 Facts and figures about UK taxes, benefits and public spending.
Income distribution, poverty and inequality.
Analysing government fiscal forecasts and tax and spending.
Analysis of the fiscal choices an independent Scotland would face.
Case studies that give a flavour of the areas where IFS research has an impact on society.
Reforming the tax system for the 21st century.
A peer-reviewed quarterly journal publishing articles by academics and practitioners.
|
Type: Journal Articles Authors: Richard Blundell and Ian Preston ISSN: Print: 0143-5671 Online: 1475-5890
Published in: Fiscal Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3, August 1995
Volume, issue, pages: Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 40-54
Despite the widespread use of income as a measure of household welfare, there is much to recommend the use of consumption. Indeed, standard economic arguments suggest that consumption expenditure will better reflect expected lifetime resources and many economists have been unequivocal in advocating its use. Slesnick (1993), for example, suggests that 'From a theoretical perspective it is more appropriate to evaluate poverty using a consumption based measure of household welfare'. Cutler and Katz (1992) state that 'Economic theory suggests that permanent income or consumption is a more accurate measure of the distribution of resources than is current income'. Poterba (1989) argues that 'If households base their spending plans on their expected lifetime income, then consumption provides a more accurate measure of resources than does annual income'. Search |
|
|
|
© The Institute for Fiscal Studies
Limited by Guarantee,Registered in England: 954616 7 Ridgmount Street London WC1E 7AE Registered Charity: 258815 VAT no: GB 394 5830 17 Website design by Pynk and Fluffy |
||||||
