Skip to Main Content
HBS Home
  • About
  • Academic Programs
  • Alumni
  • Faculty & Research
  • Baker Library
  • Giving
  • Harvard Business Review
  • Initiatives
  • News
  • Recruit
  • Map / Directions
Working Knowledge
Business Research for Business Leaders
  • Browse All Articles
  • Popular Articles
  • Cold Call Podcasts
  • About Us
  • Leadership
  • Marketing
  • Finance
  • Management
  • Entrepreneurship
  • All Topics...
  • Topics
    • COVID-19
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Finance
    • Gender
    • Globalization
    • Leadership
    • Management
    • Negotiation
    • Social Enterprise
    • Strategy
  • Sections
    • Book
    • Cold Call Podcast
    • HBS Case
    • In Practice
    • Lessons from the Classroom
    • Op-Ed
    • Research & Ideas
    • Research Event
    • Sharpening Your Skills
    • What Do You Think?
    • Working Paper Summaries
  • Browse All
    • COVID-19 Business Impact Center
      COVID-19 Business Impact Center
      Popular Acceptance of Morally Arbitrary Luck and Widespread Support for Classical Benefit-Based Taxation
      18 Apr 2016Working Paper Summaries

      Popular Acceptance of Morally Arbitrary Luck and Widespread Support for Classical Benefit-Based Taxation

      by Matthew C. Weinzierl
      This paper presents survey evidence that the normative views of most Americans appear to include ambivalence toward the egalitarianism that has been so influential in contemporary political philosophy and implicitly adopted by modern optimal tax theory. Insofar as this finding is valid, optimal tax theorists ought to consider capturing this ambivalence in their work, as well.
      LinkedIn
      Email

      Author Abstract

      Public moral reasoning is shown to differ in three specific ways from what is conventionally assumed in modern optimal tax theory. Large majorities of survey respondents resist costless redistribution of arbitrarily determined unequal outcomes and prefer justifying tax progressivity based on benefit received rather than on diminishing marginal social welfare of income. These attitudes are shown to be linked to widespread moral acceptance of unequal allocations due to luck. Together, these results raise the possibility that the American public views the allocations of taxes and pre-tax outcomes as morally relevant, a judgment that is inconsistent with conventional objectives depending solely on after-tax outcomes but consistent with alternative principles such as Classical Benefit-Based Taxation.

      Paper Information

      • Full Working Paper Text
      • Working Paper Publication Date: March 2016
      • HBS Working Paper Number: 16-104
      • Faculty Unit(s): Business, Government and International Economy
        Trending
          • 19 Jan 2021
          • In Practice

          Leadership Advice for Biden: Restore a Sense of Calm

          • 29 Oct 2020
          • Research & Ideas

          The COVID Gender Gap: Why Fewer Women Are Dying

          • 13 Jul 2020
          • Research & Ideas

          Merck CEO Ken Frazier Discusses a COVID Cure, Racism, and Why Leaders Need to Walk the Talk

          • 18 Jan 2021
          • Book

          How Thinking Like a Startup Helps Governments Solve More Problems

          • 25 Feb 2019
          • Research & Ideas

          How Gender Stereotypes Kill a Woman’s Self-Confidence

      Matthew C. Weinzierl
      Matthew C. Weinzierl
      Joseph and Jacqueline Elbling Professor of Business Administration
      Chair, MBA Required Curriculum
      Contact
      Send an email
      → More Articles
      Find Related Articles
      • Taxation

      Sign up for our weekly newsletter

      Interested in improving your business? Learn about fresh research and ideas from Harvard Business School faculty.
      ǁ
      Campus Map
      Harvard Business School Working Knowledge
      Baker Library | Bloomberg Center
      Soldiers Field
      Boston, MA 02163
      Email: Editor-in-Chief
      →Map & Directions
      →More Contact Information
      • Make a Gift
      • Site Map
      • Jobs
      • Harvard University
      • Trademarks
      • Policies
      • Digital Accessibility
      Copyright © President & Fellows of Harvard College