The proposed methodology incorporates the necessary judgments about how to aggregate individual income gaps (which in this context means the gap between prefiscal and postfiscal incomes), following the literature on poverty measurement and income mobility (Foster, Greer, and Thorbecke 1984; Bárcena _et al_ 2018). For instance, the **_relative income gap of a fiscal loser_** is the difference between his or her prefiscal and postfiscal income, divided by the prefiscal income; and the **_relative income gap of a fiscal winner_** is the difference between his or her postfiscal and prefiscal income divided by the prefiscal income. In this regard, the new measures of fiscal losses (or gains) assign greater weights to higher fiscal losses (or gains) while considering the income level of the individuals, which means that they show sensitivity to higher relative losses (or gains) and consider inequality in the distribution of individual fiscal losses (or gains). The new family of fiscal losses (or gains) measures derived here provides a way to understand the incidence, intensity, and severity of fiscal losses (or gains) in a society. Furthermore, the measures are consistent across subgroups, which is particularly interesting when attempting to identify whether some population subgroups are experiencing greater fiscal losses than others, in order to help policy makers design targeted fiscal policies. For example, if the development focus is on the poor within a given society, the new measures can be easily applied to understand the incidence, intensity, and severity of fiscal losses and gains within the subpopulation of prefiscal poor in that society. If, on the other hand, the development focus is on **_shared prosperity_** , which can be defined as an improvement in the well-being of the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution, one can undertake the same exercise to understand the incidence, intensity, and severity of fiscal losses and gains in the subpopulation at the bottom of the distribution.

This paper presents an empirical illustration of how the new measures of fiscal losses and gains could be used, using the 2014 household consumption data of Niger. The results show that the experience of the prefiscal poor with the fiscal system is overall better than that of the prefiscal nonpoor in Niger. Looking at fiscal losses, we find that both the incidence and the intensity of fiscal losses are higher in the subpopulation of the prefiscal nonpoor. This is also observed by analyzing the population by the gender and the area of residence of the head of household.

Regarding fiscal gains, the results indicate that the prefiscal poor benefitted more from the fiscal system, with an incidence and an intensity of fiscal gains of 72 percent and 0.17, respectively, compared to 63 percent and 0.09 for the prefiscal nonpoor in Niger.

Finally, when the current method of measuring fiscal gains is contrasted with the new measures proposed in this paper, the findings reveal that the former method is clearly incomplete. Indeed, according to the current measures used in the literature, fiscal gains would be found to be much higher in rural than in urban areas. Yet, following the new measures we propose, the incidence and the intensity of fiscal gains were both higher in urban areas. Moreover, considering the subpopulation of prefiscal poor alone, or the subpopulation of the prefiscal nonpoor alone, the incidence and the intensity of fiscal gains were still higher in urban areas.

Section 2 of this paper describes the current practices in the fiscal incidence literature, and demonstrates their limitations in capturing fiscal impoverishment and fiscal gains. Section 3 defines the new measures of fiscal losses and gains proposed in this paper. Section 4 describes the empirical illustration from Niger that was used. Section 5 discusses the usefulness of this approach over the current one used in the literature, especially in comparing various fiscal reforms and 3