Scholarlink

<p>Richard Musgrave et al.’s “Distribution of Tax Payments by Income Groups” (1951) provided the first postwar estimates of the distribution of the fiscal burden, concluding the tax system was not as progressive as statutory rates suggested. Drawing from original archival material, we reconstruct the intellectual context of Musgrave’s study, the methodological debates it gave rise to, and assess its legacy in public finance. The study’s legacy is examined through the rise of econometric estimation, applied general equilibrium modeling, and microdata-based approaches, as well as its influence on policy institutions in the USA and abroad. Despite major advances in data and modeling, we argue that key issues raised by Musgrave—particularly the definition of the income basis and the incidence of the corporate income tax—remain unresolved. The enduring lack of consensus on a uniquely best method highlights both the empirical and normative challenges at the heart of distributional analysis and explains the study’s continued relevance in contemporary debates on taxation and income inequality.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

On the 75th anniversary of Musgrave’s distribution of tax payments by income groups

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月26日

查看全文
  • Maxime Desmarais-Tremblay,
  • Marianne Johnson

摘要

Richard Musgrave et al.’s “Distribution of Tax Payments by Income Groups” (1951) provided the first postwar estimates of the distribution of the fiscal burden, concluding the tax system was not as progressive as statutory rates suggested. Drawing from original archival material, we reconstruct the intellectual context of Musgrave’s study, the methodological debates it gave rise to, and assess its legacy in public finance. The study’s legacy is examined through the rise of econometric estimation, applied general equilibrium modeling, and microdata-based approaches, as well as its influence on policy institutions in the USA and abroad. Despite major advances in data and modeling, we argue that key issues raised by Musgrave—particularly the definition of the income basis and the incidence of the corporate income tax—remain unresolved. The enduring lack of consensus on a uniquely best method highlights both the empirical and normative challenges at the heart of distributional analysis and explains the study’s continued relevance in contemporary debates on taxation and income inequality.