Book contents
- Prioritarianism in Practice
- Prioritarianism in Practice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- List of Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Theory of Prioritarianism
- 3 Well-Being Measurement
- 4 Prioritarianism and Optimal Taxation
- 5 Prioritarianism and Measuring Social Progress
- 6 Prioritarianism and Health Policy
- 7 Prioritarianism and Fatality Risk Regulation
- 8 Prioritarianism and Climate Change
- 9 Prioritarianism and Education
- 10 Empirical Research on Ethical Preferences: How Popular is Prioritarianism?
- 11 Prioritarianism and Equality of Opportunity
- 12 Prioritarianism and the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Index
- References
4 - Prioritarianism and Optimal Taxation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 June 2022
Book contents
- Prioritarianism in Practice
- Prioritarianism in Practice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- List of Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Theory of Prioritarianism
- 3 Well-Being Measurement
- 4 Prioritarianism and Optimal Taxation
- 5 Prioritarianism and Measuring Social Progress
- 6 Prioritarianism and Health Policy
- 7 Prioritarianism and Fatality Risk Regulation
- 8 Prioritarianism and Climate Change
- 9 Prioritarianism and Education
- 10 Empirical Research on Ethical Preferences: How Popular is Prioritarianism?
- 11 Prioritarianism and Equality of Opportunity
- 12 Prioritarianism and the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Index
- References
Summary
Prioritarianism has been at the center of the formal approach to optimal tax theory since its modern starting point in Mirrlees (1971), but most theorists’ use of it is motivated by tractability rather than explicit normative reasoning. We characterize analytically and numerically the implications of a more explicit use of prioritarianism in optimal tax theory. We also examine prevailing tax policies and surveys on tax preferences to gauge the influence of prioritarianism in practice. We conclude that optimal policy is highly sensitive to many key modeling choices and parameter assumptions, and these choices interact in complicated ways, but that a substantial shift in policy results if the social objective moves from utilitarian to prioritarian. When looking at existing policy and preferences, we find only limited evidence of prioritarian reasoning. We conclude with suggestions on the future of prioritarianism in optimal tax theory.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Prioritarianism in Practice , pp. 172 - 203Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Aaberge, Rolf (2007). “Gini’s nuclear family,” The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer; Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, 5: 305–322.Google Scholar
Ahmad, Ehtisham, and Stern, Nicholas (1984). “The theory of reform and Indian indirect taxes.” Journal of Public Economics, 25: 259–298.Google Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth J. (1973). “Some ordinalist-utilitarian notes on Rawls’s theory of justice by John Rawls.” The Journal of Philosophy, 70: 245–263.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A.B. (1972), La Maxi-Min’ et l’imposition optimale des revenus, Cahiers du Séminaire d’Econométrie, 1975, No 16 : 73–86 (French version of University of Essex discussion paper No 47, 1972, Maxi-min’ and optimal income taxation, accepted for publication by the Review of Economic Studies, but never resubmitted).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Anthony B. (1990) “Public economics and the economic public.” European Economic Review, 34: 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bargain, Olivier, et al. (2014). “Tax-benefit revealed social preferences in Europe and the US.” Annals of Economics and Statistics/Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 113: 257–289.Google Scholar
Blomquist, Soren, Christiansen, Vidar, and Micheletto, Luca (2010). “Public provision of private goods and nondistortionary marginal tax rates.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2: 1–27.Google Scholar
Boadway, Robin (2012). From Optimal Tax Theory to Tax Policy. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourguignon, Francois, and Spadaro, Amedeo (2012). “Tax-benefit revealed social preferences.” The Journal of Economic Inequality, 10: 75–108.Google Scholar
Chetty, Raj (2006). “A new method of estimating risk aversion.” American Economic Review, 96: 1821–1834.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Vidar, and Jansen, Eilev S. (1978). “Implicit social preferences in the Norwegian system of indirect taxation.” Journal of Public Economics, 10: 217–245.Google Scholar
Diamond, Peter A. (1998). “Optimal income taxation: an example with a U-shaped pattern of optimal marginal tax rates.” American Economic Review, 88: 83–95.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, Francis Y. (1897). “The pure theory of taxation.” The Economic Journal, 7: 46–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, Marc, and Maniquet, Francois (2006). “Fair income tax,” Review of Economic Studies, 73: 55–83.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, Marc, and Maniquet, Francois (2018). “Optimal income taxation theory and principles of fairness.” Journal of Economic Literature, 56: 1029–1079.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Bas, Jongen, Egbert L., and Zoutman, Floris T. (2017). “Revealed social preferences of Dutch political parties.” Journal of Public Economics, 156: 81–100.Google Scholar
Kanbur, Ravi, and Tuomala, Matti (1994). “Inherent inequality and the optimal graduation of marginal tax rates.” The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 96: 275–282.Google Scholar
Kaplow, Louis (2008). The Theory of Taxation and Public Economics, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplow, Louis (2010). “Concavity of utility, concavity of welfare, and redistribution of income.” International Tax and Public Finance, 17: 25–42.Google Scholar
Keane, Michael, and Moffitt, Robert (1998). “A structural model of multiple welfare program participation and labor supply.” International Economic Review, Aug: 553–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John (1690). Second treatise of government: An essay concerning the true original, extent and end of civil government. John Wiley & Sons, 2014.Google Scholar
Lockwood, B., and Weinzierl, M. (2015). “De Gustibus non est Taxandum.” Journal of Public Economics, 124: 74–80.Google Scholar
Lockwood, B., and Weinzierl, M. (2016). “Positive and normative judgments implicit in U.S. tax policy, and the costs of unequal growth and recessions.” Journal of Monetary Economics, 77: 30–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, Benjamin B. (2017). “Optimal income taxation with present bias,” Working Paper, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Mankiw, N. Gregory, Weinzierl, Matthew, and Yagan, Danny (2009). “Optimal taxation in theory and practice.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23: 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, John Stuart (1871). Principles of Political Economy. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Mirrlees Review (1971). “An exploration in the theory of optimal income taxation.” Review of Economic Studies, 38: 175–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirrlees Review (1982). “The economic uses of utilitarianism.” In Utilitarianism and Beyond, Sen, A., Williams, B. and Williams, B.A.O. eds., Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mirrlees, James A., and Adam, Stuart (2010). Dimensions of Tax Design: The Mirrlees Review. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mirrlees, James A., et al. (2011). “The Mirrlees Review: conclusions and recommendations for reform.” Fiscal Studies, 32: 331–359.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Richard A. and Buchanan, James (1999). Public Finance and Public Choice: Two Contrasting Visions of the State, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ravaska, Terhi, Tenhunen, Sanna, and Tuomala, Matti (2018). “On the optimal lifetime redistribution and social objectives: a multidimensional approach.” International Tax and Public Finance, 25: 631–653.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (1972). “Some reasons for the Maxi-Min Criterion.” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 64: 141–146.Google Scholar
Saez, Emmanuel (2001). “Using elasticities to derive optimal income tax rates.” The Review of Economic Studies, 68: 205–229.Google Scholar
Saez, Emmanuel, and Stantcheva, Stefanie (2016). “Generalized Social Welfare Weights for Optimal Tax Theory.” American Economic Review, 106: 24–45.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya (1974). “Informational bases of alternative welfare approaches: aggregation and income distribution.” Journal of Public Economics, 3: 387–403.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Homewood, IL: Irwin.Google Scholar
Spadaro, Amedeo, Piccoli, Luca, and Mangiavacchi, Lucia (2015). “Optimal taxation, social preferences and the four worlds of welfare capitalism in Europe.” Economica, 82: 448–485.Google Scholar
Stern, Nicholas (1976). “On the specification of models of optimum income taxation.” Journal of Public Economics, 6: 123–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, Nicholas (1977). “Welfare weights and the elasticity of the marginal valuation of income.” In Artis, M., and Nobay, R., (eds.) Proceedings of the Aute Edinburgh Meeting of April 1976. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, Joseph (1987). “Pareto Efficient and Optimal Taxation and the New Welfare Economics.” In Auerbach, A. and Feldstein, M. (eds.) Handbook of Public Economics. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Tuomala, Matti (1984). “On the optimal income taxation: Some further numerical results.” Journal of Public Economics, 23: 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomala, Matti (2016). Optimal Redistributive Taxation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van De Gaer, D. (1993). “Equality of opportunity and investment in human capital.” Katholieke Uni- versiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
Weinzierl, Matthew (2014). “The promise of positive optimal taxation: normative diversity and a role for equal sacrifice.” Journal of Public Economics, 118: 128–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinzierl, Matthew (2017). “Popular acceptance of inequality due to innate brute luck and support for classical benefit-based taxation.” Journal of Public Economics, 155: 54–63.Google Scholar
Weinzierl, Matthew (2018). “Revisiting the classical view of benefit-based taxation.” Economic Journal, 128: F37–F64.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by