IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/12201.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Effect of Taxes on Efficiency and Growth

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Feldstein

Abstract

This nontechnical paper discusses the adverse effects of high marginal tax rates on labor income and on investment income. It explains that the deadweight loss of a tax on labor income depends on the response of taxable income and not just the change in labor supply. An across the board increase in personal tax rates involves a deadweight loss of 76 cents per dollar of revenue and only collects about two-thirds of the revenue implied by a "static" calculation. A tax on investment income brings a deadweight loss even if household saving does not respond to taxes and the net rate of return. What matters is the response of future consumption. The tax on investment income is also effectively a tax on labor supply because current work effort produces income that will be spent on future consumption and the tax on investment income reduces the future consumption that results from more work today. An appendix shows for a simple log utility case that the tax on labor income has a smaller deadweight loss than a tax on investment income with the same present value of revenue. There is a further discussion of the various ways in which capital income taxes distort economic activity.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Feldstein, 2006. "The Effect of Taxes on Efficiency and Growth," NBER Working Papers 12201, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:12201
    Note: PE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12201.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:aly:journl:202076 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Andreas Bergh & Magnus Henrekson, 2011. "Government Size And Growth: A Survey And Interpretation Of The Evidence," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(5), pages 872-897, December.
    3. Stähler, Nikolai, 2019. "Who benefits from using property taxes to finance a labor tax wedge reduction?," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    4. Steven J. Davis & Magnus Henrekson, 2010. "Economic Performance and Market Work Activity in Sweden After the Crisis of the Early 1990s," NBER Chapters, in: Reforming the Welfare State: Recovery and Beyond in Sweden, pages 225-252, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Strohner Ludwig & Berger Johannes & Thomas Tobias, 2019. "Sekt oder Selters? – Ökonomische Folgen der Reformzurückhaltung bei der Beendigung des Solidaritätszuschlags," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 19(4), pages 313-330, February.
    6. Milena Mathé & Gaetan Nicodeme & Savino Rua, 2015. "Tax shifts," Taxation Papers 59, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    7. James R. Hines Jr., 2007. "Taxing Consumption and Other Sins," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(1), pages 49-68, Winter.
    8. Raj Chetty, 2009. "Is the Taxable Income Elasticity Sufficient to Calculate Deadweight Loss? The Implications of Evasion and Avoidance," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 31-52, August.
    9. Sarah Nizamani, 2020. "Higher Taxes Reduce Economic Growth: Overwhelming International Evidence," PIDE Knowledge Brief 2020:14, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.
    10. Ferede, Ergete & Dahlby, Bev, 2012. "The Impact of Tax Cuts on Economic Growth: Evidence From the Canadian Provinces," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 65(3), pages 563-594, September.
    11. Tweneboah Senzu, Emmanuel & Ndebugri, Haruna, 2018. "The economic evidence in the relationship between corporate tax and private investment in Ghana," MPRA Paper 84729, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Salvador Barrios, 2020. "Taxation and growth: Why does it matter and how can it be analysed?," Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 42(4), pages 366-384, December.
    13. Berger, Johannes & Graf, Nikolaus & Koch, Philipp & Strohner, Ludwig & Thomas, Tobias, 2019. "Wirtschaftsstandort stärken, mehr Wohlstand und Beschäftigung erreichen," Policy Notes 36, EcoAustria – Institute for Economic Research.
    14. Strohner Ludwig & Berger Johannes & Thomas Tobias, 2018. "Sekt oder Selters? – Ökonomische Folgen der Reformzurückhaltung bei der Beendigung des Solidaritätszuschlags," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 19(4), pages 313-330, December.
    15. Magnus Reif & Mewael F. Tesfaselassie & Maik H. Wolters, 2021. "Technological Growth and Hours in the Long Run: Theory and Evidence," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(352), pages 1016-1053, October.
    16. Roca, Jerónimo & Barreix, Alberto, 2007. "Strengthening a fiscal pillar: the Uruguayan dual income tax," Revista CEPAL, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), August.
    17. Bielecki, Marcin & Stähler, Nikolai, 2022. "Labor Tax Reductions In Europe: The Role Of Property Taxation," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 419-451, March.
    18. Strohner, Ludwig & Thomas, Tobias, 2019. "Mehr Wachstum, Wohlstand und Beschäftigung: Ökonomische Effekte der Steuerreform 2020-23," Policy Notes 32, EcoAustria – Institute for Economic Research.
    19. Berger, Johannes & Strohner, Ludwig & Thomas, Tobias, 2019. "Mehr Beschäftigung und Wohlstand durch Steuerreform erreichen," Policy Notes 29, EcoAustria – Institute for Economic Research.
    20. Mathur, Aparna & Morris, Adele C., 2014. "Distributional effects of a carbon tax in broader U.S. fiscal reform," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 326-334.
    21. Margit Schratzenstaller-Altzinger, 2006. "Teilstudie 12: Wachstumsimpulse durch die öffentliche Hand," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 27451.
    22. Boris I. Alekhin, 2020. "Tax Smoothing in Russia," Finansovyj žhurnal — Financial Journal, Financial Research Institute, Moscow 125375, Russia, issue 2, pages 9-24, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H2 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue

    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:nbr:nberwo:12201. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.