MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Welfare and Inequality with Hard-to-Tax Markets

2015· article· en· W565895863 on OpenAlexaff
Marcelo Arbex, Enlinson Mattos, Laudo M. Ogura

Bibliographic record

VenueFinanzArchiv Public Finance Analysis · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsInequalityWelfareLabour economicsKeynesian economicsMarket economyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines welfare implications of hard-to-tax markets, which are endogenously determined by tax enforcement costs. We show that social welfare may be maximized by keeping some markets untaxed, even when it is still possible to collect positive net tax revenues from additional markets. The unequal burden of the tax policy can lead to negative externalities due to the inequality in consumption across individuals. A nonwelfarist planner could restrain taxation to avoid greater inequality, leading to lower provision of the public good. The provision of the public good increases as a welfarist planner chooses to expand the tax reach.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.173 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFinanzArchiv Public Finance AnalysisSame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207