Distributional Objectives Should Affect Taxes But Not Program Choice or Design
A society can redistribute income through the tax system, and through the choice and design of government programs. Neither type of redistribution is as efficient as lump-sum transfers would be, if feasible. In practice, however, both taxes and government programs serve redistributional goals. The question becomes how best to integrate them to achieve an optimal outcome, maximizing the redistributional effect for a given efficiency cost. The following conclusions are reached. If total benefits are independent of the income distribution and relative benefits are determined by before or after-tax income, those projects that yield the greatest total of unweighted benefits across the population should be selected. If benefits depend on the distribution of income, the optimal program will be one which produces maximal net benefits at the income distribution which is being induced. Redistribution is a concern, but is carried out solely through the tax system.
KeywordsUtility Function Income Distribution Income Group Social Welfare Function Government Program
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Atkinson, A.B.: How progressive should income tax be? Chapter 6 in M. Parkin and A.R. Nobay (eds.), Essays in modern economics, 1973.Google Scholar
- Harsanyi, J.C.: Rational behavior and bargaining equilibrium in games and social situations. Cambridge University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
- Musgrave, R.A.: The theory of public finance. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959.Google Scholar
- Zeckhauser, R.: Uncertainty and the need for collective action. In The analysis and evaluation of public expenditures: The PPB system. Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress, 1969. Reprinted as Chapter 4 in R. Haveman and J. Margolis (ads.), Public expenditure and policy analysis. Markham, Chicago, 1970.Google Scholar
- Zeckhauser, R.: Risk spreading and distribution. In H.M. Hochman and G.E. Peterson (eds.), Redistribution through public choice. Columbia University Press, New York, 1974.Google Scholar