Higher Capital Tax Research Articles

Overcoming wealth inequality by capital taxes that finance public investment

Wealth inequality is rising in high-income countries. Can increased public investment financed by higher capital taxes counteract this trend? We examine how such a policy affects the distribution of wealth in a setting with distinct wealth groups: dynastic savers and life-cycle savers. Our main finding is that this policy always decreases wealth inequality when the elasticity of substitution between capital and labor is moderately high. At high capital tax rates, dynastic savers disappear. Below these rates, life-cycle savers gain from the higher public expenditures financed by the higher capital tax rates. We calibrate our model to OECD economies and find a threshold elasticity of 0.82.

Demographics and competition for capital in political economy

We examine the possible impacts of demographics on outcomes of competition for capital in political economy. For this, we develop a multi-region overlapping generations model, wherein public good provision financed by capital taxation is determined by majority vote. When population is growing, younger people represent the majority, whereas when it is decreasing, older people are in majority. We uncover the possible externalities arising from political processes as well as capital mobility and show that an inefficiently high capital tax rate is more likely to emerge in an economy with decreasing population than in one with growing population.

Tax Competition with Mobile Labor, Residents, and Capital

We construct a unifying model of optimal decentralized policymaking that includes multiple tax and spending policies with mobile workers, mobile residents, and mobile capital. Local governments are atomistic with respect to the world capital market, but are linked by commuting patterns, the cost of which is endogenously determined by congestion. Commuting gives rise to “tax exporting,” with a higher capital tax in the (central) city partially borne by non-resident commuters from the suburbs, allowing the capital tax to remain optimal even when head taxes are available. More generally, employment-based taxes are valuable instruments only when jurisdictions are net recipients of commuters, while jurisdictions that are net providers of commuters will choose to rely on the use of residential-based taxes. Jurisdictions can combine labor and resident taxes to effectively tax commuters. Even though jurisdictions are price-takers in the world capital market, they strategically react to the policies of other small jurisdictions due to commuting linkages.

Capital taxation and government debt policy with public discounting

This paper characterizes capital taxation and public debt policy in a quantitative macroeconomic model with an impatient government and uncertainty. The government has access to linear taxes on capital and labor, and to non-state-contingent bonds. Government impatience generates positive and empirically realistic long-run levels of both capital taxes and public debt. Prior predictive analysis shows that the simulated model matches the distribution of both variables in a sample of 42 countries, alongside other statistics. The paper then presents econometric evidence that countries with higher political instability, used as an approximation of unobservable public discount rates, have both higher capital taxes and debt.

Capital Taxation and Government Debt Policy with Public Discounting

Abstract This paper characterizes capital taxation and public debt policy in a quantitative macroeconomic model with an impatient government and uncertainty. The government has access to linear taxes on capital and labor, and to non-state-contingent bonds. Government impatience generates positive and empirically realistic long-run levels of both capital taxes and public debt. Prior predictive analysis shows that the simulated model matches the distribution of both variables in a sample of 42 countries, alongside other statistics. The paper then presents econometric evidence that countries with higher political instability, used as an approximation of unobservable public discount rates, have both higher capital taxes and debt.

Does Capital Tax Uncertainty Delay Irreversible Risky Investment?

Tax uncertainty is often claimed to be harmful for investments. Capital taxes, such as property and wealth taxes, are particularly exposed to tax uncertainty. Capital tax uncertainty emerges from expected tax reforms, the unclear outcome of future tax audits, and simplified estimates of capital tax bases in investment models. Uncertain returns on investment as well as stochastic taxation contribute to overall uncertainty and may significantly affect investment decisions. Hitherto, it is unknown how capital tax uncertainty affects investment timing. However, it is well known that both uncertainty and capital tax may be harmful for investment and decelerate investment activities. We are the first to study the investment timing effects of stochastic capital taxes in a real options setting with risky investment opportunities. Our results indicate that even risk neutral investors are sensitive with respect to capital tax risk and may react in a surprising manner to a newly introduced stochastic capital tax. As an apparently paradoxical investment effect, we find that increased capital tax uncertainty can accelerate risky investment if such uncertainty is sufficiently low compared to cash flow uncertainty. In contrast, high capital tax risk delays high-risk innovative investment projects. To reduce unintended consequences of uncertain tax policy, tax legislators and tax authorities should avoid high levels of capital tax uncertainty. Broadening the capital tax base or increasing the capital tax rate induces ambiguous timing effects. Furthermore, high-growth investments are likely to be postponed if they experience a capital tax cut. Since investment reactions upon tax reforms are well-known to affect income and wealth distribution, reliable estimations of the impact of taxes on economic decisions are necessary.

Does Capital Tax Uncertainty Delay Irreversible Risky Investment?

Tax uncertainty is often claimed to be harmful for investments. Capital taxes, such as property and wealth taxes, are particularly exposed to tax uncertainty. Capital tax un- certainty emerges from expected tax reforms, the unclear outcome of future tax audits, and simplified estimates of capital tax bases in investment models. Uncertain returns on investment as well as stochastic taxation contribute to overall uncertainty and may significantly affect investment decisions. Hitherto, it is unknown how capital tax uncertainty affects investment timing. However, it is well known that both uncertainty and capital tax may be harmful for investment and decelerate investment activities. We are the first to study the investment timing effects of stochastic capital taxes in a real options setting with risky investment opportunities. Our results indicate that even risk neutral investors are sensitive with respect to capital tax risk and may react in a surprising manner to a newly introduced stochastic capital tax. As an apparently paradoxical investment e¤ect, we find that increased capital tax uncertainty can accelerate risky investment if such uncertainty is such ciently low compared to cash flow uncertainty. In contrast, high capital tax risk delays high-risk innovative investment projects. To reduce unintended consequences of uncertain tax policy, tax legislators and tax authorities should avoid high levels of cap- ital tax uncertainty. Broadening the capital tax base or increasing the capital tax rate induces ambiguous timing effects. Furthermore, high-growth investments are likely to be postponed if they experience a capital tax cut. Since investment reactions upon tax reforms are well-known to affect income and wealth distribution, reliable estimations of the impact of taxes on economic decisions are necessary. (authors' abstract)

A POLITICAL ECONOMY THEORY OF PARTIAL DECENTRALIZATION

We revisit the classic problem of tax competition in the context of federal nations, and derive a positive theory of partial decentralization. A capital poor median voter chooses to use redistributive capital taxes to provide public goods. The expectation of high capital taxes, however, results in a small capital stock which lowers returns to redistribution. The median voter therefore wants to commit to a lower level of capital taxes. She does so by setting a partial degree of decentralization in the Constitution. The equilibrium degree of decentralization balances the positive effect of tax competition on capital taxes with the loss in redistribution that results. We show that the degree of decentralization is nonmonotonic in inequality, increasing in the redistributive efficiency of public good provision, and decreasing in capital productivity. When public goods are heterogeneous in their capacity to transfer funds, all voters agree that goods with high redistributive capacity should be decentralized.

Capital taxation, long-run growth, and bequests

It has been shown that higher capital taxes can have a growth-enhancing effect when combined with a revenue-compensating cut in wage taxes or with an expansion in productivity-increasing public services. The present paper demonstrates that these results critically hinge on the existence of a bequest motive. It is shown that a wage-tax cut is no longer growth-enhancing when bequests are operative. By way of contrast, increasing productive public services may well boost growth. The theoretical findings are illustrated by numerical simulations based on US data.

Capital Taxation, Long-Run Growth and Bequests

It has been shown that higher capital taxes can have a growth-enhancing effect when combined with a revenue-compensating cut in wage taxes (Uhlig and Yanagawa 1996; European Economic Review 40, 1521–1540) or with an expansion in productivity-increasing public services (Rivas 2003; European Economic Review 47, 477–503). The present paper demonstrates that these results critically hinge on the existence of a bequest motive. It is shown that a wage-tax cut is no longer growth-enhancing when bequests are operative. By way of contrast, increasing productive public services may well boost growth. The theoretical findings are illustrated by numerical simulations based on US data.

Is there a majority to support a capital tax cut?

A capital income tax cut must in general be financed by increasing other taxes, and thus will have redistributive effects. This paper studies analytically the redistribution implied by a capital income tax cut in the Ramsey–Cass–Koopmans neoclassical growth model when agents differ in wealth and human capital and markets are frictionless. A few parameters affect the efficiency costs and redistributive benefits of capital taxation, and determine the set of agents who are in favor of a capital income tax cut. For plausible parameter values, a majority would lose from the tax cut, i.e. high capital taxes may be politically sustainable.

Optimal Pre-Announced Tax Reforms under Valuable and Productive Government Spending

This paper analyzes optimal pre-announced capital and labor income tax reforms under valuable and productive government spending. Our baseline optimal reform reveals that these model ingredients result in a reduction of welfare losses that occur when the reform is announced before its implementation. Further, the mere existence of welfare losses from pre-announcement is due to the ability of the government to initially choose very high capital taxes and negative labor taxes. A government that instead chooses optimal long run taxes from the implementation date onwards generates sizable increases of welfare gains from pre-announcing the reform. We show that 4 years pre-announcement of this reform and the baseline optimal reform deliver similar levels of welfare gains. The underlying tax structure of both reforms, however, appears to be very different.