Efficiency considerations and the exemption of food from sales and value added taxes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluate efficiency considerations underlying the widespread exemption of food from sales and value added taxes and the implications for tax policy. Household and restaurant meals and both constant and increasing returns cases are examined. Higher taxes on food offset the non‐taxation of time inputs into household production, even under constant returns to scale. With increasing returns, gains from taxing food are higher and amplified by subsidizing restaurant food and all marginal cost components of restaurant meals. On efficiency grounds, exemption of food from sales and value added taxes emerges as socially costly policy, especially under increasing returns. Considérations d’efficacité et l’exemption de la nourriture dans les taxes de vente et les taxes sur la valeur ajoutée. Les auteurs examinent les questions d’efficacité qui soustendent l’exemption généralisée de la nourriture des taxes de vente ou des taxes sur la valeur ajoutée, ainsi que les implications qui en découlent pour la politique de taxation. On examine la consommation par les ménages et dans les restaurants à la fois pour le cas où les rendements sont constants et croissants. Des taxes plus élevées sur la nourriture compensent pour la non‐imposition du temps en tant qu’intrant dans la production des ménages même quand il y a rendements constants à l’échelle. Quand on a des rendements croissants, les gains provenant de l’imposition de la taxe sur la nourriture sont accrus et amplifiés par la subvention à la nourriture de restaurant et toutes les composantes du coût marginal des repas au restaurant. Au plan de l’efficacité, l’exemption de la nourriture des taxes de vente ou des taxes sur la valeur ajoutée apparaît comme une politique socialement coûteuse, particulièrement quand les rendements sont croissants.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".