Tax Rates and the Firm

December 27, 2017 Leave a comment

Congress just passed a tax code reform reducing tax rates for firms. Firms announce they will increase the minimum wage rate that they pay workers. What’s the connection between these two events?

Tax Rates and Factor Productivity

Econ 101 students are told a very simple story about the behavior of firms, namely they are told that firms want to maximize profits when they choose their inputs in production. This isn’t literally true but it is a simple story designed to illustrate insights about labor and capital demand and how they generate the demand for inputs in factor (labor and capital) markets. That story leads to the condition

Marginal Revenue = Marginal Costs

for inputs like labor and capital used to produce output. Marginal revenue in this simple story is not taxed but suppose that it is. Then we would amend the story to state that

After-Tax Marginal Revenue = Marginal Costs

which is similar but now the condition recognizes that the government taxes away part of the marginal revenue earned by the firm when using labor and capital. Both of these conditions can be used to generate the demand for inputs in production. Read more…


RIP Individual Mandate

December 21, 2017 Leave a comment

The tax bill recently voted out of Congress eliminates the individual mandate which was one component of Obamacare. One politician was quoted as saying that this feature of the tax bill is the beginning of the end of Obamacare. It is reasonable to ask if this is true and, I will argue that this is true, although it may be for reasons different from the opinions of this politician.

I have written previously that one of the many flaws in the design of Obamacare is guaranteed issue, the feature which lets people sign up for Obamacare and drop it after receiving medical services. Obviously this aspect of Obamacare is incompatible with the profitability of insurance companies and it is one reason why insurance companies have left the Obamacare insurance exchanges. The elimination of the individual mandate means that fewer good risks, largely those who are young, will buy health insurance on the exchanges, which implies that the applicant pool will contain fewer good risks. That means more losses for the insurance companies selling the insurance and, as a result, higher premiums and/or fewer companies selling the insurance. In other words, the “death spiral” will accelerate to some extent which leads ultimately to the collapse of the Obamacare exchanges.

I really can’t think of a better example of the perils of central planning. And it also reveals what happens when one political party passes a new entitlement program without the support of the other political party.

Who Pays U.S. Income Taxes?

December 4, 2017 Leave a comment

My last post used 2015 tax return data from the IRS to see if “Bernie Care” could be financed using the tax payments of the “rich.”  Using that tax return data, it is also instructive to see just who is paying the income taxes collected in the U.S. The table below is constructed to show how much rich people pay into the income tax system and, obviously, people may differ regarding the definition of a rich person. So I picked out an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $200K and above as an arbitrary, but not unreasonable, definition of the rich for use in the table. For each class of AGI, entries in the table are the ratio of taxes paid to total taxes collected (called the Tax Share) and the ratio of the number of returns to the total number of returns (called the Return Share). Regarding the return shares, the zero entries mean that, rounding up to two digits, the calculated ratio is much less than one percent.

Adjusted Gross Income Tax Share Return Share
$200,000 under $500,000 0.21 0.036
$500,000 under $1,000,000 0.11 0.01
$1,000,000 under $1,500,000 0.05 0
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000 0.03 0
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000 0.07 0
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000 0.04 0
$10,000,000 or more 0.10 0
Total 0.59 0.05

The table reveals that about 60 percent of the taxes paid are coming from those with an AGI of $200K and above. Only about 5 percent of the returns being filed in 2016 for the 2015 tax year provided this tax revenue. Thus a small number of returns provided more than half of the U.S. income tax revenue on returns filed in 2016 for 2015 AGI.

Since the personal income tax system provides the lion’s share of federal government tax revenue, this table provides one possible basis for the claims, often found in the media, that the rich pay the lion’s share of the funds used to finance the activities of government.

Can the Rich Pay for “Bernie-Care?”

November 2, 2017 Leave a comment

In an earlier post, I reported the results of an Urban Institute study which attempted to estimate the cost of Medicare-for-All or “Bernie-Care,” the latter name given by some people to a Medicare-for-All system because Senator Bernie Sanders has advocated this plan. The Urban Institute study estimated the cost of such a plan to be between $2.0 Trillion and $2.5 Trillion. Here I ask if the rich, however defined, can pay for such a new medical insurance system.

Before going further, it should be recognized that a definition of the rich is inherently arbitrary and so the only sensible way to address this issue is to report a range of income classes and let the reader decide which one is relevant. That is what I will do in what follows below. The data comes from Table 3 of the IRS tables reporting statistics on the U.S. income tax and I will confine the results to the latest year available from the IRS, 2014. Read more…

The Cost of “Bernie Care”

September 25, 2017 1 comment

Senator Bernie Sanders has expressed support for and formally introduced a plan for a health insurance system to be run by the federal government which has been called “Bernie Care” in some media outlets.  A number of other Democratic politicians have also expressed support for this idea. This is quite likely to be the Democratic Party response to the problems with Obamacare. Indeed Barack Obama expressed his own support for this national health insurance program before his first election as President (I saw the videotape of his statements at that time) but he claimed the country was not yet ready for such a health insurance program. What would such a program cost? The Urban Institute has published a study to answer this question. Read more…

Tax-Income Ratios in G7 Countries

September 13, 2017 Leave a comment

In a previous post, I provided data on the ratio of tax receipts to GDP in the U.S. It was shown that the U.S. ratio fluctuated around 20 percent of GDP since 1960. Here I provide data on the remaining G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom) which illustrates how different the U.S. is from many European economies. Below is a graph of the data drawn from the OECD (the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) covering 1995 to 2015.

The graph shows that tax-income ratios are much higher in the six G7 countries than they are

in the U.S. In 1995, the tax shares ranged from a low of 27 percent in Japan to a high of 43 percent in France. By 2015,  the tax shares range from 32 percent in Japan to 48 percent in France. In short, none of the six countries has a tax share as low as the U.S.

The Entitlements Crisis

The aging of the U.S. population is increasing the transfer payments made by the U.S. government and the obvious question is how the U.S. will finance these payments. It is unlikely that this can be done by borrowing (it is doubtful that the U.S. can borrow trillions of dollars each year) so this suggests that the tax-income ratios in Europe are what may be imposed in the U.S. as the entitlements crisis unfolds. This is what is meant by the charge that many politicians want to turn the U.S. into a European welfare state. What remains to be seen is if the U.S. taxpayers will agree to such a historically large increase in the tax-income ratio in the U.S.

Cognitive Dissonance

August 28, 2017 Leave a comment

The media recently reported the firing of a Google employee who wrote a document expressing his views on the political correctness that, he believed, permeates the work environment at Google. I began thinking about the political correctness that I see which, among other things, maintains the position that men and women are the same intellectually. This view about gender differences seems to me to be an example of cognitive dissonance, a definition of which from Wikipedia is given below.

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values.

So cognitive dissonance refers to the possibility that people hold logically inconsistent positions. Here is why political correctness reveals cognitive dissonance.

The Economist, a well-known news magazine, published an article some years ago reporting the results of a brain study directed by a female physician at Stanford University. The study was designed to measure brain function. Specifically, the work attempted to measure the differences, if any, between men and women in processing verbal information. Interestingly, the director of the study was advised by colleagues, some of whom were no doubt male, that she should not conduct this study since the results from it could offend people. But the project was done anyway despite these cautionary comments. The results of the study were that women process verbal information much more efficiently than men. This may not be the final word on the subject. There may be other research which subsequently challenged these findings but imagine for the moment that this result is correct because it has survived replication efforts. Note what this finding could explain. Read more…

Economics One

A blog by John B. Taylor

The Grumpy Economist

One economist's views on economic policy.

The Blog

The latest news on and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: