IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cor/louvco/2013070.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Lobbying, family concerns and the lack of political support for estate taxation

Author

Listed:
  • DE DONDER, Philippe

    (Toulouse School of Economics, France)

  • PESTIEAU, Pierre

    (CREPP, Université de Liège & HEC Belgium; Université catholique de Louvain, CORE, Belgium; Toulouse School of Economics, France)

Abstract

We provide an explanation for why estate taxation is surprisingly little used over the world, given the skewness of the estate distribution. Taxing estates implies meddling with intra-family decisions, which may be frown upon by many. At the same time, the concentration of estates means that a low proportion of the population stands to gain a lot by decreasing estate taxation. We provide an analytical model, together with numerical simulations, where agents bequeathing large estates make monetary contributions that are used to play up the salience of the encroachment aspects of estate taxation on family decisions in order to decrease its political support.

Suggested Citation

  • DE DONDER, Philippe & PESTIEAU, Pierre, 2013. "Lobbying, family concerns and the lack of political support for estate taxation," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2013070, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    • Handle: RePEc:cor:louvco:2013070
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://sites.uclouvain.be/core/publications/coredp/coredp2013.html
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:bla:econom:v:42:y:1975:i:168:p:430-37 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Roland Benabou & Efe A. Ok, 2001. "Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution: The Poum Hypothesis," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(2), pages 447-487.
    3. Gans, Joshua S. & Smart, Michael, 1996. "Majority voting with single-crossing preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 219-237, February.
    4. Thomas Piketty & Gabriel Zucman, 2014. "Capital is Back: Wealth-Income Ratios in Rich Countries 1700–2010," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(3), pages 1255-1310.
    5. Davies, James B. & Shorrocks, Anthony F., 2000. "The distribution of wealth," Handbook of Income Distribution, in: A.B. Atkinson & F. Bourguignon (ed.), Handbook of Income Distribution, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 605-675, Elsevier.
    6. Glomm, Gerhard & Ravikumar, B, 1992. "Public versus Private Investment in Human Capital Endogenous Growth and Income Inequality," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(4), pages 818-834, August.
    7. Roemer John E, 2006. "Party Competition under Private and Public Financing: A Comparison of Institutions," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-33, April.
    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. YATSENKO, Yuri & HRITONENKO, Natali & BRECHET, Thierry, 2014. "Modeling of environmental adaptation versus pollution mitigation," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014006, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    2. DASH, Sanjeeb & GÜNLÜK, Oktay & WOLSEY, Laurence A., 2014. "The continuous knapsack set," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014007, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    3. Bezin, Emeline & Ponthière, Gregory, 2019. "The tragedy of the commons and socialization: Theory and policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    4. KORNEK, Urik & LESSMANN, Kai & TULKENS, Henry, 2014. "Transferable and non transferable utility implementations of coalitional stability in integrated assessment models," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014035, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    5. NESTEROV, Yu. & SHIKHMAN, Vladimir, 2014. "Convergent subgradient methods for nonsmooth convex minimization," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014005, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).

    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. Bertrand Garbinti & Jonathan Goupille-Lebret & Thomas Piketty, 2016. "Accounting for Wealth Inequality Dynamics: Methods, Estimates and Simulations for France (1800-2014)," PSE Working Papers halshs-02794339, HAL.
    2. Buly A. Cardak, 1999. "Heterogeneous Preferences, Education Expenditures and Income Distribution," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 75(1), pages 63-76, March.
    3. Hasan, Iftekhar & Horvath, Roman & Mares, Jan, 2020. "Finance and wealth inequality," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    4. Philippe De Donder & John E. Roemer, 2017. "The dynamics of capital accumulation in the US: simulations after piketty," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 15(2), pages 121-141, June.
    5. Rainald Borck, 2007. "Voting, Inequality And Redistribution," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 90-109, February.
    6. Dennis N. Epple & Richard Romano, 2003. "Neighborhood Schools, Choice, and the Distribution of Educational Benefits," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of School Choice, pages 227-286, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Paul Eckerstorfer & Johannes Halak & Jakob Kapeller & Bernhard Schütz & Florian Springholz & Rafael Wildauer, 2016. "Correcting for the Missing Rich: An Application to Wealth Survey Data," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 62(4), pages 605-627, December.
    8. Fischer, Thomas, 2017. "Thomas Piketty and the rate of time preference," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 111-133.
    9. Bernasconi, Michele, 2006. "Redistributive taxation in democracies: Evidence on people's satisfaction," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 809-837, December.
    10. James B. Davies & Jie Zhang & Jinli Zeng, 2005. "Intergenerational Mobility under Private vs. Public Education," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 107(3), pages 399-417, September.
    11. Camargo, Braz & Stein, Guilherme, 2022. "Credit constraints and human capital policies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    12. John Hassler & José Rodríguez Mora & Joseph Zeira, 2007. "Inequality and mobility," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 235-259, September.
    13. Islam, Md. Rabiul, 2018. "Wealth inequality, democracy and economic freedom," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 920-935.
    14. Fernández, Raquel, 2001. "Sorting, Education and Inequality," CEPR Discussion Papers 3020, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Michele Bernasconi & Paola Profeta, 2007. "Redistribution or Education? The Political Economy of the Social Race," CESifo Working Paper Series 1934, CESifo.
    16. Marcus Berliant & Pierre C. Boyer, 2024. "Politics and income taxes: Progress and progressivity," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 26(4), August.
    17. Gabriel Zucman, 2019. "Global Wealth Inequality," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 109-138, August.
    18. Sofie R. Waltl & Robin Chakraborty, 2022. "Missing the wealthy in the HFCS: micro problems with macro implications," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 20(1), pages 169-203, March.
    19. Raquel Fernandez, 2001. "Sorting, Education and Inequality," NBER Working Papers 8101, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Chirvi, Malte & Schneider, Cornelius, 2020. "Preferences for wealth taxation: Design, framing and the role of partisanship," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 260, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    estate taxation; family values; political economy; lobbying; Kantian equilibrium;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • H31 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - Household

    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:cor:louvco:2013070. 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: Alain GILLIS (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/coreebe.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.