Who spent the 2001 Bush tax rebate?

Do tax rebate such as those implemented at various times by the Bush II administration work? Measuring this is not obvious. Previous studies have typically exploited the timing of the receipt of the rebate checks to see how expenses have changed. But most people have anticipated these payments, thus the marginal propensity to consume is mismeasured: it measures the propensity to consume due to short-term liquidity considerations beyond the consumption response from the announcement of the program.

Greg Kaplan and Giovanni Violante go a step further in this analysis and build a model that replicates the measurements found in the literature and the large share of hand-to-mouth households using an economy of liquid and illiquid assets with transaction costs. They define hand-to-mouth households as those who hold less that half their periodic pay in liquid assets. That seems very shaky to measure, as the timing of the relevant survey matters a lot here. But assuming there is no systematic error, they then extrapolate through the model what the response from the announcement of the rebate should have been. This adds 7-8% to the marginal propensity to consume. Interestingly, this come in large part form rich household who have only little liquid wealth because their assets are mostly in real estate and retirements funds. An important consequence of this is that larger tax rebates would have little impact, as they would make it more interesting to bear the costs of putting them into illiquid wealth. In fact, the marginal propensity to consume could even turn negative.

Tax reform: Politics has more weight than Economics

One of the great frustration as an economist is to know what is best and being told it is "politically unfeasible." And why is it typically unfeasible? Because the "right" people do not like it, because it sounds complicated, and because populists would have a feast opposing it, or a combination of the three. How much is this frustration really justified?



Micael Castanheira, Gaëtan Nicodème and Paola Profeta look at the reform of labor income taxation in Europe and find that it is very consistent with the theory that politics shapes taxes more than economists. Indeed, the size of the ruling party or coalition is the main factor: instead of a compromise, which would likely be close to the outcome a social planner to choose, the rulers select what is best for them without regard for the others, or just enough regard to prevent a revolt (that is my interpretation). And then people blame economists when things do not go right.



I'll go weep in a corner now.

How to tax addictions

Addiction is most often a problem of self-control. If one is not capable of factoring in the future consequences of one's actions, one way to make this is taken into account is to distort prices appropriately. This is what taxes (and subsidies) are good at. While we know rather well how to design taxes on externalities born by others or the community, the case is more difficult for externalities inflicted on future selves.



Luca Bossi, Paul Calcott and Vladimir Petkov get on the case i the context of externalities, self-control issues and imperfect competition, as applicable for cigarettes and their highly concentrated industry. They also implement time-consistent taxes to accommodate the addiction, which means that people or government would not want to deviate from the social optimum. Taxes are thus state dependent and described by a rule. One important result is that combining addiction and imperfect competition leads to lower taxes that previously reported, because prices are already higher to start with if providers are oligopolistic. Were some drugs to be legalized, one has thus to keep in mind that the new market structure matters in the design of the new taxes.

Does it make sense to subsidize biofuels?

Ina relatively short time, biofuels have become remarkably popular, especially as an additive to regular petroleum based fuel. This is at least in part due to massive subsidies from the US to fuel and corn producers. As biofuels compete with food, this has lead to major price increases for corn and sugar, with adverse consequences for importing countries. This begs the question: is it actually a good idea to subsidize biofuels? I mentioned previously that it is preferable to tax other energy products rather than subsidize alternative energies (1, 2), but let us revisit this issue.

Subhayu Bandyopadhyay, Sumon Bhaumik and Howard Wall use a general equilibrium trade model and confirm that if there is a Pigovian tax on conventional fuels, subsidies are not needed. But if the Pigovian tax is not available or too low (as is the case in the US), then a subsidy for biofuels makes sense, But if the country in question is large, there are other implications through increased worldwide demand for food. In that case, a food exporter wants to subsidize biofuels and tax conventional fuels. A food importing country would only want to subsidize biofuels if the pollution reduction effect is large enough.

Hector Nuñez, Hayri Önal, Madhu Khanna, Xiaoguang Chen and Haixiao Huang look more specifically at the interaction of policies in the US and Brazil, the two largest producers of biofuels. Indeed, the US imposes a special tariff on the importation of biofuels, in particular the more advanced sugarcane based one from Brazil. Brazil is also the largest producer and exporter of beef. The paper uses a multi-country, multi-good model, unfortunately with a partial equilibrium, but it takes into account possible crop rotations and different categories of land. It concludes that eliminating the tariffs would significantly reduce biofuel production in the US, with the latter importing biofuels from Brazil and exporting corn. While this reduces producer welfare compared to the status quo, it increases consumer welfare. Given the political system in the US, guess what will happen.

Risk-free rate tax deductions

The Norwegian shareholder tax is rather peculiar in that it allows the deduction of risk-free interest income, thus only taxing the risky portion of capital income. This is rather counter-intuitive, as one usually wants to encourage risk-taking in the form of venture capital or plain entrepreneurship. But the idea in Norway was that this would make financing of firms neutral with respect to the source of funds.

Jan Södersten and Tobias Lindhe argue this line of reasoning is not appropriate for an open economy like Norway and 56% foreign ownership. Indeed, one needs to understand as well who is investing. Indeed, taxes are capitalized differently by different people. Indeed, for an economy that is so open, returns are largely determined on international markets, What is then determinant for Norway is the after-tax return, and this is where new distortion enter the picture: large firms are financed on international markets, and the after-tax rate is set abroad. Small firms that finance themselves domestically have provide similar after-tax returns, but domestic investors face different tax rules than their foreign counterparts. This is where new distortions can enter, and severe under-investment in domestic firms could be the consequence. But for a rather closed economy, this seems a good idea, especially as it is a neat way to prevent under-reporting of income.

Higher local sale tax leads to more local retail activity

Many US states are currently tempted to increase sales taxes in order to overcome revenue short falls. While they should really be thinking about introducing a value-added tax instead, in the short run it is useful to study what the consequences of such a tax increase would be, not just on revenue, but also on economic activity and its composition.

Daria Burnes, David Neumark and Michelle White study the impact of higher sales taxes on retail employment at the local level. You think that higher taxes lead retailers to flee, but one should not forget that local authorities have other tools, in particular zoning. They find that in fact that locations with higher sales taxes have more retail employment, and that is because authorities than make greater efforts to attract big retail outlets. The downside is that manufacturing employment is getting crowded out by these efforts.

The role of independent fiscal watchdogs

As discussed a few days ago, politicians have a rational tendency to lie. One remedy against this is to improve information. One area where political lies hurt the most is when politicians distort (or blatantly ignore) the consequences of their actions or policy proposals. The starkest recent examples come from the second Bush Administration with the Iraq war ("it pays for itself with Iraqi oil") and the prescription-drug plan for the elderly. How do you improve the information of the public in this regard? And you may also want to inform politicians as well as they may be ignorant or easily influenced (many are lawyers after all, and certainly not economists who can gain their own insights). Finally, you want to redress short-sighted politicians and find a way to commit them to long-term policies and outcomes. One way is to institute some fiscal watchdogs. There are plenty of think tanks willing to take this role, but they usually have some vested interests in the debate and rely on funds from interest groups to function. The fiscal watchdog thus needs to be independently funded.

Lars Calmfors makes the case for independent fiscal watchdogs in a report to the Prime Minister of Finland. He forcefully argues that the rules vs. discretion problem of central banks is just as valid for fiscal authorities, if not more as political terms are typically shorter than those of central bank governors. The ideal would be to have an independent fiscal authority, but this is clearly not feasible, so an independent fiscal watchdog is the next best solution. The paper focuses on the example of the Swedish Fiscal Policy Council, but there are others. They work as long as people are willing to listen to them. One example where it does not seem to work as well as before in the United States, where the Congressional Budget Office is not viewed as being credible due to the general attitude against scientific evidence in the country, and due to partisan bickering. But beyond criticizing fiscal policy, fiscal watchdogs can help with the formulation and enforcement of fiscal rules, like the German one that forces the government to act once deficits exceed some level.

In any case, this paper is a good read for anybody who is worried about the unsustainability of fiscal practices and who wants politicians to think harder about the consequences of their actions.

Another French experiment with work hours going bad

The French have a special knack in messing with labor markets. The last spectacular failure was the law that limited almost everyone's workweek to 35 hours in the hope this would spread the total hours to more people, lead to more employment and solve a chronic unemployment problem. Well, it did not and lead to loss of productivity and ridiculed controls. And I doubt many economists were surprised. With the election of Sarkozy, this law was quickly scraped and an equally ridiculous law from the other end of the spectrum was introduced.

Pierre Cahuc and Stéphane Carcillo discuss the French policy of making overtime work tax exempt. One can really question what Sarkozy had in mind with this policy, as the adverse consequences are all too obvious. First what is overtime is easily manipulated, and suddenly many regular hours became overtime hours. Second, if the intend was to increase the total hours of work, it was bound to fail if most of the overtime is coming from workalcoholics who would work no matter what the wage is. This is why you need to tax them instead of subsidizing them. And Cahuc and Carcillo find that indeed total hours hardly changed. So what all this amounted to is a generous lump-sum subsidy to highly-skilled workalcoholics. Great.

A driving median voter reduces gas taxes

If you own a car, you are not too happy when gas taxes go up: it is more money out of you pocket, however you benefit from a reduction in congestion and lower pollution as long as this tax increase also implies a reduction in gas consumption. If you do not own a car, you would view positively the increase in gas taxes, as the state can now provide more services or reduce other taxes you may be paying. However, some goods with a high share of transportation costs may be become more expensive. Does this reasoning make sense in a political equilibrium, i.e., is the level of gas taxes determined by whether the median voter is a car driver or not?

Fay Dunkerley, Amihai Glazer and Stef Proost show that it does and figure out that in the OECD a car driving median voter leads to a gas tax that is 20% lower than a walking median voter. Of course any such estimate is fraught with endogeneity: the median voter is walking because the tax is high. To overcome this problem, the authors use a dynamic setup that takes into account when a median voter starts to drive.