Comprehensive Income Taxation: A Response

Abstract

In an earlier article, Professor Bittker argued that the Haig-Simons economic definition of income would not be a useful basis for income tax reform because it yields no help in dealing with many of the most vexing problems, because its "no preference" approach would lead to sweeping changes which would be unacceptable even to its advocates, and because it gives no assistance in determining the merits of suggested "preferences" or "exceptions" to its sweeping inclusions. Professor Musgrave and Dr. Pechman in the November issue, and Dean Galvin in this issue, defended the concept as a useful basis for tax reform, rejecting Professor Bittker's ad hoc approach. This is Professor Bittker's answer to their challenges.