Punktskatter och rättvisa: En analys av svensk energibeskattning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay analyzes Swedish energy taxation based on two fundamental principles of tax justice, the ability-to-pay principle and the benefit principle. The ability-to-pay principle holds that taxes should be levied in relation to an individual’s economic capacity, while the benefit principle suggests that taxation should correspond to the individual’s benefit from public services. The essay focuses on excise duties such as the fuel tax, carbon dioxide tax, and electricity tax, as regulated in the Swedish Energy Tax Act (1994:1776). The background to the thesis is the frequent criticism that energy taxation is regressive, meaning that it places a proportionally higher burden on lowincome earners than on high income earners. In light of environmental policy goals and rising energy prices, the issue of fairness in energy taxation is highly topical. The essay discusses whether the current design of energy taxes aligns with the ability-to-pay principle and whether the benefit principle can offer an alternative justification. The essay argues that increased progressivity in energy taxation could enhance the environmental effectiveness of such taxes. High-income earners, who are currently less affected by energy taxes, would, through higher tax rates, gain stronger incentives to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels. Furthermore, the essay explores various models for introducing progressivity, such as general consumption taxes or specific tax rates based on actual consumption. However, these are deemed difficult to implement in practice due to a lack of information and high administrative costs. A more realistic alternative proposed is a rebate system, similar to those in Switzerland and Canada, where part of the energy tax revenue is returned to citizens, particularly low-income earners. This could increase fairness without abandoning uniform taxation, although it may risk weakening the tax’s incentive effect on consumption. In conclusion, the essay finds that Swedish energy taxation partly fulfills the benefit principle but falls short in relation to the ability-to-pay principle. The essay proposes reforms aimed at increasing fairness and efficiency, drawing on international examples for inspiration while adapting them to Swedish conditions.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Essay on the fairness of Swedish energy taxation; tax policy analysis, not research.
The essay analyzes Swedish energy taxation and tax justice rather than research practice.
Student essay on fairness of Swedish energy taxation; tax law and policy, not research practice.
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".