Here is an interesting angle from which we can look at the labour markets. Suppose the cost of labour for an hour of work goes up 1% - due to an earnings increase or benefits rise. What does a worker get to keep out of this?
The higher the number is, the greater is the incentive to supply labour post wage/earnings or employer social security tax increases. The lower it is, the lesser are the incentives to work in the face of rising earnings or social security contributions.
Ex-ante, we would expect Ireland to see significantly higher returns to workers efforts from rising earnings and/or social security (PRSI) contributions by employers (reduced burden on employees and higher expected future benefits of PRSI funding). This, however, is not true.
Here are few charts from the latest OECD data set - for 2009, so not reflective of the Budget 2010 changes in taxes.
OECD defines the main parameter under consideration as: "Net income is calculated as gross earnings minus personal income tax and employees' social security contributions family benefits. The increase reported [in charts below] represents a form of elasticity. In a proportional tax system the plus elasticity would equal 1. The more progressive the system at these income levels, the lower is the elasticity."
Now, as you look at these charts, remember, the Irish Times crowd love droning on about the lack of 'progressive' tax system in Ireland.
First chart shows single person returns to 1% increase in labour costs with 3 sub-groups identified by their earnings:

Clearly, single people in Ireland have little incentives to supply more labour in response to an increase in their earnings. Alternatively, we do have a severely progressive system of taxation for labour when it comes to single individuals. Actually, for a single person earning 100% of average wage, Ireland is second to Hungary in the OECD in terms of progressivity of our labour income taxes. That's right - we have second lowest incentives to supply more labour (or in other words, we keep second lowest amount of added cost of labour in our pockets) in the entire OECD. For a higher earners (167% of AW) the picture is not much better - we are actually fourth from the bottom of the OECD league (or 4th highest degree of progressivity).
Now on to families with 2 kids:

Now on to comparing single person with no children and a family with 2 children:

What if we take lower earning individuals for the above comparison?

But does having children actually help or penalises working households? Take a look below:

Let me summarise the data in a handy table:

- labour income taxation is significantly more progressive (in 7 out of 8 categories of earners it is more progressive than OECD average, 5 out of 8 than EU15 average and 5 out of 8 than advanced economies average)
- labour income taxation is significantly more restrictive of incentives to supply labour in response to higher earnings than the OECD or EU15 average
1 comment:
no one wants to do overtime in our workplace due to the extra tax that would be levied..
Post a Comment