The Impact of Income Splitting on Intrafamily Distribution in a Dynamic Family Bargaining Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The income-splitting method of personal income taxation assesses a couple's tax liability by assigning half of the couple's taxable income to each spouse. There is currently a hot debate over whether such a method should be made available to taxpayers in Canada, which has always assessed an individual's tax liability on the basis of the person's individual income independent of marital status. This paper provides an analysis of how income splitting impacts intrafamily distribution in a dynamic bargaining model with a divorce threatpoint. If income splitting leads to more specialization by increasing the labour supply of the husband, decreasing the labour supply of the wife, and hence increasing the wife's time spent in household production, income splitting has an ambiguous effect on the wife's welfare and a positive impact on the husband's welfare. The reason for the ambiguous impact on the wife's welfare is that her bargaining power decreases simultaneously with an outward shift of the intertemporal utility possibility frontier. Changing divorce laws to protect the spouse specializing in household production in response to a change in family taxation may change the threatpoint of the family bargaining problem from divorce to a threatpoint within marriage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".