  This paper concerns Saez and Stantcheva's (2016) generalized social marginal
welfare weights, which aggregate losses and gains due to tax policies, while
incorporating non-utilitarian ethical considerations. The approach evaluates
local tax changes without a global social objective. I show that local tax
policy comparisons implicitly entail global comparisons. Moreover, whenever
welfare weights do not have a utilitarian structure, these implied global
comparisons are inconsistent. I argue that broader ethical values cannot in
general be represented simply by modifying the weights placed on benefits to
different people, and a more thoroughgoing modification of the utilitarian
approach is required.
