The distributional impact of income tax in Canada and China: 1997‐2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the distributional impact of personal income tax in Canada and China over the most recent decade. Design/methodology/approach The Urban Household Survey in China and the Canadian Socio‐Economic Information Management System data are employed. Findings It was found that, in both Canada and China, the personal income taxes are progressive, that is, tax payments and average tax rates are increasing in the income share of high‐income taxpayers. Research limitations/implications This paper does not explore the connection between tax progressivity differences and social, political, and cultural differences in the two countries. Practical implications This paper is of interest to policy makers, economists, and academics, who seek to design an income tax system which can mitigate income inequity efficiently. Given that income taxes have changed in China in recent years, future studies should be conducted to compare the distributional impacts of the new tax system against those of the old tax system. Originality/value This is the first study of distributional impact of income tax in China. This is also the first study to compare tax distribution between China and a developed country.
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 | 0.001 | 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".