The name is absent



where δ = x/ (x + y) and the relative change ∆R on the aggregate total tax liability with
respect to the aggregate total pre-tax income does not depend either on
i or on j . The above
expression generalizes the yield-equivalent condition introduced by Pfahler to the dual tax
case.

An example of the usefulness of the above expression is provided next. When carrying
out a tax reform, the policymaker usually decides which extra aggregate amount of money
the tax-payers can keep (or the Govern-

ment not get), in comparison to the current tax. For instance, the policyma-

ker wants to carry out a cut T1,2 that supposes that each tax-payer keeps on average 10%
more of the pre-tax income compared to the pre-reform tax, i.e. ∆
R = 0.1. Notice that
gL and gK depend only on the current dual tax, whereas the proportion of the average pre-
tax labor income with respect to the pre-tax average income,
δ, depend only on the income
distribution, i.e. neither
gL, gK nor δ depend on the reforms. For instance, gL = 0.3, gK = 0.2
and
δ = 0.8. In such case, (4) results on 24 aL + 16 bκ = 10. That is, there is only one degree
of freedom: either
aL or bK. If for some reason bK has to be equal to 0.05, then aL = 0.383.

Observe that a particular and more restrictive case is obtained where ∆Li and ∆Kj
are both equal across reforms. In such case, (4) reduces to the yield-equivalent condition
introduced by Pfahler, separately applied on the labor and on the capital parts of the dual
tax.

Regarding the measuring of the degree of progressivity of a dual tax, the first approach
is to consider a unidimensional measure. Given a dual tax schedule
T (x, y), we could 1)
apply the definition of liability progression directly to
T (x, y) seen as a unidimensional tax
on the total income
x + y and 2) consider a weighted mean of αL(x) and αK(y), the liability
progressions associated to labor and capital tax schedules respectively.

However, the two above approaches are not without their flaws. The first option is not
valid as
T(x, y) need not be a function on x + y. Indeed, it is not difficult to find two tax
schedules
L(x) and K(y) and two pairs of incomes (x,y) y (x',y') such as x + y = X + y'



More intriguing information

1. Dual Inflation Under the Currency Board: The Challenges of Bulgarian EU Accession
2. Higher education funding reforms in England: the distributional effects and the shifting balance of costs
3. Existentialism: a Philosophy of Hope or Despair?
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. The Structure Performance Hypothesis and The Efficient Structure Performance Hypothesis-Revisited: The Case of Agribusiness Commodity and Food Products Truck Carriers in the South
7. The name is absent
8. THE CHANGING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
9. The name is absent
10. Running head: CHILDREN'S ATTRIBUTIONS OF BELIEFS
11. The name is absent
12. Flatliners: Ideology and Rational Learning in the Diffusion of the Flat Tax
13. Julkinen T&K-rahoitus ja sen vaikutus yrityksiin - Analyysi metalli- ja elektroniikkateollisuudesta
14. Place of Work and Place of Residence: Informal Hiring Networks and Labor Market Outcomes
15. For Whom is MAI? A theoretical Perspective on Multilateral Agreements on Investments
16. MATHEMATICS AS AN EXACT AND PRECISE LANGUAGE OF NATURE
17. The name is absent
18. On the Real Exchange Rate Effects of Higher Electricity Prices in South Africa
19. The name is absent
20. Empirically Analyzing the Impacts of U.S. Export Credit Programs on U.S. Agricultural Export Competitiveness