IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_11350.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Tax System Design, Tax Reform, and Labor Supply

Author

Listed:
  • Katharina Pfeil
  • Matthias Kasper
  • Sarah Necker
  • Lars P. Feld

Abstract

This study examines how tax system design and reform affect labor supply. We conduct an online experiment with 522 participants to assess labor responses to tax reforms that introduce or remove a notch, affecting after-tax income at either the lower or upper end of the income distribution. Our findings indicate asymmetric responses to tax reform as well as substantial heterogeneity at the individual level. In particular, we find an increase in labor supply in response to a tax reform only when the reform reduces the tax burden at the upper end of the income distribution. While, in the aggregate, labor supply adjusts on the extensive and intensive margins, we also find strong evidence of heterogeneity in individual responses, showing that the labor response is primarily driven by individuals directly affected by the reform. We examine the role of misperceptions at the individual level as well as fairness considerations in explaining these results.

Suggested Citation

  • Katharina Pfeil & Matthias Kasper & Sarah Necker & Lars P. Feld, 2024. "Tax System Design, Tax Reform, and Labor Supply," CESifo Working Paper Series 11350, CESifo.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_11350
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp11350.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Viktor Steiner & Florian Wakolbinger, 2013. "Wage subsidies, work incentives, and the reform of the Austrian welfare system," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 259-285, May.
    2. Andreas R. Kostøl & Andreas S. Myhre, 2021. "Labor Supply Responses to Learning the Tax and Benefit Schedule," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(11), pages 3733-3766, November.
    3. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    4. Raj Chetty & Emmanuel Saez, 2013. "Teaching the Tax Code: Earnings Responses to an Experiment with EITC Recipients," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 1-31, January.
    5. Doerrenberg, Philipp & Duncan, Denvil & Löffler, Max, 2023. "Asymmetric labor-supply responses to wage changes: Experimental evidence from an online labor market," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    6. Blumkin, Tomer & Ruffle, Bradley J. & Ganun, Yosef, 2012. "Are income and consumption taxes ever really equivalent? Evidence from a real-effort experiment with real goods," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 1200-1219.
    7. Nicholas S. Souleles & Jonathan A. Parker & David S. Johnson, 2006. "Household Expenditure and the Income Tax Rebates of 2001," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1589-1610, December.
    8. Claudia Keser & David Masclet & Claude Montmarquette, 2020. "Labor Supply, Taxation, and the Use of Tax Revenues: A Real-Effort Experiment in Canada, France, and Germany," Public Finance Review, , vol. 48(6), pages 714-750, November.
    9. Alwine Mohnen & Kathrin Pokorny & Dirk Sliwka, 2008. "Transparency, Inequity Aversion, and the Dynamics of Peer Pressure in Teams: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(4), pages 693-720, October.
    10. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Lorenz Goette & David Huffman, 2011. "Reference Points and Effort Provision," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 470-492, April.
    11. Li Liu & Ben Lockwood & Miguel Almunia & Eddy H. F. Tam, 2021. "VAT Notches, Voluntary Registration, and Bunching: Theory and U.K. Evidence," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 103(1), pages 151-164, March.
    12. Jochen Hundsdoerfer & Eva Matthaei, 2022. "Gender Discriminatory Taxes, Fairness Perception, and Labor Supply," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 78(1-2), pages 156-207.
    13. Youssef Benzarti & Luisa Wallossek, 2024. "Rising Income Tax Complexity," National Tax Journal, University of Chicago Press, vol. 77(1), pages 143-173.
    14. Martin Fochmann & Joachim Weimann, 2013. "The Effects of Tax Salience and Tax Experience on Individual Work Efforts in a Framed Field Experiment," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 69(4), pages 511-542, December.
    15. Pántya, József & Kovács, Judit & Kogler, Christoph & Kirchler, Erich, 2016. "Work performance and tax compliance in flat and progressive tax systems," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 262-273.
    16. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Mavrokonstantis, Panos & Seibold, Arthur, 2022. "Bunching and Adjustment Costs: Evidence from Cypriot Tax Reforms," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    18. Doerrenberg, Philipp & Duncan, Denvil, 2014. "Experimental evidence on the relationship between tax evasion opportunities and labor supply," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 48-70.
    19. Henrik J. Kleven & Mazhar Waseem, 2013. "Using Notches to Uncover Optimization Frictions and Structural Elasticities: Theory and Evidence from Pakistan," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 128(2), pages 669-723.
    20. Eriksson, Tor & Poulsen, Anders & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2009. "Feedback and incentives: Experimental evidence," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 679-688, December.
    21. Ned Augenblick & Muriel Niederle & Charles Sprenger, 2015. "Editor's Choice Working over Time: Dynamic Inconsistency in Real Effort Tasks," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(3), pages 1067-1115.
    22. Raj Chetty & John N. Friedman & Emmanuel Saez, 2013. "Using Differences in Knowledge across Neighborhoods to Uncover the Impacts of the EITC on Earnings," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(7), pages 2683-2721, December.
    23. di Porto, Edoardo & Garibaldi, Pietro & Mastrobuoni, Giovanni & Naticchioni, Paolo, 2022. "The Perverse Effect of Flexible Work Arrangements on Informality," IZA Discussion Papers 15794, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    24. Atif Mian & Amir Sufi, 2012. "The Effects of Fiscal Stimulus: Evidence from the 2009 Cash for Clunkers Program," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(3), pages 1107-1142.
    25. Raj Chetty, 2012. "Bounds on Elasticities With Optimization Frictions: A Synthesis of Micro and Macro Evidence on Labor Supply," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 969-1018, May.
    26. Martin Fochmann & Joachim Weimann & Kay Blaufus & Jochen Hundsdoerfer & Dirk Kiesewetter, 2013. "Net Wage Illusion in a Real-Effort Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 115(2), pages 476-484, April.
    27. Sumit Agarwal & Chunlin Liu & Nicholas S. Souleles, 2007. "The Reaction of Consumer Spending and Debt to Tax Rebates-Evidence from Consumer Credit Data," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(6), pages 986-1019, December.
    28. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    29. Panos Mavrokonstantis & Arthur Seibold, 2022. "Bunching and Adjustment Costs: Evidence from Cypriot Tax Reforms," CESifo Working Paper Series 9773, CESifo.
    30. Johannes Abeler & Simon Jäger, 2015. "Complex Tax Incentives," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 1-28, August.
    31. Marcus Giamattei & Kyanoush Seyed Yahosseini & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2020. "LIONESS Lab: a free web-based platform for conducting interactive experiments online," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 95-111, June.
    32. Kessler, Judd B. & Norton, Michael I., 2016. "Tax aversion in labor supply," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 15-28.
    33. Dickinson, David L, 1999. "An Experimental Examination of Labor Supply and Work Intensities," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(4), pages 638-670, October.
    34. Gibson, John & Norton, Douglas A. & White, Robert A., 2019. "The backward hustle: An experimental investigation of tax code notches and labor supply," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 432-445.
    35. Tazhitdinova, Alisa, 2020. "Do only tax incentives matter? Labor supply and demand responses to an unusually large and salient tax break," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    36. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:6:p:461-466 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna Esslinger & Katharina Pfeil & Lars P. Feld, 2024. "Asymmetric Labor Supply Responses to Taxation," CESifo Working Paper Series 11317, CESifo.
    2. Johannes Becker & Jonas Fooken & Melanie Steinhoff, 2019. "Behavioral Effects of Withholding Taxes on Labor Supply," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(4), pages 1417-1440, October.
    3. Andreas R. Kostøl & Andreas S. Myhre, 2021. "Labor Supply Responses to Learning the Tax and Benefit Schedule," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(11), pages 3733-3766, November.
    4. Sausgruber, Rupert & Sonntag, Axel & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2021. "Disincentives from redistribution: evidence on a dividend of democracy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    5. Haeckl, Simone & Sausgruber, Rupert & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2024. "Work motivation and teams," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    6. Doerrenberg, Philipp & Duncan, Denvil, 2014. "Experimental evidence on the relationship between tax evasion opportunities and labor supply," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 48-70.
    7. James Alm & Carolyn J. Bourdeaux, 2013. "Applying Behavioral Economics to the Public Sector," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 206(3), pages 91-134, September.
    8. Tomoharu Mori & Hirofumi Kurokawa & Fumio Ohtake, 2022. "Labor Supply Reaction to Wage Cuts and Tax Increases: A Real-Effort Experiment," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 78(3), pages 362-377.
    9. Haeckl, Simone & Sausgruber, Rupert & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2024. "Work motivation and teams," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    10. Erkal, Nisvan & Gangadharan, Lata & Koh, Boon Han, 2018. "Monetary and non-monetary incentives in real-effort tournaments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 528-545.
    11. Avram, Silvia, 2015. "Benefit losses loom larger than taxes: the effects of framing and loss aversion on behavioural responses to taxes and benefits," ISER Working Paper Series 2015-17, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    12. Nyman, Pär & Aggeborn, Linuz & Ahlskog, Rafael, 2023. "Filling in the blanks: How does information about the Swedish EITC affect labour supply?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    13. Werner, Peter & Riedl, Arno, 2018. "The role of experiments for policy design," Research Memorandum 022, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    14. Nascimento, Marcos & Mattos, Enlinson, 2023. "Do lower taxes reduce the size of the firms? Evidence from micro-entrepreneurs in Brazil," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    15. Kessler, Judd B. & Norton, Michael I., 2016. "Tax aversion in labor supply," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 15-28.
    16. Simon Gächter & Lingbo Huang & Martin Sefton, 2016. "Combining “real effort” with induced effort costs: the ball-catching task," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 687-712, December.
    17. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán-González & Eric Schniter, 2015. "Why real leisure really matters: incentive effects on real effort in the laboratory," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 284-301, June.
    18. Lu, Kelin, 2022. "Overreaction to capital taxation in saving decisions," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    19. Marcelo Bergolo & Gabriel Burdin & Mauricio De Rosa & Matias Giaccobasso & Martín Leites, 2019. "Tax bunching at the Kink in the Presence of Low Capacity of Enforcement: Evidence From Uruguay," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 19-05, Instituto de Economía - IECON.
    20. Gill, David & Prowse, Victoria, 2019. "Measuring costly effort using the slider task," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 1-9.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    tax system design; tax reform; notches; labor supply; online experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J20 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - General
    • J22 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Time Allocation and Labor Supply
    • H24 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies
    • H30 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - General
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_11350. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.