Search results

Equality of opportunity (EOp) for health is defined and advocated as the right conceptualization of equity in the allocation of health care resources. EOp is contrasted with the traditional view that equity consists in “horizontal equity,” a state in which all persons in a society with similar health needs receive similar amounts of medical resources. We argue the horizontal equity is neither sufficient nor necessary for distributive justice in this domain. The EOp view holds individuals partially responsible for the quality of lifestyle that they live, in so far as it affects their health, but compensates individuals for the effect on health of circumstances beyond their control, including the effect of circumstances on their lifestyle. EOp generally recommends a distribution of medical resources that is more egalitarian than the utilitarianism recommends, but less egalitarian than the (Rawlsian) maximin view recommends. An example is computed to illustrate the difference between opportunity equalizing and utilitarian health delivery policies.

Prior tax compliance research has largely ignored low-income individual taxpayers, as they have historically been viewed as having an immaterial impact on Federal tax revenues. However, the earned income tax credit (EITC) program has altered the Federal tax revenue landscape in this regard. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigated the magnitude of EITC tax overpayments for tax year 1999 and concluded that between 27 and 31% of EITC filings were overstated, resulting in over-payments of between $8.5 and $9.9 billion (IRS, 2002). These excessive payments represented about 0.5% of total Federal revenues and 2.8% of the total tax gap. Thus, to the extent that low-income individual taxpayers intentionally under-report their incomes in order to receive higher EITC’s, the Federal budget is noticeably affected.

This study extends and complements extant tax research by examining the compliance intentions of low-income individual taxpayers. Relying on the theory of planned behavior, we examine the extent to which perceived tax equity (vertical, horizontal and exchange), normative expectations, and legal sanctions affect tax compliance intentions. Consistent with the hypotheses, the results indicate a significant positive relationship between compliance intentions and: (1) equity perceptions of the tax system; (2) normative expectations of compliance; and (3) penalty magnitude. Additionally, the findings suggest two-way interactions between penalty magnitude and exchange equity, and penalty magnitude and normative expectations. Research results reported herein hold important policy implications related to the Federal government’s efforts to reduce tax cheating and increase compliance among low-income individual taxpayers.

Generational theory research suggests that the arrival of the Millennial generation into adulthood will have significant effects on society because of their differing values and attitudes. We examine whether this generation has differing perceptions of tax fairness as well as their attitudes towards tax compliance as compared to other generations by administering an instrument to a sample of 303 taxpayers, distributed approximately equally across three generational groups: Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials. The results suggest that there are significant differences in the viewpoints toward vertical equity and progressive taxation among the three generations. More specifically, the Millennial generation was less likely to recommend progressive taxation than the other two generations. In addition, there were significant differences between the groups on an exchange equity question as well. However, in this situation, it was the Baby Boomers that were significantly different from the other two generations. The results also suggest that the Millennials have attitudes that are more accepting of noncompliance than both the Generation X participants and the Baby Boomer participants. However, a significant difference does not exist between the Baby Boomer participants and Generation X participants on their attitudes towards compliance.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the legislative and policy architecture governing the protection of individuals with an intellectual disability (ID) in the UK, and whether these protections extend to protect those with a borderline ID (BLID) in prison.

The paper presents policy and legislative analysis.

This paper argues that the legislative definitions of disability are broad and draw on a needs-based understanding of disability, meaning that those with a BLID – if they experience disability – should be included in these protections. But the clinical definitions of ID that guide access to support services tend to exclude those with a BLID. Notions of horizontal and vertical equity are invoked to examine the spirit of “equivalence” captured in legislative instruments, and how these filter into policy that may ultimately be discriminatory to those with a BLID.

If the founding principle of equality legislation is equivalence, and an argument can be made that those with a BLID are protected from disability discrimination, public authorities will need to reconcile their use of clinical diagnostic cut-offs to justify service provision inside and outside of the prison estate. In essence they are faced with a choice: consider how best to provide equitable support for those with a BLID (which may not necessarily mean identical support), or risk breaching these fundamental rights.

The paper calls into question the extent to which the current suite of ID-related services (both in the community and in prison) fulfil a public authority’s obligations for vertical and horizontal equity that are captured in the disability discrimination legislation. Specifically authorities must consider whether: replicating services in prisons serves the particular needs of the prison population, or is horizontal equity only partial fulfilment? The higher than expected numbers of BLID in prison justify consideration of different services for these different needs? There is an opportunity to rethink the conceptualisation of disability service provision in the National Health Service from one defined by diagnostic bands rather than a socio-ecological understanding of need, and in doing so whether the needs of the BLID group in prison are being suitably met.

The paper provides a line of legal argument and analytical thought useful to those seeking to challenge the non-provision of support for those with a BLID; particularly those who are especially disadvantaged in prison. This paper draws attention to the disconnect between legislative intent and policy operationalisation for those with BLID. Further research and possible legal challenge is needed to clarify whether this amounts to direct or indirect discrimination.

The Internal Revenue Code of the U.S. as well as income tax statutes in a number of states contain provisions that penalize some married couples by virtue of their marital status. These families have greater tax liabilities than would apply if the husband and wife divorced. At the same time, other married couples benefit from reduced taxes made possible by the income splitting provisions of the laws. Thus, some families receive tax benefits and others are penalized as a consequence of the choice to be married. There is now much discussion in Washington and state capitals of reducing and possibly eliminating the so-called “marriage tax”. Most proposals for reform retain the income splitting provision of the tax code; thereby avoiding direct harm to families currently receiving tax benefits from marriage. This is the approach adopted in this paper.

The last 20 years have seen a significant evolution in the literature on horizontal inequity (HI) and have generated two major and “rival” methodological strands, namely, classical HI and reranking. We propose in this paper a class of ethically flexible tools that integrate these two strands. This is achieved using a measure of inequality that merges the well-known Gini coefficient and Atkinson indices, and that allows a decomposition of the total redistributive effect of taxes and transfers into a vertical equity effect and a loss of redistribution due to either classical HI or reranking. An inequality-change approach and a money-metric cost-of-inequality approach are developed. The latter approach makes aggregate classical HI decomposable across groups. As in recent work, equals are identified through a non-parametric estimation of the joint density of gross and net incomes. An illustration using Canadian data from 1981 to 1994 shows a substantial, and increasing, robust erosion of redistribution attributable both to classical HI and to reranking, but does not reveal which of reranking or classical HI is more important since this requires a judgement that is fundamentally normative in nature.

Some personal income tax breaks reward socially approved activities, others serve the interests of tax administrators and special interest groups. All give rise to classical HI. We allow for the categorization of tax breaks into deserving and undeserving types, and pose a “modified HE” requirement which legitimizes the former. Deserving breaks result in a loss of VE, non-deserving ones in (modified) HI. The equity cost of each tax break can be assessed. For the U.S. personal income tax, modified HI is potentially a lot smaller than classical HI: e.g. the charitable giving tax break alone in 1990 accounted for 44% of classical HI.

The importance of local government within the UK has never been stronger, and this has direct implications as to the most appropriate method of financing this level of government. The council tax in Great Britain and traditional domestic rates in Northern Ireland represent the two primary sources of local government finance based on domestic property, which currently require significant reform. Weaknesses of the existing systems include the lack of buoyancy due to infrequent revaluations, horizontal and vertical inequities and the need to ensure that domestic property tax systems are seen to be fair. The paper makes a number of important recommendations which would enhance the acceptability and ultimately improve the operation of these forms of ad valorem taxation.