Before changing taxes or budgets, show who will pay and who will gain, and only then decide
Steps to make it happen
- The government drafts a plan to change a tax or the budget.
- An expert agency that is independent of the government receives the plan.
- The agency works out who gains and who loses in each group, such as people with high and low incomes, or young and old people.
- It also works out the effects on future generations, not just on adults today.
- It puts the results into a short explanation and charts, and shares them with the legislature and the public.
- Lawmakers read the results before they debate and decide whether to vote yes or no.
- After the decision, the agency checks the real effects and publishes whether they matched its predictions.
- Asking "who is this change for?" becomes a normal part of every decision about money.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal would require that, for any fiscal decision above a certain size, such as a new tax, a change in a tax rate, a revision of social security benefits or premiums, or a large increase or cut in spending, an "assessment of distributional effects" be published before the legislature votes. The assessment would be done not by the government's own budget office but by an independent fiscal assessment agency whose status and budget are protected by law. It would cover at least three areas. The first is how the burdens and benefits change across income and wealth levels. The second is the effects on age groups and generations, and for future generations this includes the burden that arrives through repaying government debt and paying pensions. The third is other traits that a society considers important, such as region, gender, and whether a person has a disability. The assessment would also state the assumptions it relied on and the range of uncertainty, and the methods and data used in the calculations would be made public in a form that does not identify any individual. In emergencies such as disasters or financial crises, the advance assessment could be a simplified version, but on the condition that a full assessment is issued within a set period. The results would not bind the decision, and the legislature and the government would still make the final choice about which plan to adopt. A few years after the measure takes effect, the same agency would also carry out a follow-up assessment and publish how it differed from the earlier forecast.
BenefitsThe burdens on quiet voices reach the table
The greatest benefit is that fiscal decisions shift from being about the total to being about who is affected. If the effects on each income level and generation are shown before the vote, then the effects on people who find it hard to speak up for themselves, such as people with low incomes, young people, and people not yet born, also become part of the debate. When the government describes a measure as a tax cut for everyone or a fair burden, voters themselves can check whether the numbers back those words up, which may help restore trust in politics. Also, because an independent agency keeps assessing in the same way, a record that can be compared across changes of government builds up, and it becomes material for learning which policies led to which results. Since follow-up assessments also publish where the forecasts were wrong, the accuracy of the assessments themselves is sharpened year by year. Furthermore, if the effects turn out to be lopsided, there is room to build in measures to make up for it before the vote, which also helps prevent confusion and backlash later on.
DrawbacksNumbers may tie politicians' hands and slow decisions
The point opponents see as most serious is how much influence the numbers in an assessment carry. Distributional effects depend on many assumptions, such as how people will react to a tax change and how the economy will move, and changing the assumptions even slightly can reverse the conclusion. Even so, numbers presented as the assessment of an independent agency are easily treated as objective truth, and there is a risk that unelected experts end up in effect steering the value judgments that elected representatives are supposed to make. There is also the worry that new political fights will break out over who is chosen to run the agency and which methods it uses. And if an assessment takes time, decisions will be delayed in situations where a quick response to a sudden shift in the economy is needed. In some countries, detailed data on income and wealth are not in good shape, and a low-quality assessment could create false reassurance or false criticism. In addition, there is a concern that clearly naming the groups that lose could stir up social conflict and make reforms that are needed overall harder to pass.
Learn the background
Tax and social security systems are mechanisms that greatly rearrange the flow of money within a society. Yet in many countries, debates about budgets and taxes tend to focus on the total, meaning how much will rise or fall overall, while who will actually carry the burden and who will receive the benefit stays hard to see. For example, taxes on spending tend to take a larger share from people with low incomes, and tax deductions and special treatment can be easier to use for people with higher incomes who know the system well. Moreover, if today's spending is paid for with borrowing, the repayment falls on young people who cannot yet vote and on people who have not yet been born. Experts can show these effects to a certain degree when they do the calculations, but in many societies there is no system that makes them public before a decision is made. As a result, the views of groups that can loudly press their interests tend to win out, and the burdens on people whose voices are hard to hear come to light only later, again and again. Now that widening inequality, aging populations, and rising public debt are global challenges, a foundation is needed for a system that makes the way money is distributed visible.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes