A new version of this entry is available:

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
ResearchPaper
2017

Optimal taxation under different concepts of justness

Abstract (English)

A common assumption in the optimal taxation literature is that the social planner maximizes a welfarist social welfare function with weights decreasing with income. However, high transfer withdrawal rates in many countries imply very low weights for the working poor in practice. We reconcile this puzzle by generalizing the optimal taxation framework by Saez (2002) to allow for alternatives to welfarism. We calculate weights of a social planner’s function as implied by the German tax and transfer system based on the concepts of welfarism, minimum absolute and relative sacrifice, as well as subjective justness. For the latter we use a novel question from the German Socio-Economic Panel. We find that the minimum absolute sacrifice principle is in line with social weights that decline with net income. Absolute subjective justness is roughly in line with decreasing social weights, which is reflected by preferences of men, West Germans, and supporters of the grand coalition parties.

File is subject to an embargo until

This is a correction to:

A correction to this entry is available:

This is a new version of:

Notes

Publication license

Publication series

Hohenheim discussion papers in business, economics and social sciences; 2017,27

Published in

Faculty
Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences
Institute
Institute of Economics

Examination date

Supervisor

Edition / version

Citation

DOI

ISSN

ISBN

Language
English

Publisher

Publisher place

Classification (DDC)
330 Economics

Original object

Standardized keywords (GND)

BibTeX

@techreport{Rostam-Afschar2017, url = {https://hohpublica.uni-hohenheim.de/handle/123456789/6196}, author = {Rostam-Afschar, Davud and Jessen, Robin and Metzing, Maria et al.}, title = {Optimal taxation under different concepts of justness}, year = {2017}, school = {Universität Hohenheim}, series = {Hohenheim discussion papers in business, economics and social sciences}, }