Justice and the Tax Base in the 21st Century

Dr Gwilym David Blunt, University of Sydney

Gwilym David Blunt is a Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Sydney, Fellow of the Ethics Centre, and Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for International Policy Studies. He was previously a Senior Lecturer at City, University of London and a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at the University of Cambridge.

To date he has published Global poverty, injustice, and resistance with Cambridge University Press, as well as articles in International Affairs, International Theory, Human Rights Quarterly, Raisons Politiques, and Politics. He has published public-facing work in Aeon, The Conversation, Metro, and 24 Minutes. He often appears on television, radio, and podcasts to as a commentator on politics, international relations, and public ethics.

Philanthropy, Domination, and Tax Justice

The past 25 years have seen an expansion of philanthropy’s influence in the domestic politics of democratic states and in international politics. This has been facilitated by the extraordinarily generous tax-incentives for establishing philanthropic foundations. This paper argues that the tax-incentives given to the ultra-wealthy raise serious questions of justice and fairness. This objection goes deeper than other democratic-based critiques of philanthropy by looking at issues of benevolent and epistemic domination. It will argue that philanthropy requires either greater oversight and regulation in order to obviate domination concerns or the tax-incentives need to be abolished.

Dr Melek Cigdem-Bayram

Melek Cigdem-Bayram is the Ronald Henderson Senior Research Fellow, jointly appointed by the Melbourne Institute and the Brotherhood of St Laurence. She is an applied economist specialising in wealth inequality, intergenerational wealth transfers, poverty and disadvantage, and housing and homelessness. Before her appointment in 2024, Melek was a Research Fellow at RMIT University, an Economic Advisor and Analyst at Jesuit Social Services and most recently, a Senior Researcher at the University of Sydney. She currently leads a program of research on measuring and defining poverty in Australia that aims to advance a nationally accepted definition and framework.

Decomposing Wealth Inequality Trends and Causes in Australia

Dr Joe Collins, CQ University

Joe is an economic historian based in Rockhampton. His teaching is informed by research interests that circle and intersect the history of economic thought, debates on value, rent and price, the historical evolution of landed property, extractivism, regenerative agriculture, and the political economy of capitalism in Australia and the world. Joe's current research explores the potential for interlocking just transitions across the systems of provision for housing, education, transport, work and healthcare in regional communities.

Fair’s Fair: Examining the Role of Land, Rent and Wealth in Australia’s Housing Affordability Crisis

This paper examines the origins of Australia's housing affordability crisis to critically evaluate the extant proposals for resolving it. The analysis employs a systems of provision (SoP) framework in conjunction with a historically and geographically specific theory of landed property in Australia. Rather than viewing housing unaffordability as simply a mismatch between supply and demand, or as an outcome of insufficient housing stock, this analysis demonstrates how the historically specific forms of landed property in Australia condition both the provision of housing and the capacity for tax reforms to address systemic inequality undermining access to housing. Drawing on recent research into the historical evolution of landed property in Australia, the paper shows how financialisation of housing systems of provision and the tax treatment of property investment have created a self-reinforcing system where rising land prices drive speculative investment, further concentrating ownership and exacerbating economic inequality. The paper argues that effective policy responses must move beyond supply-side solutions or piecemeal tax changes to address the fundamental role of landed property in conditioning systems of housing provision. The analysis offers novel insights for tax policy reform by integrating recent advances in rent theory with historical inquiry to illuminate the structured relationships between property ownership, rent extraction, and wealth inequality. These findings have important implications for current debates about negative gearing, capital gains tax concessions, and the broader role of wealth taxation in addressing systemic economic inequality in Australia.

Dr Harry Cossar-Gilbert, University of Melbourne Law School

Dr Harry Cossar-Gilbert is an Honorary Fellow at the Melbourne Law School. Dr Harry Cossar-Gilbert researches across the fields of taxation law, political philosophy, and distributional analysis. His primary research interest is in exploring tax policy and its impacts on economic inequality. Harry has worked for Slater and Gordan in the class action team.

Can the Consumption Base and the Australian GST Limit the Wealth of the Top 1%?

This paper argues that the consumption base and the Australian GST are incapable of limiting the wealth of the top 1% from an annual and lifetime perspective. Beginning with the annual perspective, the paper uses the Household Expenditure Survey in Australia to show that the consumption base and the Australian GST make up too small a portion of the income and wealth bases of the top 1% to effectively limit wealth. The paper then challenges the prevailing use of the life cycle theory in the tax literature. It argues that the consumption base and Australian GST are incapable of limiting the wealth of the top 1% in retirement and therefore cannot limit wealth from a lifetime perspective either.

Professor Patrick Emerton, Deakin University

Patrick Emerton is a Professor in the Deakin Law School. Patrick's research focuses on political, constitutional and legal theory, with his recent publications focusing particularly on the intersections between public law, private law and economic justice.

Is There a Principled Argument for the Taxation of Consumption?
This paper addresses the question set out in its title.

One recurring argument for the taxation of consumption is that “it imposes a levy according to how much a person takes out of the common store of goods and not according to how much he contributes (assuming here that income is fairly earned)” (Rawls, A Theory of Justice, 278). Rawls describes this as a “common sense precept of justice”. The fact that a similar argument is found in Hobbes’ Leviathan over 300 years earlier shows its longevity.
However, this argument is not common-sense at all. It rests on assumptions about the relationship between private and public activity, and corresponding relationships between individuals, the economy and the state, that fail the test of common sense, and indeed are absurd in contemporary circumstances.
This paper identifies and corrects those assumptions, and sets out a more plausible account of the relevant relationships. On this basis it then draws out some implications – of a broadly Rawlsian character – for principles of economic and social justice, and the place of economic entitlement and obligation within such principles. It then shows that any good argument for a consumption tax must be overwhelmingly technical and instrumental, although there may be reasons of principle for imposing some limits on the extent of consumption taxation as a component of the overall tax mix.

Professor Miranda Fleischer, University of San Diego School of Law

Miranda Perry Fleischer is professor of law at the University of San Diego School of Law. Her research focuses on the interaction of distributive justice and tax policy relating to wealth taxation, charitable giving, and redistribution to the poor. She has published numerous articles and book chapters on those subjects, most notably including The Architecture of a Basic Income, 87 U. Chi. L. Rev. 625 and Atlas Nods: The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income, 2017 Wisconsin Law Review 1189.

Equality of Opportunity, Social Mobility, and Taxation

Equality of opportunity is a bedrock principle of justice that shapes key features of Western tax systems.  Such structures reflect this ideal both by "leveling down" through progressive income, wealth, and wealth transfer taxes, as well as "leveling up" by funding services that aim to provide more equal starts in life.  Discussions of equal opportunity and taxation traditionally occur at a very general level, assuming that any rich to poor redistribution furthers equality of opportunity.  This generality obscures two key questions – how should we measure the extent to which the tax system enhances equal opportunity, and which structural elements are most effective at implementing the ideal?  Honing in on the concept of social mobility helps answer these questions.  First, the amount of social mobility is an indicator of the amount of equal opportunity, as high levels of social mobility suggest that those born into lower-income families are nevertheless able to harness their talents and abilities.  Second, looking for correlations between specific structural elements and measures of social mobility will help policymakers design tax systems that most effectively further equal opportunity ideals.

Dr Stefanie Geringer, University of Vienna (Law)

Dr Stefanie Geringer is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Tax Law at the Faculty of Law at the University of Vienna and a certified tax adviser and manager at BDO Austria. In her postdoctoral research project ‘Procedural Competences in EU VAT Law: A Principles-Based Approach’, she develops the relevant allocation of procedural competences between the EU and the Member States in VAT law on the basis of the competence principles of the EU Treaties. In this context, she uses Austria and the Czech Republic as representative examples to demonstrate the importance of a certain degree of procedural autonomy in VAT for EU Member States. Other current research interests include national and international VAT law, EU fiscal law, and environment-related measures in tax law.

The Quest for Redistribution and Justice in the Context of VAT or GST

Calls for redistributive measures to ensure tax justice have intensified in recent years, characterised by multiple crises and rising income and wealth inequality. Such arguments may be particularly vociferous in the context of general consumption taxes (VAT/GST), prompting policymakers to address such effects. This paper uses the EU VAT system as a case study of a system relying heavily on in-system redistributive measures. This provides the basis for a critical assessment of EU-type models and comparisons with alternative approaches. This includes the question of the importance of redistribution and justice in VAT/GST policy within different political, economic and social contexts.

Associate Professor Daniel Halliday, University of Melbourne School of Philosophy

Daniel is an Associate Professor in Philosophy at the University of Melbourne. He obtained his PhD in Philosophy from Stanford University in 2011. Daniel specializes in political philosophy, with a particular focus on markets and various aspects of economic justice. He is the author of the books The Ethics of Capitalism (2020), co-authored with John Thrasher, and The Inheritance of Wealth: Justice, Equality, and The Right to Bequeath (2018), both published by Oxford University Press.

Stamp Duties versus Land Taxes: Dilemmas of Distributive Justice and Home Ownership

Recently, increased attention has been paid to whether stamp duties or annual land taxes are more appropriate for including housing wealth within the tax base.
The choice is (partly) a matter of distributive justice between different birth cohorts and demographics: As a large upfront cost of home ownership, stamp duty may be disproportionately burdensome for young and first-time buyers. Land taxes may shift the burden somewhat to incumbent homeowners, particularly those who enjoy appreciation in home value. This may be fairer. Many other factors are involved, however. This paper will seek to navigate a way through this issue.

Ms Monica Hope, University of Melbourne Law School

Monica Hope is a PhD Candidate at the Melbourne Law School. Monica’s research considers theories of tax justice relating to inequality and the redistribution of wealth. Her PhD considers tax law, tax justice, and wealth inequality. It is hoped the research will contribute to a progressive, contemporary 21st century understanding of tax justice which will inform the debate regarding possible wealth tax mechanisms in Australia.
Monica has taught Taxation Law and Policy in the JD at Melbourne Law School. She holds a Master of Laws (Deakin University) and a BA/LLB (La Trobe University).

The Reciprocity Case for Progressive Wealth Taxation

Influential philosophical justifications for the taxation of wealth tend to be based on concerns about equality of opportunity, plutocracy and the distortion of economic power, as well as the tendencies of wealth inequality to be especially concentrated and to some extent dynastic. In most instances, the moral ideal of reciprocity does not feature in any significant way, with its philosophical application being more prominent in discussions of income inequality and fiscal policy around unemployment. This paper considers a theoretical framework for reciprocity and whether progressive wealth taxation can be defended as a realisation of that ideal. Reciprocity can be used to justify the progressive taxation of wealth on the basis that wealth inequality, like income inequality, still reflects the presence of a cooperative scheme in which each individual plays their part. Accordingly, this chapter argues that progressive wealth taxation can be defended as a partial realisation of the moral ideal of reciprocity.

Associate Professor Kathryn James, University of Melbourne Law School

Dr Kathryn James teaches and researches in taxation law and policy. Her research focuses on how ostensibly technical questions of taxation impact upon distributive justice. Kathryn is an ARC Discovery Early Career Research fellow from December 2019 to December 2024 for a project that examines whether Australia Can and Should Reform the GST (DE190100346). Kathryn is the founder and convenor of the Community Tax Project - an alliance between academia and the community and welfare sector to advocate for tax reform in support of social justice.

The Inadequate Treatment of Taxation in Accounts of Distributive Justice

This paper contends that despite a renewed focus on distributive justice within political theory, the treatment of taxation is marginal or problematic.
The paper analyses four prominent liberal-egalitarian accounts of distributive justice: Rawls’ Justice as Fairness, Dworkin’s Resource Egalitarianism, Sen/Nussbaum’s Capabilities approaches; and Robeyns’ Limitarianism; as well as Murphy and Nagel’s detailed account of justice in taxation in The Myth of Ownership.

The paper identifies that most approaches neglect the role of taxation and/or maintain a weak commitment to its redistributive role which undermines an otherwise robust commitment to distributive justice. Furthermore, the approaches implicitly endorse or permit by neglect the dominant welfarist modes of tax analysis which prioritise efficiency over redistribution. The paper considers the implications of these findings for tax policy and reform debates.

Professor Rick Krever, University of Western Australia Law School

Rick Krever is a professor in the Law School at the University of Western Australia.  He has service on a number of tax reform and tax rewrite bodies in Australia and has supported governments in tax reform initiatives in Asia, South America, the Caribbean, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Oceania under the auspices of international organisations and aid agencies.

Tax and Redistribution in Australia – Why Is the Gini Still in the Bottle?

One hundred and ten years ago, the Australian federal government followed the precedent of its states and adopted a fragmented income tax with generous exemptions for the primary type of income of the very rich.  Redistributive gift and estate taxes were later abolished by the federal and state governments, followed by decades of continual reductions of the progressivity of income tax rate scales, the introduction of an exemption for half of the core type of income for the very rich, the adoption of a regressive consumption tax, enhancement of concessions for employee share options that favour executives, and many more concessions that undermine the redistributive effects of the tax system.  And yet, the gini coefficient, the measurement of inequality in Australia, remains notably lower after tax than before tax.  How has the tax system remained progressive in the face of relentless assault on its progressivity?  This paper explores the puzzle.

Professor Rebecca Millar, University of Sydney Law School

Rebecca Millar is a Professor in the University of Sydney Law School, where she specialises in goods and services tax (GST) and comparative value added tax (VAT). Throughout her academic career, she has been actively engaged with national and international developments in consumption tax design and policy, particularly through her engagement with the OECD and the IMF.

Designing the VAT/GST to Tax Consumption: Key Challenges

Associate Professor John Minas, Monash Business School, Monash University

John Minas is an Associate Professor in the Department of Business Law and Taxation at Monash University and an Adjunct Research Fellow in the Griffith Law Futures Centre. His main research interests are tax policy and capital gains tax.

Justice and the Australian Income Tax Base: Taxing Capital Gains and Trusts

The Australian approach to taxing capital gains performs poorly when it is evaluated on criteria related to justice and a sustainable tax base. The capital gains tax (CGT) base is unjustifiably narrow and the major tax CGT concession — the 50% CGT discount — mainly benefits high wealth individuals. The availability of the 50% CGT discount in the trusts setting compounds the inequity issues in Australia. Trusts already have a tax advantaged status due to the fundamental basis upon which they are taxed in Australia.  In our article we consider the events that entrenched the current inequities in these two areas of the Australian tax system and options for reform.

Professor Liam Murphy, NYU School of Law

Liam Murphy is Herbert Peterfreund Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at NYU. He works in legal, moral, and political philosophy and the application of these inquiries to law, legal institutions, and legal theory. A central theme in all Murphy’s work is that legal, moral, and political theory cannot be pursued independently of one another; they are, in fact, different dimensions of a single subject. This theme is evident in his book What Makes Law (2014), which locates the traditional philosophical issue of the grounds of law (the factors that determine the content of the law in force) within broader issues of political theory.

Wealth, Welfare, and Bequests
(co-authored with Professor Thomas Nagel (NYU))

Some theories of economic justice require information about the welfare of all representative social groups — the best off as well as the worst off. An example would be a view that regards inequality as sometimes unjust even if reducing it does not benefit others. But even more plausible views that reject the intrinsic badness of inequality — in favor of priority to improvements in the welfare of the worse off — will need information about total welfare in order to rank outcomes. Such views too must face the difficult issue of the extent to which unconsumed wealth and, especially, the ability to make gratuitous transfers, contributes to welfare.

Associate Professor Jason Nassios

Jason Nassios is an Associate Professor at the Centre of Policy Studies (CoPS), Victoria University. He holds a PhD in Applied Mathematics from the University of Melbourne and specializes in applied economic modelling, policy analysis, and finance. His research focuses on developing and applying computable general equilibrium (CGE) models to assess policy impacts. Recent work includes the development of the multi-regional VURMTAX model for Australia, used to study property tax and GST reform, and the USAGE-HwyF financial CGE model for the U.S., applied to examine the financial market implications of infrastructure investment. Before joining CoPS in 2015, he worked at the University of Melbourne and Mercer Investments Australia.

Rethinking Tax Efficiency: Beyond Point Estimates to Systemic Reform

Recent studies motivating tax reform focus on ranking taxes using measures of economic efficiency, evaluated at current rates. In this talk, I highlight two key shortcomings. First, efficiency rankings may suffer from omitted variable bias, illustrated by considering broadening our ranking to include both economic efficiency and housing price impacts. Second, focusing on four Australian taxes I show that point estimates of efficiency vary significantly as tax rates change. This insight is used to inform optimal revenue allocation and quantify the benefits of replacing inefficient, narrow-based state taxes with broader-based ones.

Professor Alex Raskolnikov, Columbia University Law School

Alex is Wilbur H. Friedman Professor of Tax Law and a co-chair of the Charles Evans Gerber Transactional Studies Center at Columbia Law School. His research is focused on political theory and economic analysis of taxation, redistribution, inequality and public benefit provision, as well as economic analysis of deterrence, risk, uncertainty, and regulation. His scholarship appeared in leading law reviews and peer reviewed journals as well as in Foreign Affairs, Boston Review and elsewhere.

Formal Equality and the Tax Structure

Laws of capitalist democracies share an important trait. With few notable but limited exceptions, these laws are formally equal—they make no formal distinctions between the rich and the poor. A multi-millionaire and a minimum wage worker alike can cast only one vote, must stop at a red light, have to pay the same sales or value-added tax when they buy a new gadget, and can send their kids to a public school for free. One of the most influential political and economic theories of the past two centuries argues that formal equality is not just ubiquitous but foundational — it is what distinguishes capitalism from all economic systems that came before it.
This paper posits that formal equality is a meaningful constraint on policymaking in capitalist democracies and investigates the implications of this assumption for the design of the tax structure. These implications extend to the choice of tax base, the design of transfer programs, the timing of income recognition, the taxation of capital gains and inter-generational transfers, and a host of other tax and tax-adjacent policies ranging from corporate integration to the minimum wage. The overall lesson is that constraints imposed by formal equality do not necessarily make a tax-and-transfer system less progressive, but they do shape the choices faced by the advocates of progressive tax reforms, today and in the future.

Professor Kerrie Sadiq, Faculty of Business & Law,
School of Accountancy, Queensland University of Technology

Professor Kerrie Sadiq holds the position of Professor of Taxation in the School of Accountancy at the QUT Business School. Kerrie's research expertise is in the areas of international tax, tax expenditures and capital gains tax. She is the co-editor of Australian Tax Review, an internationally recognised leading academic tax journal.  She is author of publications in both Australian and International journals and edited books and is a co-author of taxation texts.

Taxing Multinationals in the Extractives Industry: An Examination of Formulary Apportionment for Developing Nations
(co-authored with Dr Rodney Brown (UNSW) and Dr Ashesha Weerasinghe (QUT))

Multinational entities (MNEs) operating in the extractives industry often exploit complex transfer pricing and debt creation structures to shift profits to low- or no-tax jurisdictions. For resource-rich developing nations, inequalities are exacerbated as they are deprived of much-needed corporate tax revenue. The challenge is to ensure that the international tax regime captures the true economic activity of these MNEs through factors that contribute to the profits earned. Formulary apportionment is often suggested as a solution, but there is little empirical evidence of the effect on corporate tax revenues of developing nations.  This paper considers whether formulary apportionment could address the failings of the current arm’s length system and, in doing so, uses publicly available country-by-country reporting data to provide empirical evidence of the effects of different formulas.

Professor Laura Seelkopf,
Geschwister-Scholl-Institute for Political Science, LMU Munich

Laura Seelkopf is Professor of International Comparative Public Policy at the Geschwister-Scholl-Institute of Political Science, LMU Munich, Germany. Her research focuses on tax and social policy. Laura served as executive board member of the German Political Science Association (2018-2021) and its Political Economy Section (2015-2021) and represent political science in the German Data Forum (since 2020).

A Global History of National Taxation (with Philipp Genschel and Paula Zuluaga)

For most of human history, countries were nightwatchmen states at best. Even today's advanced economies struggle to generate sufficient tax revenue to fund essential public goods, let alone expansive welfare programs. This changed with the invention of „modern“ tax instruments: broad based and ad valorem tax instruments on income, consumption and wealth allowed to raise substantive revenues without much economic distortion. Traditional theories of national taxation primarily attribute tax policy choices to domestic factors, focusing on historical events such as wars, recessions, and regime changes. This "methodological nationalism" explains cross-national differences but struggles to account for striking similarities in tax structures. Despite vast national differences, most states have adopted a similar set of core taxes. Why? We argue that commonality arises from the interaction of global shocks and policy diffusion. While shocks—such as wars, democratization, or recessions—temporarily homogenize national conditions and prompt similar tax policy responses, diffusion mechanisms encourage governments to emulate successful models. Prior research emphasizes shocks as key drivers of common tax trends, yet most major tax instruments were introduced in periods of normalcy, suggesting a significant role for diffusion. Using an updated dataset on global tax introductions (TID 2.0), we map the historical timing and sequencing of tax adoption worldwide since 1750. Our findings reveal that the shift to modern taxation was not merely a series of independent national developments but a fundamentally global process from its inception. This study advances our understanding of how taxation evolves through the interplay of domestic pressures and international influences.

Professor Miranda Stewart, University of Melbourne Law School

Miranda Stewart is Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne Law School where she is Director of the Tax Group and is a Fellow at the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University. Miranda has more than 25 years research, practical and leadership experience in tax law and policy in academia, government and the private sector. Miranda engages in research, policy advice and teaching across a wide range of topics including taxation of large and small business entities, not-for-profits and individuals; international taxation and the role of tax in development; reform processes and budget institutions; and gender equality in tax and transfer systems. Miranda has an enduring interest in the resilience, legitimacy and fairness of tax systems to support good government.

Decomposing Wealth Inequality Trends and Causes in Australia

This paper examines the dynamics of household wealth inequality in Australia across the timeframe 2002 to 2018. Using longitudinal data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, we document trends in household wealth and employ a decomposition analysis to estimate the contributions of socio-economic and demographic factors to changes in wealth inequality. Our analysis shows that while wealth inequality remained largely unchanged, this stability masks contrasting trends across the wealth distribution as well as the two most important components of wealth, residential property and financial assets. We also detect evidence of a ‘disappearing middle,’ with the wealth position of middle-income households deteriorating relative to both the rich and poor. We highlight the significant role of declining homeownership rates in widening inequality, particularly among middle-wealth households, and the equalising effects of population aging and rising human capital, as societal transformations, particularly housing affordability challenges, are reshaping wealth inequality in Australia.

Professor Emeritus Richard Vann

Richard J Vann is Challis Professor of Law at the University of Sydney. In 2006 he was William K Jacobs Jr Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School and he has taught regularly at New York University School of Law and the School of Advanced Study, University of London. He specialises in corporate, comparative and international taxation. He is a graduate of the University of Queensland, Australia and Oxford University, UK.

Stop Bad-Mouthing the Income Tax!

Associate Professor Sonali Walpola

Dr Sonali Walpola is an Associate Professor at the ANU College of Business and Economics. Sonali's research interests broadly encompass taxation law and policy and the nature of common law developments. Her recent projects have analysed integrity measures to address tax avoidance through trusts, the interpretation of the residence article in double tax agreements, and the Australian High Court's attitude to change in the common law. Sonali is a co-editor of Austaxpolicy, the Journal of Australian Taxation and Law&History, which is the journal of the Australia New Zealand Law History Society. Sonali is a fellow of the ANU Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, a member of The Tax Institute Higher Education Academic Board, and the Academic Lead of the ANU Tax Clinic, which she co-founded in 2019.

Justice and the Australian Income Tax Base: Taxing Capital Gains and Trusts

The Australian approach to taxing capital gains performs poorly when it is evaluated on criteria related to justice and a sustainable tax base. The capital gains tax (CGT) base is unjustifiably narrow and the major tax CGT concession — the 50% CGT discount — mainly benefits high wealth individuals. The availability of the 50% CGT discount in the trusts setting compounds the inequity issues in Australia. Trusts already have a tax advantaged status due to the fundamental basis upon which they are taxed in Australia.  In our article we consider the events that entrenched the current inequities in these two areas of the Australian tax system and options for reform.

Professor Michael Walpole, School of Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, UNSW

Michael Walpole is a Professor of Taxation Law. Michael’s research interests include tax transfer pricing and GST/VAT and he has contributed to OECD projects on several VAT topics. Michael’s PhD thesis was on the taxation of goodwill and he has undertaken a number of research projects on the taxation of intangible property.  He also researches aspects of  tax administration and costs of tax compliance as well as tax dispute resolution and the ethics of tax practice.

Digital Taxation Challenges: Simplified Solutions and Structural Inequality

Digital Services Taxes (DSTs) are administratively and technically simpler for many developing countries, with potentially larger revenue benefits compared to the OECD solutions for digital taxation. They are also easier to administer than cross-border VATs. However, for developing countries without a significant domestic digital market or a large consumer base, DSTs/VATs (on remote sales) may provide limited value despite being relatively easy to establish. What the growing reliance on DSTs demonstrates is an inability for developing countries to implement more technically complex and administratively demanding tax reforms and collection. The inability implicitly reflects entrenched inequalities in the allocation of taxing rights between developing and developed countries, as well as the limitations of the ongoing OECD-led reforms to equitably distribute revenue benefits from digital transactions. For developing countries with limited resources and small digital markets, neither cross border VATs nor DSTs may prove to be truly effective. What such jurisdictions need instead is support to develop tax systems with the technical and administrative capacity to compete with more developed economies.

Professor Roger Wilkins, Melbourne Institute, University of Melbourne

Roger Wilkins is Deputy Director of the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic & Social Research at the University of Melbourne as well as being Co-Director of the HILDA Survey. His research interests include the distribution and dynamics of individuals’ economic wellbeing; the incidence and determinants of poverty and welfare dependence; and the nature, causes and consequences of labour market outcomes. As part of his work in the HILDA Survey program, Roger produces the annual HILDA Survey Statistical Report, which each year analyses the latest release of the HILDA data.

Roger is a member of the Australian Bureau of Statistics' Labour Statistics Advisory Group and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Research Panel. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, a Research Fellow at the IZA Institute of Labor Economics, and a Fellow of the World Inequality Database.

Long-Term Inequality Trends in Australia: Evidence, Explanations and International Context

This presentation will summarise trends in income levels and income inequality in Australia over the last 100 years, drawing on a mixture of household survey and tax records data. The evolution of wealth inequality since the turn of this century will also be described. The evidence on the drivers of inequality trends, particular over the last 40 years, will be discussed and Australia’s experience will be place in international context via comparisons with other developed countries.

Associate Professor Yan Xu, School of Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, UNSW

Yan Xu is a Scientia Associate Professor of Tax Law at the Business School of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and an Adjunct Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, the University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include comparative tax law and policy, international taxation, and environmental taxation.

Digital Taxation Challenges: Simplified Solutions and Structural Inequality

Digital Services Taxes (DSTs) are administratively and technically simpler for many developing countries, with potentially larger revenue benefits compared to the OECD solutions for digital taxation. They are also easier to administer than cross-border VATs. However, for developing countries without a significant domestic digital market or a large consumer base, DSTs/VATs (on remote sales) may provide limited value despite being relatively easy to establish. What the growing reliance on DSTs demonstrates is an inability for developing countries to implement more technically complex and administratively demanding tax reforms and collection. The inability implicitly reflects entrenched inequalities in the allocation of taxing rights between developing and developed countries, as well as the limitations of the ongoing OECD-led reforms to equitably distribute revenue benefits from digital transactions. For developing countries with limited resources and small digital markets, neither cross border VATs nor DSTs may prove to be truly effective. What such jurisdictions need instead is support to develop tax systems with the technical and administrative capacity to compete with more developed economies.

Dr Arezou Zaresani, School of Economics, University of Sydney

Arezou Zaresani is an Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Sydney. Arezou is also a Research Affiliate at the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute (TTPI) at the Australian National University. Arezou is an empirical microeconomist with interest in Public, Labour and Health economics. Her research involves design-based analysis where she exploits quasi-experimental variations to study economic questions of interest.

Elasticity of Taxable Income and Adjustment Costs: High-Income Taxpayers’ Bunching Behavior

We examine how high-income taxpayers respond to progressive income tax changes, focusing on the Elasticity of Taxable Income (ETI) — a measure of sensitivity to tax rate changes — and on adjustment costs. Our analysis incorporates both fixed and marginal adjustment costs into bunching models that allow for partial income adjustments and bunching from below. We estimate a marginal cost-to-tax-savings ratio of 0.39. Accounting for adjustment costs triples the ETI estimates compared to models that ignore these costs or rely solely on fixed costs without partial adjustments or bunching from above. High-income individuals not only exhibit strong sensitivity and responsiveness but also engage in strategic behaviors, bunching at tax kinks and predominantly using reporting mechanisms — such as trust income — rather than real responses such as labour supply. These findings highlight the necessity of including adjustment costs and acknowledging strategic taxpayer behavior when designing effective tax policies. They offer valuable insights for the policy debate on higher tax rates for high-income individuals.