28/1/2020: Federal Tax Revenues Over Time

Via the @SoberLook, WSJ's data / charts newsletter, a neat summary of changes in the U.S. federal taxation base over the years:

What does it tell us? In the 1940s-1960s, the share of excise, inheritance and other taxes, plus the share of corporation taxes in total federal tax revenues ranged above 30 percent, declining from around 45 percent in the 1940s to roughly 35-36 percent in the 1960s. Over the last decade, that share was around 14-15 percent. The burden of taxation, instead, has dramatically shifted onto labor income and personal income. This trend is forecast to worsen over the 2020s decade, with non-income taxes expecting to decline in their importance to around 12-13 percent of the total tax revenues.

It is worth noting that the benefits distribution has been also trending against current income earners, with a rising share of Government spending accruing to old-age support programs, social security payments and, of course, as usual - Pentagon.

Given these trends, it is hard to see how the politics of the younger electorate (growing role of the Millennials, GenXers and GenZers in voting) is going to be compatible with this situation. Likewise, given the likelihood for future shift in electoral politics against low corporation tax revenues share in total tax take in the U.S., it is hard to see how continued prosperity of the well-known corporate tax havens, including Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands et al, can be sustained either.

11/1/19: Capital Gains Tax: Human Capital vs Other Forms of Capital

This is exactly the source of policy-induced wealth inequality in the modern advanced economies: the disparity between labor income tax and capital gains tax that (1) incentivises accumulation of capital gains generating assets; (2) increases wealth inequality arising from non-meritocratic transfers (spousal and inheritance); and (3) reduces gains from meritocratic investment in human capital.

Now, factor this into tax-adjusted returns on various forms of capital: Intangible Capital returns are taxed at a corporate tax level at below the Physical Capital returns tax rates, which fall lower than the Capital Gains tax rate. Meanwhile, returns to the [intangible] Human Capital are taxed at the rates of higher margin Income tax rates. Go figure why wealth inequality is rising (as entrepreneurship is shrinking).

14/3/2016: Inheritance-Rich Social Disasters?

Using microdata from the Household Finance and Consumption Survey (HFCS), a recent research paper from the ECB examined “the role of inheritance, income and welfare state policies in explaining differences in household net wealth within and between euro area countries.”

Top of the line findings:

1) “About one third of the households in the 13 European countries we study report having received an inheritance, and these households have considerably higher net wealth than those which did not inherit.” Which is sort of material: in a democracy 1/3 of voters making their decisions based on inherited wealth can and (I would argue) does impose a cost on those who do not stand (do not expect) to inherit wealth. Examples of such mis-allocations? Take Ireland, where everything - from retirement to housing markets to childcare provision to education hours is predicated on transfers of income and / or wealth within the family. While those who stand to gain through this system cope well, those who stand to not gain through this familial wealth and income transfers system, stand to lose. Guess who the latter are? Of course: the poor (or those from the poor background, even if they are higher earners today) and the foreign-born.

2) “Regression analyses on households' relative wealth position show that, on average, having received an inheritance lifts a household by about 14 net wealth percentiles. At the same time, each additional percentile in the income distribution is associated with about 0.4 net wealth percentiles. These results are consistent across countries.” Which, in basic terms means that you have to work 2.5 times harder to achieve the same impact as inheritance for every point increase in inherited wealth. Merit, you say? Of course not: daddy’s money vastly outperforms, as far as financial returns go, own education, effort, aptitude etc… Though, of course, here’s a pesky bit: for all those pursuing equality and other nice social objectives, higher income taxes, of course, make it even less feasible for income (work) to catch up with inherited wealth. Which might explain why well-heeled (and often inept) folks of Dublin South are so much in favour of the ideas of raising income taxes, but are not exactly enthused about hiking inheritance taxes.

3) “Multilevel cross-country regressions show that the degree of welfare state spending across countries is negatively correlated with household net wealth.” Which, basically, says the utterly unsurprising: wealthy households don’t rely on social welfare. Doh, you’d say. But not quite. The “findings suggest that social services provided by the state are substitutes for private wealth accumulation and partly explain observed differences in levels of household net wealth across European countries. In particular, the effect of substitution relative to net wealth decreases with growing wealth levels. This implies that an increase in welfare state spending goes along with an increase -- rather than a decrease -- of observed wealth inequality.”

In other words, inheritance induces higher inequality in wealth. It compounds this effect by allocating inheritance without any sense of merit and at an indirect (policy) cost to those households that are not standing to inherit wealth. Which means that more inheritance-based is the given society, more wealth inequality you will get in it, and less merit in wealth allocation will result. Which, in turn implies you gonna pay for this with higher taxes (everyone will, except, of course, the really wealthy).

Next time you driving through, say Monkstown, check them out: the *daddy’s money* wandering around… they cost you, in tax, in higher charges for policy-related services, and in merit-less society.


Full paper here: Fessler, Pirmin and Schuerz, Martin, Private Wealth Across European Countries: The Role of Income, Inheritance and the Welfare State (September 22, 2015). ECB Working Paper No. 1847: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2664150

25/1/16: Nordic Model: Not Too Heavy Handed on Corporate Profits

Much of the tax debate nowadays has been around tax base erosion and corporate taxes. But the old issue of what to tax: capital or profits is still unresolved. One interesting myth, associated with this debate, is that Nordic countries run a more ‘balanced’ tax system that relies on corporate profit taxes and avoids the problem of so-called harmful tax competition commonly attributed to Anglo-Saxon models where, again allegedly, corporations are treated softly with low tax rates and more benign tax regimes.

Well, a myth is a myth. And a recent paper, titled “Taxing Mobile Capital and Profits: The Nordic Welfare States” by Guttorm Schjelderup (CESIFO WORKING PAPER NO. 5603 NOVEMBER 2015) goes in depth to dispel it.

Per author: “The Nordic countries have traditionally been characterized by an extensive welfare state, a homogenous population and labour force, and redistributive taxation. This has changed in recent years.”

First point of interest is WHY has it changed. Author attributes the change to

• Increased immigration, 
• Ageing population, and 
• “Competition for capital among countries”

These factors “…have put pressures on public finances and the welfare state. These changes can be attributed to the globalization process whereby national economies become more integrated. Economic integration takes place in terms of increasing factor mobility, in particular mobility of capital, and rising volumes of trade in goods and services.”

Now, we have our first lesson: if you run a globally-integrated economy, while you have a modern (aka post-baby boom society) you will see these three factors at play in your economy too. No one’s immune.

“An argument frequently used by political lobby groups is that with free capital mobility corporations shouldn't be taxed at all and that taxing investment income is actually bad for workers. The argument is that if you cut taxes on investment income, more investment is encouraged. More investment means people have more equipment and technology to work with, which should increase the productivity of labour and thus wages and economic growth. Put differently, a tax on mobile capital would lead to an outflow of capital that would cause wages to fall; effectively shifting the full burden of the tax on capital onto workers. It is then better to tax workers directly and levy a zero tax on capital.”

Ok, we’ve heard this before. But is it making any sense?

Per author: “The argument above relies on strong assumptions, among them that labour is immobile and cannot evade taxation, that there are no country specific rents, and that domestic firms are not owned in part by foreigners.” However,

• “If domestic firms, say, are partly owned by foreigners, taxing capital would imply that some of the tax burden is shifted onto foreigners and that part of the welfare state is then financed by foreigners. This alone may warrant a positive tax on investment capital.”
• “If industrial agglomeration is concentrated in one single country, a government may, through a positive source tax on capital, be able to exploit the locational rent created by agglomeration forces and thus increase welfare.”

More importantly, “the zero tax on capital result is also difficult to confirm empirically. Yagan (2014), for example, …finds that it caused zero change in corporate investment in U.S. unlisted firms and that it had no impact on employee compensation. It did, however, have an immediate impact on financial pay-outs to shareholders. Alstadsæter et al. (2015)… find that the Swedish 2006 dividend tax cut did not affect aggregate investment but that it affected the allocation of corporate investment. In particular, …relative to cash-rich firms, cash-constrained firms increased their investments after the dividend tax cut.”

Key, however, is that corporate tax acts as “…a “backstop” to the personal income tax. If a country abolished the corporate tax rate, wealthy individuals in particular would be given an incentive to reclassify their labour earnings as corporate income, typically using offshore corporate structures and escape tax. The corporate tax might also be needed to avoid excessive income shifting between labour income and capital income. Finally, the corporate tax also acts as a withholding tax on equity income earned by non-resident shareholders, who might otherwise escape taxation in the source country.”

Now onto evidence regarding evolution of tax regimes. 

“Countries throughout the world have reduced their corporate taxes in an effort to attract or retain corporate investments. The Nordic countries have pioneered what is commonly known as the dual income tax (DIT). It combines a flat tax rate on capital income with progressive taxation of labour income. One of the arguments in favor of the DIT is that it allows policy makers to lower the corporate tax rate to reduce the risk of capital flight, whilst at the same time tax distributed dividends to personal shareholders.”

But there are “challenges of taxing capital for small open economies. Although the corporate tax share of GDP in most countries is only around 3-4%, it is an important tax because it acts as a “backstop” for the personal tax rate. …The pressures of tax competition are exacerbated by tax planning and income shifting to low tax countries by multinationals. Studies show that multinationals pay less tax than domestic firms and this may give them a competitive edge over domestic firms. The long term effects may be changes in ownership structure that affect competition in markets and make the corporate tax base more tax sensitive. Profit shifting is undertaken through transfer pricing and thin capitalization (excessive debt).” Care to spot Irish trends here? Why, they are pretty obvious.

But back to the Nordics vs Anglo-Saxons arguments. Per paper, “It is interesting to note that the Nordic countries seem to have gone further in terms of abolishing redistributive capital taxes than countries traditionally associated with polices much less tuned to redistribution. Aaberge and Atkinson (2010) shown how income inequality at the top of the distribution has increased in Anglo-Saxon countries, whereas the same rise in top income shares was not experienced by Continental European countries. They find that the Norwegian and Swedish experience over the twentieth century is similar to the Anglo-Saxon countries in that top shares, and the concentration among top incomes have first fallen and then risen. Norway differs from Sweden in that that the top shares rose more sharply in the period 1990-2006. Between 1980 and 2004, for example, the share of the top 1 per cent more than doubled in Norway, but rose less than half in Sweden.”

What are the reasons for these trends?

“Several explanations have been put forward to explain why Norway sets itself apart. The implementation of the 1992 tax reform abolished the dividend tax and lead to a sharp increase in dividends and capital gains among the richest in Norway. Capital taxation in Sweden was less favourable. Substantial oil production in Norway started some 15 years before the rise in inequality, but could still be an explanatory factor due to constrained cash in this sector in the initial phase of production. Capital market reforms with liberalization of interest rates and an upturn in business cycles are also important factors that are hard to disentangle, but they certainly played a role.”

Social impact of tax-linked inequality? “Capital taxation also affects income mobility, and concerns about rising inequality have often been countered by constant changes in the composition of top income earners. If so, the rise in top incomes may not translate into “economic power”. Aaberge et al. (2013) study who enters and leaves the top income groups in Norway in the period 1967-2011. Their main conclusion is that despite large changes in top income mobility over the last four decades, the magnitude of the effect of the changes in mobility on the income shares was moderate.”

What’s the future holds? “Competition among countries to attract mobile capital is a persistent phenomenon and will be a driver towards still lower taxes on mobile capital. A major change from the past, then, is less ability to redistribute, increasing income inequality, and rising immigration from poor countries. In sum these forces may affect trust between members of society. The level of trust is positively linked to economic growth. Herein lies a major challenge for the Nordic welfare states.”

And as an aside, here’s the actual draw on Nordic v Anglo-Saxon patterns in taxation: “In 2004, the classical welfare states in Scandinavia and continental Europe had lower ratios of statutory corporate to wage taxes than the Anglo-Saxon countries (except Ireland). In 2004, the corporate tax rate was only 63% of the wage tax rate for an average worker in Sweden, but 171% of the wage tax rate in the United States. Such differences are in striking contrast to the common perception that social democratic governments (as in Scandinavia and continental Europe) share a higher preference for redistribution, as compared to more conservative and free market oriented types of governments.”

Oops… who’s the neoliberal b*&ch now?..

21/8/2014: Capital v Labour Taxes: Time to Scratch that Cabbage Head, Mr. Politico

Ireland, like majority of other small open economies, runs a tax regime that is punitive to highly skilled workers and benign to capital owners. This, as I explain in part here (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/08/2182014-thomas-piketty-powerful.html), spells bad news for wealth distribution. It is simply a tax transfer from one form of capital (human capital) to other forms of capital (financial, IP and physical capital). Still, majority of small economies around the world continue to argue in favour of skinning alive their human capital and subsidising (in either relative or absolute terms) other forms of capital, based on a simple argument: in modern world, financial, IP and technological forms of capital are highly mobile (tax them and they will run for the border, goes the argument), even physical capital is mobile over the long run (tax it and investment will flow somewhere else), while labour is tied to its chair by the chains of visas, work permits etc (tax workers and they have nowhere to go).

Of course, in the real world, labour is mobile and highly skilled labour is highly mobile. That is something our outdated, outsmarted and out-of-touch political classes do not comprehend. But some academics do. Here's an example: Aghion, Philippe and Akcigit, Ufuk and Fernández-Villaverde, Jesús, paper, titled "Optimal Capital Versus Labor Taxation with Innovation-Led Growth" (May 31, 2013. PIER Working Paper No. 13-025. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2272651) shows that in presence of mobile labour force, capital subsidies are suboptimal from the revenue point off view. And worse, the more innovation-driven is your growth (the more reliant it is on human capital and the more mobile that human capital is), the lower is efficiency of capital supports.

"Chamley (1986) and Judd (1985) showed that, in a standard neoclassical growth model with capital accumulation and infinitely lived agents, either taxing or subsidizing capital cannot be optimal in the steady state. In this paper, we introduce innovation-led growth into the Chamley-Judd framework, using a Schumpeterian growth model where productivity-enhancing innovations result from pro.t-motivated R&D investment."

Enough of mumbo-jumbo. "Our main result is that, for a given required trend of public expenditure, a zero tax/subsidy on capital becomes suboptimal. In particular, the higher the level of public expenditure and the income elasticity of labor supply, the less should capital income be subsidized and the more it should be taxed. Not taxing capital implies that labor must be taxed at a higher rate. This in turn has a detrimental effect on labor supply and therefore on the market size for innovation. At the same time, for a given labor supply, taxing capital also reduces innovation incentives, so that for low levels of public expenditure and/or labor supply elasticity it becomes optimal to subsidize capital income."

Of course, labour supply is even more income elastic when it is related to high quality human capital (that can be marketed internationally), and worse, when it is related to innovation (the one that is sought after by dozens of advanced economies bidding over each other to attract the right talent in).

Now, give it a thought:
* Irish tax system literally destroys returns to human capital through punitive levels of taxation of returns on high skills;
* Irish labour markets are open to migration (including emigration of highly skilled);
* Irish economy competes for high skills with scores of other similar economies; and
* Irish state is subsidising in relative terms returns to physical and financial capital, while our tax codes also subsidise IP returns.

Time to scratch that cabbage head, Mr. Politico?

3/4/3014: Tax or Not: Sunday Times, March 9, 2014

This is unedited version of my Sunday Times article from March 9, 2014


Speaking at last week's Fine Gael Ard Fheis, Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan, T.D. noted that "As a Government, we know that there are further opportunities in the years ahead for us to build upon the initiatives that have worked.  It is in this vein that …I will consider the introduction of targeted tax reductions that have a demonstrable effect on employment growth."

With these words, Minister Noonan finally set to rest the debates as to the Government intentions with respect to core policies for 2015 and thereafter. Whether you like his prior policies or not, he makes a good point: Ireland needs a tax-focused policy intervention. And we need an intervention that simultaneously addresses the declines in after-tax household incomes endured during the current crisis, and does not trigger rapid wage inflation and jobs destruction that can be associated with centralised wage bargaining. The window for an effective intervention is now, in part because as recent evidence shows, fiscal policy effectiveness is greater at the time of near-zero interest rates. But beyond an intervention, Ireland needs a longer-term reform of taxation system.


In general, any economic policy can be judged on the basis of two core questions. Firstly, does the policy offer the most effective means for achieving the stated objective? Secondly, is the policy feasible in economic and political terms?

Reducing income tax burden for lower and middle class earners yields an affirmative answer to all three of the above questions. No other alternative proposed to-date – a cut in VAT rate, a reduction in property tax burden, or an increase in public spending on core services to alleviate cost pressures on families – fits the bill.


Starting from the top, cutting income-related taxes in the current environment makes perfect sense from the point of view of economics.

The three stumbling blocks on our path to the recovery are anaemic domestic consumption, high burden of household debts, and collapsed domestic investment. All of them are interlinked, and all relate to low after-tax disposable incomes. But the last two further reinforce each other. High levels of household debt currently impede restart of domestic investment by both households and firms. They also act as partial constraints on our banks ability to lend. Meanwhile, low domestic investment implies depressed household incomes and high unemployment. In other words, reducing private debt and simultaneously increasing domestic investment should be a core priority for the Government.

On the other side of the national accounts equation, stimulating private consumption offers a weak alternative to the above measures. Due to high imports content of our average consumption basket most of the discretionary spending by Irish households goes to stimulate foreign exporters into Ireland. And it is this discretionary imports-linked spending, as opposed to consumption of non-discretionary goods and services, that has taken a major hit during the Great Recession. Beyond this, higher domestic consumption will do little to raise our SMEs exporting potential, in contrast with increased investment.

Take a quick look at the top-line figures from the national accounts. Based on data from Q1 1997 through Q3 2013, cumulative decline in personal consumption of goods and services over the current crisis amounts to roughly EUR5 billion, when compared against the already sky-high 2004-2008 trend. For gross fixed capital formation - a proxy for investment and capital spending - the cumulative shortfall is EUR50 billion against the 2000-2004 trend, which excludes peak of the asset bubble period of 2005-2007. Put differently, compared to peak, private consumption was down 12 percent in 2013 (based on Q1-Q3 data), while gross investment was down 65 percent. If in 2013 our personal consumption is likely to have returned to the levels last seen around 2005-2006, our investment will be running closer to the levels last witnessed in 1997-1998.

More significantly, lending to Irish non-financial, non-property SMEs has fallen 6.2 percent year-on-year at the end of 2013, as compared to 5 percent for the same period of 2012, according to the latest data from the Central Bank. Meanwhile, value of retail sales was down only 0.1 percent in 2013, according to CSO. Things are getting worse, not better, in terms of productive investment.

It is, therefore, patently clear that an optimal policy to support domestic growth in the economy should target increases in the disposable income of households and incentivise investment and savings ahead of stimulating consumption. It is also clear that such increases should be distributed across as broad of the segment of working population as possible.

To achieve this, the Government can reduce the burden of personal income taxation.

Alternatively it can attempt to target a reduction in the cost of provision of non-discretionary services, such as childcare, health, basic transport and education. In fact, the main arguments against lower taxes advanced by the Irish Trade Unions and other Social Partners are based on the idea that such costs reduction is possible were the state to invest taxpayers funds in further development of these services as well as provide subsidies to supply them to the broad public.

Alas, in practice, Irish public sector is woefully poor at delivering value-for-money. Since 2007 through 2013, inflation in our health services outpaced the general price increases across the economy by a factor of 5 to 1, in transport sector by 3 to 1 and in our education by 12 to 1. Pumping more money into provision of public services might be a good idea when it comes to achieving some social objectives. It is certainly a great idea if we want to stimulate public sector employment and pay, as well as returns to various consultancies and state advisers. But it is not a good policy for helping households to pay down their debts, increase their savings, investment and/or consumption.


Which brings us to the questions of economic and political feasibility of tax reforms.

This week, the Finance Minister confirmed that he will "try to begin the process of making the income tax code more jobs friendly" starting with Budget 2015. Most likely, the next Budget will consider moving the threshold for application of the upper marginal tax rate, currently set at EUR32,800. Minister Noonan described this threshold as being "totally out of line with the practice effectively all over the world, but particularly in Europe." And he's got the point. Across a sample of twenty-one advanced economies, including Ireland, the average effective upper marginal tax rate, inclusive of core social security taxes, currently stands at around 44.4 percent. In Ireland, according to KPMG, the comparable upper marginal tax rate is 48 percent. But an average income threshold at which the upper marginal tax rate kicks in is EUR136,691 in the advanced economies, or more than four times higher than in Ireland.

Widening the band at which the upper marginal tax rate applies to double the current Irish average earnings will mean raising the threshold to EUR71,500 per person per annum. This should be our policy target over the long-term, through 2019-2020.

However, given current income tax revenues dynamics delivering this target today will trigger significant fall-offs in income tax revenues. Data through February 2014, admittedly a very early indicator, shows effectively flat income tax receipts, despite large increases in employment in recent months. In other words, brining our upper rate threshold closer to being in line with the advanced economies average is, for now, a non-starter from fiscal sustainability point of view.

But gradually, over 2015-2016, increasing the 20% tax rate band to around EUR38,000-40,000 should be fiscally feasible, assuming the economy continues to improve as currently projected. This will leave those at or below the average earnings outside the upper marginal tax rate. But it will also provide relief to all those earning above average wages. In other words, widening the lower rate band will generate a broadly-based measure, with likely support amongst the voters.

At the same time, it will also yield significant gains in economic stimulus terms. At the lower end of the targeted band, such a measure would be financially equivalent to a tax rebate of around double the average residential property tax bill.

More importantly, widening the lower tax band will provide for an effective stimulus to the economy compared to all of the above measures. The reason for this is that unlike property tax and VAT, income taxes create economic disincentives to supplying more work effort in the market place. This effect is most pronounced for second earners, self-employed, sole traders and small business owners – all of whom represent core pool of potential entrepreneurs and future employers.

In addition, reducing income taxes, as opposed to consumption and property taxes provides both financial and behavioural support for investment, and savings for ordinary families. A number of studies of consumer behaviour show that savings achieved from the reductions in consumption taxes are commonly rolled up into higher consumption. On the other hand, higher after-tax labour incomes are associated with greater savings, investment and/or faster debt pay-downs.


Beyond widening the standard rate band, the Government can do little at the moment to stimulate disposable income of the households. Yet, in the longer term, we face the need for a more comprehensive and deeper reform of our tax system. Critical objective of such reform is to achieve a new system for funding the state that relies less on income tax and more on direct user-fees charges for goods and services supplied to consumers, plus taxes on less productive forms of capital, such as land, property and speculative assets. Changes in the underlying drivers for growth in the Irish economy will also necessitate tightening of corporate and income tax loopholes. This should lead to increased reliance by the state on corporate tax revenues, while freeing some room for the reduction in tax rates. In targeting these, the Government should focus on the upper marginal tax rate itself.

Designed with care and delivered with caution, such reforms can put Irish economy on the path of higher growth well anchored in the underlying fundamentals of our society: indigenous entrepreneurship, domestic investment and skills-rich workforce.

Box-out:

This week, the EU Commission published its 2014 Innovation Union Scorecard showing comparative assessment of the research and innovation performance across the EU. The good news is that Irish rankings in the area of innovation have improved from 10th to 9th over the last twelve months - not a mean task given our tight economic conditions and scarcity of funds across the economy. The bad news is that we are still ranked as 'innovation follower' and that our performance is still weak when it comes to developing a thriving innovation culture in the SME sector. As experience from the UK shows, just a couple of simple changes to Ireland's tax codes can help us enhance the incentives for SMEs to develop a more active innovation and research culture. We need to reform our employee share ownership structures to make it easier for smaller companies and entrepreneurs to attract key research personnel and promote innovation within enterprise. For example, in Ireland, employees securing an equity stake in the business employing them currently face an immediate tax liability, irrespective of the fact that they receive zero financial gain from the shares until these as sold. This applies also to smaller start-up ventures, particularly the Universities-based research labs. Thus, a researcher working in Ireland's high potential start-up or a research lab can face a tax liability on owning the right to a yet-to-be-completed research they are carrying out. This is not the case across the Irish Sea and in the Northern Ireland. In 2012-2013, the UK Government adopted 28 new policies aimed at promoting various forms of Employee Financial Involvement (EFI) in the companies that employ them. The UK has allocated £50 million through 2016 to promote public awareness of the EFI schemes and is actively working on reducing the administrative burden for companies and employees relating to EFI. It is a high time we in Ireland have followed our neighbours lead, lest we are content with remaining an 'innovation follower' in the EU for years to come.

7/11/2013: Taxation and Human Capital: Blundel's Thoughts

A recent paper from Richard Blundel, titled “Taxation of Earnings: the impact on labor supply and human capital” (Becker Friedman Institute, 27th September 2013 available at: http://bfi.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/research/Blundell_BFI%20_September_27_2013.pdf) argues that the tax system can be reformed “to generate the levels of revenue required to fund public goods while reducing the overall level of distortions implicit in the system”.

“The discussion in this paper draws on the work in the [Mirrlees Review (2011)] and concerns the taxation of labour earnings as well as relevant aspects of the welfare benefit and tax credit systems.” The core focus here is “on the empirical foundations for tax reform” in favour of “placing the analysis of earnings taxation in a lifetime setting, recognising the importance of human capital investments.”

Summary

Per Blundel, earnings taxation:
1) Raises revenue for public goods
2) Acts as the main source for funding redistribution of “resources from richer to poorer households”
3) “… From a more dynamic perspective, it ‘insures’ individuals and families against adverse events such as job loss and disability.

“Not surprisingly, it occupies a special place in debates about levels and structure of taxation.”

Several other important aspects that Blundel fails to consider are:
- Earnings taxation represents an opportunity cost of public goods provision in terms of reduced availability of funding for investment in enterprise creation and entrepreneurship; and
- Earnings taxation levies a charge on that part of personal income that is linked directly to individual effort and investments in human capital.

“One central question in the policy debate on earnings tax reform is whether, and to what degree, ‘supply side’ reforms can be used to relieve the pressure from ageing populations.” Thus, the question is: “How best to increase employment and earnings over the working life?” Per Blundel, evidence suggests that “the key to using tax policy for improving the trends in employment, hours and earnings in the longer-run will be to focus on”:
1) labor market entry (“Enhancing the flow into work for those leaving education and for returning mothers after childbirth”)
2) retirement (“maintaining work among those in their late 50s and 60s”) and
3) human capital (“Understanding the implicit incentives (or disincentives) created in the tax and welfare system or human capital investments .... Encouraging human capital improves the pay-off to work and ensures earnings grow, and hold up longer, throughout the working life.”)

Tax reforms accounting for human behavior 

Key here is that “Reform of the tax system as it impacts on labor supply and human capital is not simply about increasing life-time earnings”. In addition to levels of earnings consideration, we must also account for “many other aspects of human welfare, including the utility from consuming goods, from home production, from reducing risks, etc.”

Thus, taxes on earnings “should be seen as part of the whole ‘tax system’. In terms of an overall reform package, it is important to view corporate and personal taxation together as there are many aspects where they overlap: not every tax needs to be progressive for the tax system to be progressive; not every tax needs to be ‘green’ for the tax system to provide the right incentives for environmental protection.” In other words, “we still need to be aware of the interactions with capital, savings and environmental taxes.”

All of the above suggests that the Irish Government approach to tax policy, based on the explicitly defined premise that no matter what, the corporate tax system rests outside the scope of any tax reforms consideration, is not and cannot ever be a good practice.

Complexity avoidance is real

Another major point raised by Blundel is that “In most developed economies, the schedule of tax rates on earned income is rather complex. This may not always be apparent from the income tax schedule itself, but note that what really matters is the total amount of earnings taken in tax and withdrawn benefits—the effective tax rate. The schedule of effective tax rates is made complicated by the many interactions between income taxes, earnings-related social security contributions by employers, welfare benefits, and tax credits.” In other words, Blundel clearly states that total burden – whether via direct or indirect taxes – matters. This is something that the Irish Government simply refuses to recognize.

However, in criticism of Blundel, I would also add that it is too simplistic to look at the effective macro-level (economy-wide or average/media) level of taxation. We have to recognize that many benefits paid out in the economy do not apply or are not available to all participants in the economy. Thus, for example, famers transfers are not available to non-farmers, youth support schemes relating to training and education are not available to older adults, unemployment benefits are not accessible to entrepreneurs and so on.

Taxes and labour supply

“At a very high level, some of the main points that emerge from this evidence are that substitution effects are generally larger than income effects: taxes reduce labour supply. Especially for low earners, responses are larger at the extensive margin—employment—than at the intensive margin—hours of work. Responses at both the intensive and extensive margins (and both substitution effects and income effects) are largest for women with school-age children and for those aged over 55.”


There is much, much more to read in Blundel’s insights, so do not even for a second think the above summary is a substitute to reading the whole paper.

05/10/2011: Tax burden distribution: Q3 2011

Tax profile for September yielded another sign of continued shift in tax burden onto the shoulders of ordinary households, courtesy of:

1. Continued underperformance in corporate tax returns despite booming exports activity
2. Continued graft of household budgets under the USC and levies.

Overall tax burden in Q3 2011 has shifted as follows:

• Q2 2011 share of Income tax receipts in total receipts was 39.52%. Q3 2011 share of Income tax receipts in total receipts was 38.40% against Q3 2010 share of 33.20% and Q3 2007 share of 28.04%
• Q2 2011 share of VAT receipts in total receipts was 33.22%. Q3 2011 share of VAT receipts in total receipts was 33.17% against Q3 2010 share of 36.81% and Q3 2007 share of 37.41%
• Q2 2011 share of Corporation tax receipts in total receipts was 9.32%. Q3 2011 share of Corporation tax receipts in total receipts was 8.52% against Q3 2010 share of 9.86% and Q3 2007 share of 7.39%
• Q2 2011 share of Excise receipts in total receipts was 14.4%. Q3 2011 share of Excise receipts in total receipts was 13.4% against Q3 2010 share of 14.77% and Q3 2007 share of 13.79%
• Stamps, CGT and CAT combined share in Q2 2011 was 2.64% against Q3 2011 share of 5.67% and 4.73% in Q3 2010 and 12.67% in Q3 2007.

Charts to illustrate: