Retrieving Inequality Concepts and Progressivity Objectives from Tax Functions via Approximations

  • Andreas Pfingsten
  • Jochen Schneider
Conference paper


An approximation method is applied to derive inequality concepts and progressivity objectives from recent German tax functions. Tax functions with constant progressivity serve as benchmarks.

Among others, the use of the relative concept of inequality and the decrease in progressivity over the last decade are confirmed. The results on potential gainers and losers from equalization of progressivity, however, are not in accordance with what is publicly believed.


Relative Inequality Redistributive Effect Income Mobility Absolute Inequality Constant Progressivity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aczel, J. (1986), “Scale-invariant equal sacrifice in taxation and conditional functional equations,”University of Waterloo, mimeo.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, A.B. and J.E. Stiglitz (1980), “Lectures on public economics,” Mc Graw ffill, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Bossert, W. and A. Pfingsten (1990), “Intermediate inequality: concepts, indices, and welfare implications,” Mathematical Social Sciences 19, 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bundesregierung (1989), “Steuerreform 1986, 1988, 1990: Steuerentlastung — Steuer-gerechtigkeit— Beschäftigungsimpulse,” Aktuelle Beiträge zur Wirtschafts— und Finanzpolitik Nr. 20, Bonn.Google Scholar
  5. Ebert, U. (1983), “Measures of distance between income distributions,” Journal of Economic Theory 32, 266–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fei, J.E. (1981), “Equity oriented fiscal programs,” Econometrica 49, 869–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. IDW (Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft) (1990), “Zahlen zur wirtschaftlichen Ent-wicklung der Bundesrepublik Deutschiana,” Deutscher Instituts-Verlag, Köln.Google Scholar
  8. Lambert, P.J. (1985), “Tax progressivity: a survey of the literature,” Working Paper 56, Institute for Fiscal Studies, London.Google Scholar
  9. Lambert, P.J. and W. Pfahler (1990), “Income tax progression and redistributive effect: the influence of changes in the pre—tax income distribution,” Working Paper W90/6, Institute for Fiscal Studies, London.Google Scholar
  10. Musgrave, R.A. and T. Thin (1948), “Income tax progression, 1929–48,” Journal of Political Economy 56, 498–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pfingsten, A. (1986), “The measurement of tax progression,” Springer, Berlin u. a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pfingsten, A. (1988), “Measures of tax progression—an axiomatic approach,” in: W. Eichhorn (ed.) ‘Measurement in economics’, Physica, Würzburg, 549–562.Google Scholar
  13. Richter, W.F. (1983), “From ability to pay to concepts of equal sacrifice,” Journal of Public Economics 20, 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schneider, J. (1989), “Zur Approximation von Einkommensteuerfunktionen,” Thesis, Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
  15. Seidl, C. and G. Schmidt (1988), “Die numerische Ermittlung der Parameter von Steuertarifen aus Opfergleichheitsprinzipien aufgrund vorgegebener Steueraufkom-menserfordernisse,” in: C. Seidl (ed.), Steuern, Steuerreform und Einkommensverteilung, Springer, Berlin u. a.Google Scholar
  16. Yitzhaki, S. (1982), “A tax programming model,” Journal of Public Economics 19, 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Young, H.P. (1988), “Distributive justice in taxation,” Journal of Economic Theory 44, 321–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Pfingsten
    • 1
  • Jochen Schneider
    • 1
  1. 1.VWL IUniversität GH SiegenSiegenGermany

Personalised recommendations