Choosing to be different (or not): personal income taxes at the subnational level in Canada and Spain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the evolution of fiscal federalism in Spain and Canada, focusing on the exercise of normative powers on the Personal Income Tax (PIT). This is done by presenting and comparing the evolution of the use of taxing powers by two sets of subnational governments: the Canadian Provinces and the Spanish Autonomous Communities on the PIT. This tax is chosen because it is one of the most politically visible taxes.The main interest of this comparison lays in the fact that, despite the prevailing differences in the constitutional and institutional backgrounds of these countries, some of the outcomes are similar or at least comparable and there is reason to believe that it will continue to be that way. The paper is divided in three parts. First, the constitutional, legal and institutional framework of both countries are presented, by paying special attention to the elements relevant to taxation. Second we examine the outcomes in both countries, paying the most attention to the field of PIT. Third we compare and contrast these uses.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 it