Abstract
In this paper, we explore the roles of tax credits, rate structures, allowances and deductions in determining the overall progressivity of net income tax liabilities in fifteen OECD countries. Three clusters emerge: (i) the rate-structure countries, Australia, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, where the rate effect is the dominant (but not the only) source of progressivity of gross and net tax liabilities; (ii) the allowance countries, the English-speaking countries other than Australia, where allowances are the dominant source of progressivity; and (iii) the mixed structure countries, Belgium, Finland, Germany and Sweden, where roughly half of the progressivity of gross tax liabilities is attributable to the rate structure.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Delipalla, S. and H. Papapanagos. (1996). “The Distributional Superiority of Tax Credits.” Studies in Economics #96/8, Department of Economics, University of Kent.
Bishop, J. A., K. V. Chow and J. P. Formby. (1993). “The Redistributive Effect of Direct Taxes: An International Comparison of Six LIS Countries.” LIS Working Paper #93, March 1993.
Bishop, J. A., J. P. Formby and P. D. Thistle. (1990). “International Comparisons of Tax and Transfer Progressivity: New Evidence from the Luxembourg Income Study.” LIS Working Paper #52. Luxembourg.
De Tombeur, C. and N. Ladewig. (1994). “LIS Information Guide.” LIS Working Paper #7. Luxembourg.
Kakwani, N. C. (1977). “Measurement of Tax Progressivity: An International Comparison.” Economic Journal 87, 71-80.
Kakwani, N. C. and N. Podder. (1973). “On the Estimation of Lorenz Curves from, Grouped Observations.” International Economic Review 14, 278-292.
Kakwani, N. C. and N. Podder. (1976). “Efficient Estimation of the Lorenz Curve and Associated Inequality Measures from Grouped Observations.” Econometrica 44, 137-148.
Keen, M., H. Papapanagos and A. Shorrocks. (1996). “Progressivity Effects of Structural Income Tax Reforms.” Studies in Economics #96/12, Department of Economics, University of Kent.
Lambert, P. J. (1993). The Distribution and Redistribution of Income: A Mathematical Analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Lambert, P. J. (1992). “Income Tax Progression and Redistributive Effect: The Influence of Changes in the Pre-Tax Income Distribution.” Public Finance/Finances Publiques 47(1), 1-16.
Messere, K. C. (1993). Tax Policy in OECD Countries: Choices and Conflicts. Amsterdam: IFBD Publications.
O'Higgins, M., G. Schmaus and G. Stephenson. (1990). “Income Distribution and Redistribution: A Microdata Analysis for Seven Countries.” In T. Smeeding, M. O'Higgins and L. Rainwater (eds.), Poverty, Inequality and Income Distribution in Perspective: The Luxembourg Income Study. Harvester, Brighton.
OECD. (1990). The Personal Income Tax Base: A Comparative Survey. Paris: OECD.
Pfÿahler, W. (1990). “Redistributive Effect of Income Taxation: Decomposing Tax Base and Tax Rate Effects.” Bulletin of Economic Research 42, 121-129.
Rosenberg, C. B. (1989). “The Redistributive Effect of the Tax System inWest Germany, Sweden, and the United States.” LIS Working Paper #36. Luxembourg.
Zandvakili, S. (1994). “Income Distribution and Redistribution Through Taxation: An International Comparison.” Empirical Economics 19, 473-491.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wagstaff, A., van Doorslaer, E. What Makes the Personal Income Tax Progressive? A Comparative Analysis for Fifteen OECD Countries. International Tax and Public Finance 8, 299–316 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011268209860
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011268209860