Panel Data Analysis on Income Tax Progressivity and Gini Coefficient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research explores personal income tax progressivity as a mechanism to reduce income inequality. In the personal income tax progressivity model with data from 1988-2005, the unbalanced panel has up to 103 countries with 1,528 observations. The unbalanced panel uses Driscoll and Kraay standard errors to adjust for nonparametric heteroscedasticity autocorrelation. The researchers test the top, marginal, and average personal income tax rate progressivity. In the full panel, the top, marginal and average rate of personal income tax progressivity are all statistically significant. The models also explore differences in results based on income level. Key findings include the average rate of personal income tax progressivity is statistically significant in the more panels than the marginal rate of income tax progressivity or the top marginal rate. Both the net and market Gini coefficients tend to have similar statistical significance results which may suggest equality promoting policies may cause structural changes in the economy that lead to higher pre-tax incomes for lower-income individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".