MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2264230978

Tax Incidence, Progressivity, and Inequality in Canada

2004· article· en· W2264230978 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Jonathan R. Kesselman, Ron Cheung

Notice bibliographique

RevueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Établissements canadiensSimon Fraser University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEconomicsStylized factPublic economicsComputable general equilibriumIncome distributionInequalityOptimal taxDistribution (mathematics)MicrosimulationEconomic inequalityTax incidenceTax creditIndirect taxTax reformLabour economicsMacroeconomics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Knowledge about the distribution of the burden of taxes - as measured by their progressivity and their inequality impacts - is crucial for tax policy choices. Yet actual practice for both the formulation and assessment of tax policy does not draw on much of the best research knowledge. This study offers the first comprehensive critical survey of the field for Canada in nearly 20 years, a period of wide-ranging refinement and extension of research methods. We group the existing field of research into three principal genres. Inequality (INEQ) studies measure the inequality reduction from taxes borne directly by individuals, principally the personal income tax. Computable general equilibrium (CGE) studies examine the distribution of lifetime utility burdens of stylized taxes using complex mathematical economic models. Fiscal incidence (FINC) studies compute the pattern of progressivity or regressivity for each tax and the entire tax system using microsimulation methods. We assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of each type of study. We offer a compact overview of the measures of inequality and tax progressivity used in the empirical literature, followed by a review of the methodological issues that arise in measuring economic well-being for tax distributional analysis. We provide some evidence on the relative equalizing effects of transfers and personal taxes in Canada. Then we examine the comparative findings and methods of representative studies of each type, with emphasis on studies that include Canadian taxes and with a focus on the underlying assumptions about tax incidence. Transfers are found to be more important than income taxes in reducing inequality of Canadian incomes for all periods since 1971 and for most types of households (except those with high per capita incomes). INEQ studies find that Canada's ranking in inequality reduction from personal income taxes is intermediate among countries and dependent upon the measure of inequality; some studies find Canadian personal taxes to be less equalizing than the US counterparts. CGE studies have been developed most for analysis of the US tax system, with little comparable available for the Canadian tax system though the US results are suggestive of the Canadian situation. Based on lifetime income groups in the long-run equilibrium, only the personal income tax is found to be strongly progressive. Payroll taxes are strongly regressive; sales, excise, and property taxes are significantly regressive except for the top two deciles of lifetime incomes; and even the corporate income tax is somewhat regressive over lifetime income groups except for the top decile. All taxes taken together are found to be roughly proportional for the bottom nine deciles and highly progressive for the top decile. FINC studies using annual data, which have been most frequently applied for Canadian taxes, find either slight or substantial progressivity for the tax system overall; a lifetime study finds somewhat less progressivity than comparable results based on annual data. As with CGE findings, the FINC studies assign a key role to personal income taxes in any net progressivity of the total tax system, given the regressivity of many other tax types. Our analysis gives special attention to the economic basis for assumptions about the incidence of the major tax types used in the three types of studies. Tax incidence, and the possible shifting of tax burdens from the taxpayer to other parties, plays a critical role in analysis of the distribution of the tax burden. Multifaceted theoretical and empirical research casts doubt on the standard assumption that the personal income tax is borne fully by individual taxpayers. This evidence suggests that personal taxes on higher earners are at least partially shifted onto other parties, thus reducing the effective progressivity of the tax. Given the key role of personal tax progressivity in many studies' findings of overall tax progressivity, this issue warrants further research. If one were to use incidence assumptions more consistent with the cited evidence for the personal income tax, even these mildly progressive findings might be overturned. Most of the Canadian studies reviewed here are already quite dated in their periods covered and would benefit by updating to include the important tax policy changes since 1988. Also, the use of data sets permitting inferences about lifetime effects would permit better assessments of income-based versus consumption-based taxes. Still, priority in future research should be given to improved understanding of the incidence of personal taxes.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,372
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,916

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,212
Écart entre enseignants0,197 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations42
Publié2004
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSSRN Electronic JournalMême sujetFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthTravaux en français237 207