English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This paper concerns Saez and Stantcheva's (2016) generalized social marginalwelfare weights (GSMWW), which aggregate losses and gains due to tax policies,while incorporating non-utilitarian ethical considerations. The approachevaluates local tax changes without a global social objective. I show thatlocal tax policy comparisons implicitly entail global comparisons. Moreover,whenever welfare weights do not have a utilitarian structure, these impliedglobal comparisons are inconsistent. I argue that broader ethical values cannotin general be represented simply by modifying the weights placed on benefits todifferent people, and a more thoroughgoing modification of the utilitarianapproach is required.

Generalized Social Marginal Welfare Weights Imply Inconsistent Comparisons of Tax Policies