Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Positional Equity and Equal Sacrifice: Design Principles for an EU-Wide Income Tax?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Social Ethics and Normative Economics

Part of the book series: Studies in Choice and Welfare ((WELFARE))

Abstract

The prospect – or, in the UK at least, the spectre – of an EU income tax occasion ally looms, both in the popular press and also in the European Parliament. To whit, consider the old headline “Now Britain faces single European tax system: France and Germany spearhead plan to control revenue and social security” in The Inde pendent newspaper of 16th January 1997, and the article, 9 years on, entitled “Now EU wants a £510 income tax” in The Daily Express newspaper of December 31st 2006, which was prompted, no doubt, by the opinion expressed at a recent EU sum mit by M. Jose Maria Gil–Robles, President of the European Parliament, that “the direct taxation of the people would more closely involve individual citizens with the European government.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atkinson, A. B. (1970). On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory, 2, 244–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Atkinson, A. B. (2002). 1% of E 10,000 billion. In P. Townsend & D. Gordon (Eds.), World poverty: New policies to defeat an old enemy (pp. 401–411). Bristol: Policy

    Google Scholar 

  3. Berrebi, Z. M., & Silber, J. (1981). Weighting income ranks and levels: A multi-parameter generalization for absolute and relative inequality indices. Economics Letters, 7, 391–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Buchanan, J. M. (1950). Federalism and fiscal equity. American Economic Review, 40, 583–599

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carver, T. N. (1895). The ethical basis of distribution and its application to taxation. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 6, 79–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cholezas, I., & Tsakloglou, P. (2009). Earnings inequality in Europe: Structure and patterns of intertemporal changes. In P. Dolton, R. Asplund, & E. Barth (Eds.), Education and inequality across Europe (pp. 122–146). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cnossen, S. (2002). Tax policy in the European Union: A review of issues and options. FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, 58, 466–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cubel, M., & Lambert, P. J. (2002a). Progression-neutral income tax reforms and horizontal inequity. Journal of Economics, Supplement, 9, 1–8. Special issue on Inequalities: Theory, experiments and applications P. Moyes, C. Seidl, & A. F. Shorrocks (Eds.)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cubel, M., & Lambert, P. J. (2002b). A regional approach to income tax policy. Public Finance Review, 30, 124–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dardanoni, V., & Lambert, P. J. (2002). Progressivity comparisons. Journal of Public Economics, 86, 124–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Duclos, J.-Y., & Araar, A. (2003). An Atkinson-Gini family of social evaluation functions. Economics Bulletin, 3(19), 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  12. Duclos, J.-Y., & Araar, A. (2005). An Atkinson-Gini class of social evaluation functions: Theory and illustration using data from the Luxembourg Income Study. LIS Working Paper No. 416, Luxembourg Income Study

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ebert, U. (1988). Measurement of inequality: An attempt at unification and generalization. Social Choice and Welfare, 5, 147–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ebert, U. (2000). Equivalizing incomes: A normative approach. International Tax and Public Finance, 7, 619–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ebert, U., & Lambert, P. J. (2004). Horizontal equity and progression when equivalence scales are not constant. Public Finance Review, 32, 426–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ebert, U., & Welsch, H. (2004). The social evaluation of income distribution: An assessment based on happiness surveys. LIS Working Paper No. 381, Luxembourg Income Study

    Google Scholar 

  17. Harvey, J. (2005). A note on the “natural rate of subjective inequality” hypothesis and the approximate relationship between the Gini coefficient and the Atkinson index. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 1021–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kolm, S.-C. (1968). La production optimale de justice sociale. In J. Margolis & H. Guitton (Eds.), Economie Publique (pp. 109–177). Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kolm, S.-C. (1969). The optimal production of social justice. In J. Margolis & H. Guitton (Eds.), Public economics: An analysis of public production and consumption and their relations to the private sector (pp. 145–200). London: Macmillan. Reprinted with corrections in K. J. Arrow & G. Debreu (Eds.), Landmark papers in general equilibrium, social choice and welfare (pp. 606–653). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2001. Relevant sections reprinted with an editorial introduction by P. J. Lambert in Journal of Economic Inequality, 5, 2007, 216–234

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kolm, S.-C. (1999). The rational foundations of income inequality measurement. In J. Silber (Ed.), Handbook of income inequality measurement (pp. 19–100). Boston: Kluwer Academic

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kolm, S.-C. (2004). Macrojustice: The political economy of fairness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Lambert, P. J. (2004a). Equivalence scales, horizontal equity and horizontal inequity. In C. Dagum & G. Ferrari (Eds.), Household behaviour, equivalence scales, welfare and poverty (pp. 75–84). Heidelberg: Physica

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Lambert, P. J. (2004b). Income taxation and equity. Baltic Journal of Economics, 4(4), 39–54

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lambert, P. J. (2007). Positional equity and equal sacrifice: Design principles for an EU-wide income tax? Discussion Paper No. 0706, Department of Economics, University of Otago

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lambert, P. J., & Naughton, H. T. (2009). The equal sacrifice principle revisited. Journal of Economic Surveys, 23, 328–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lambert, P. J., Millimet, D. L., & Slottje, D. (2003). Inequality aversion and the natural rate of subjective inequality. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 1061–1090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Osberg, L., & Smeeding, T. (2006). ‘‘Fair” inequality? Attitudes toward pay differentials: The United States in comparative perspective. American Sociological Review, 71, 450–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Quiggin, J. (1993). Generalized expected utility theory: The rank-dependent model. Boston: Kluwer

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rawls, J. (1993). The law of peoples. Critical Inquiry, 20, 36–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Roemer, J. E. (1998). Equality of opportunity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  31. Roemer, J. E. (2006). Review essay, “The 2006 World Development Report: Equity and Development”. Journal of Economic Inequality, 4, 233–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice. London: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  33. Stapel, S., Pasanen, J., & Reinecke, S. (2004). Purchasing power parities and related economic indicators for EU, candidate countries and EFTA. Statistics in Focus No. 53, Eurostat, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  34. World Bank (2006). World development indicators. Washington: World Bank

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Yaari, M. (1988). A controversial proposal concerning inequality measurement. Journal of Economic Theory, 44, 381–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Young, H. P. (1990). Progressive taxation and equal sacrifice. American Economic Review, 80, 253–266

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403-1285, USA

    Peter J. Lambert

Authors
  1. Peter J. Lambert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter J. Lambert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , CERSES, University Paris Descartes, rue des Saints-Pères 45, Paris, 75006, France

    Marc Fleurbaey

  2. , CREM, UMR-CNRS 6211, University of Caen, rue Claude Bloch 17, Caen Cedex, 14032, France

    Maurice Salles

  3. , Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University, Vanderbilt Place 2301, Nashville, 37215-1819, Tennessee, USA

    John A. Weymark

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lambert, P.J. (2011). Positional Equity and Equal Sacrifice: Design Principles for an EU-Wide Income Tax?. In: Fleurbaey, M., Salles, M., Weymark, J. (eds) Social Ethics and Normative Economics. Studies in Choice and Welfare. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17807-8_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17807-8_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-17806-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-17807-8

  • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation