Contextual usage proves---redistribution stems from a disparity between distributions and taxations.
Nicola McEwen & Bettina Petersohn 14, McEwen is Professor of Politics at the University of Edinburgh and Associate Director of the Scottish Centre on Constitutional Change; Petersohn is Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Edinburgh and a member of the Scottish Centre on Constitutional Change, “Insights from the border between Sweden and Denmark,” Scottish Centre on Constitutional Change, PDF uploaded on 5/20/19, last date cited 2014, https://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/sites/default/files/migrated/papers/Spotlight%20on%20borders_Sweden-Denmark_FINAL.pdf
Following OECD rules, the 1983 Nordic multilateral treaty ensured that employees’ income would only be taxed by the country of employment. An additional bilateral protocol between Sweden and Denmark included a mechanism for compensating both countries for the loss of tax revenue from residents who commute across the border. However, the substance of this agreement is controversial in Sweden. At a national level, it has been argued that the resources transferred are insufficient. Within Sweden, the system of fiscal redistribution means that the affected region, Skåne, does not benefit from the transferred funds in spite of shouldering the responsibility to provide extensive public services for residents paying income taxes across the border.