MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179246194 · doi:10.1111/iere.12532

THE IMPLICATIONS OF HOUSING FOR THE DESIGN OF WEALTH TAXES

2021· article· en· W3179246194 on OpenAlexaff
Shahar Rotberg

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Economic Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsCapital (architecture)WelfareAsset (computer security)Labour economicsNational wealthMonetary economicsFinanceMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract How does housing—an important asset for many households—affect the design of optimal wealth taxes? I analyze the macroeconomic and distributional consequences of wealth taxation using a model with two forms of wealth: capital used by entrepreneurs to produce goods, and housing that provides shelter services. Without housing, taxing wealth instead of capital income would improve the capital allocation and raise welfare. With housing, taxing capital and housing equally would worsen the capital allocation and lower welfare. Instead, wealth should be taxed progressively, exempting most housing, resulting in a worse capital allocation but high welfare gains.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Economic ReviewSame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207