers 2021-009, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    2. da Costa, Carlos E. & Pereira, Thiago, 2014. "On the efficiency of equal sacrifice income tax schedules," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 399-418.
    3. John A. Weymark, 2017. "Conundrums for nonconsequentialists," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 269-294, February.
    4. Boadway,Robin & Cuff,Katherine, 2022. "Tax Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108949453, September.
    5. David Madden & Michael Savage, 2020. "Which households matter most? Capturing equity considerations in tax reform via generalised social marginal welfare weights," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 27(1), pages 153-193, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Germain, Antoine, 2023. "Basic income versus fairness: redistribution with inactive agents," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2023022, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    8. 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.
    9. Støstad, Morten Nyborg & Cowell, Frank, 2024. "Inequality as an externality: consequences for tax design," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 123752, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Bierbrauer Felix J., 2016. "Effizienz oder Gerechtigkeit?: Ungleiche Einkommen, ungleiche Vermögen und Optimale Steuern," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 2-24, April.
    11. Pertti Haaparanta & Ravi Kanbur & Tuuli Paukkeri & Jukka Pirttilä & Matti Tuomala, 2022. "Promoting education under distortionary taxation: equality of opportunity versus welfarism," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 20(2), pages 281-297, June.
    12. Matthew Weinzierl, 2018. "Revisiting the Classical View of Benefit‐based Taxation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(612), pages 37-64, July.
    13. Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, 2012. "Optimal Labor Income Taxation," NBER Working Papers 18521, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Felix J. Bierbrauer & Pierre C. Boyer, 2016. "Efficiency, Welfare, and Political Competition," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 131(1), pages 461-518.
    15. 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.
    16. Kristoffer Berg & Paolo Giovanni Piacquadio, 2020. "The Equal-Sacrifice Social Welfare Function with an Application to Optimal Income Taxation," CESifo Working Paper Series 8505, CESifo.
    17. Henry de Frahan, Lancelot & Maniquet, François, 2021. "Preference responsibility versus poverty reduction in the taxation of labor incomes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    18. Robin Jessen & Maria Metzing & Davud Rostam-Afschar, 2017. "Optimal Taxation under Different Concepts of Justness," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 953, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    19. Louis Kaplow, 2022. "Optimal Income Taxation," NBER Working Papers 30199, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Susumu Cato, 2014. "Common preference, non-consequential features, and collective decision making," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(4), pages 265-287, December.

    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:2102.07702. 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: http://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.