This article compares a tax method featuring flat rates and fixed allowances equal for all taxpayers (Surplus Income Tax Method (SITM) procedure) with a tax method featuring also flat rates and increasing personal allowances (IPAs) to meet the amounts of necessary consumption required
by the different living standards (Discretionary Income Tax Method (DITM) procedure). Our results show that the DITM procedure generates an after-tax income distribution less unequal and superior in terms of social welfare. Moreover, the assumption (for comparison purposes) of identical total
tax revenues leads to the corollary that the flat tax rate under the DITM is necessarily larger than the one under the SITM; being thus, the former taxmethod is more progressive than the latter. These results imply an obvious paradox considering the commonly accepted principle that basic necessities
are the same for everyone (Rousseau, 1755). Based on the results obtained in this article, we have labelled this paradox as the Rousseau’s paradox of fiscal egalitarianism.
No Reference information available - sign in for access.
No Citation information available - sign in for access.
No Supplementary Data.