and that VT1,3(x,y) = (2.27; 4.84; 6.86) and VT3,2(x,y) = (2.46; 4.58; 6.92) are not LD-comparable,
although labor and capital tax schedules are separately comparable by ψ(x) and ψ(y), and
also using the Lorenz Domination criterium. Although income distribution of this example is
not dense, we obtain exactly what Jakobbson (1976) predicts (see Calonge and Tejada, 2009,
for a further argument on how density of can affect Jakobsson results).
In conclusion, if Condition 1 does not hold, dual tax cuts T1,3 and T3,2 cannot be compared,
neither by ψ(x+y) nor ψ (x,y) nor using the Lorenz Domination criterium on the total post-
tax income distribution, as it is the case when such condition does hold. Therefore, Condition
1 is necessary. Similar examples show that Condition 2 also necessary.

Table A.3. Losers and gainers analysis: elasticities.
References
[1] Arcarons, J., Calonge, S. (2004). ”Modelo de Microsimulacion SIMESP v4.0 (O® B-
3916-08”. e-publica.
35
More intriguing information
1. Do imputed education histories provide satisfactory results in fertility analysis in the Western German context?2. Magnetic Resonance Imaging in patients with ICDs and Pacemakers
3. Does Competition Increase Economic Efficiency in Swedish County Councils?
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. Tax Increment Financing for Optimal Open Space Preservation: an Economic Inquiry
7. Examining Variations of Prominent Features in Genre Classification
8. Valuing Access to our Public Lands: A Unique Public Good Pricing Experiment
9. Natural hazard mitigation in Southern California
10. PEER-REVIEWED FINAL EDITED VERSION OF ARTICLE PRIOR TO PUBLICATION