4.5 Article

Study of taxes, regulations and inequality using machine learning algorithms

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2021.0165

Keywords

econophysics; wealth distribution; agent-based model

Funding

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior -Brasil (CAPES)
  2. Brazilian agency Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS)
  3. CAPES [1]
  4. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq -Brazil)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genetic machine learning algorithms in the Yard-Sale model can find optimal strategies, but the more rational agents, the greater the inequality at the collective level. To address this, a taxation-redistribution mechanism is introduced, but rational agents lead to increased inequality.
Genetic machine learning (ML) algorithms to train agents in the Yard-Sale model proved very useful for finding optimal strategies that maximize their wealth. However, the main result indicates that the more significant the fraction of rational agents, the greater the inequality at the collective level. From social and economic viewpoints, this is an undesirable result since high inequality diminishes liquidity and trade. Besides, with very few exceptions, most agents end up with zero wealth, despite the inclusion of rational behaviour. To deal with this situation, here we include a taxation-redistribution mechanism in the ML algorithm. Previous results show that simple regulations can considerably reduce inequality if agents do not change their behaviour. However, when considering rational agents, different types of redistribution favour risk-averse agents, to some extent. Even so, we find that rational agents looking for optimal wealth can always arrive to an optimal risk, compatible with a particular choice of parameters, but increasing inequality.This article is part of the theme issue 'Kinetic exchange models of societies and economies'.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available