Download
1 / 22
390 likes | 822 Views
Chapter 19: The Equity Implications of Taxation – Tax Incidence. A central question of tax incidence is who bears the burden of a tax? Tax incidence is assessing which party (consumers or producers) bear the true burden of a tax.
E N D
Chapter 19: The Equity Implications of Taxation – Tax Incidence • A central question of tax incidence is who bears the burden of a tax? • Tax incidence is assessing which party (consumers or producers) bear the true burden of a tax. • Although the legal incidence of a tax is pretty obvious, markets respond to taxes, so that the ultimate burden is not nearly so clear. • In this lecture I will discuss. • Three rules of tax incidence • General equilibrium tax incidence • Empirical evidence
THE THREE RULES OF TAX INCIDENCE • There are three basic rules for figuring out who ultimately bears the burden of paying a tax. • The statutory burden of a tax does not describe who really bears the tax. • The side of the market on which the tax is imposed is irrelevant to the distribution of tax burdens. • Parties with inelastic supply or demand bear the burden of a tax. • The “burden” of a tax is measured by changes in prices (and not quantities).
The three rules of tax incidence: The statutory burden does not describe who really bears the tax • Statutory incidence is the burden of the tax borne by the party that sends the check to the government. • For example, the government could impose a 50¢ per gallon tax on suppliers of gasoline. • Economic incidence is the burden of taxation measured by the change in resources available to any economic agent as a result of taxation. • If gas stations raise gasoline prices by 25¢ per gallon as a result, then consumers are bearing half of the tax.
Figure 2 The burden of the tax is split between consumers and producers (a) (b) Price per gallon (P) Price per gallon (P) A 50 cent tax shifts the effective supply curve. S2 Initially, equilibrium entails a price of $1.50 and a quantity of 100 units. S1 S1 B $2.00 C Consumer burden = $0.30 P2 = $1.80 P1 =$1.50 P1 =$1.50 A A $0.50 Supplier burden = $0.20 D D Q1 = 100 Q2 = 90 Quantity in billions of gallons (Q) Quantity in billions of gallons (Q)
The economic incidence of the tax does not depend on who the tax is levied on (the statutory incidence) Figure 3 The economic burden of the tax is identical to the previous case. Price per gallon (P) S Imagine imposing the tax on demanders rather than suppliers. The new equilibrium price is $1.30, and the quantity is 90. The quantity is identical to the case when the tax was imposed on the supplier. Consumer burden A P1 = $1.50 Supplier burden P2 = $1.30 C B $1.00 $0.50 D2 D1 Quantity in billions of gallons (Q) Q2= 90 Q1 = 100 These tax burdens are identical to the burdens when the tax was levied on producers.
Elastic parties avoid taxes and inelastic parties bear them. Figure 4 Price per gallon (P) D S2 S1 P2 = $2.00 With perfectly inelastic demand, consumers bear the full burden. Consumer burden P1 = $1.50 $0.50 Quantity in billions of gallons (Q) Q1 = 100
Figure 5 Price per gallon (P) S2 S1 $0.50 With perfectly elastic demand, producers bear the full burden. D P1 = $1.50 Supplier burden $1.00 Quantity in billions of gallons (Q) Q2 = 90 Q1 = 100
The three rules of tax incidence: Inelastic versus elastic supply and demand • In this case, the producer bears the full burden of the tax, because consumers will simply stop purchasing the product if prices are raised. • These extreme cases illustrate a general point: • Parties with inelastic supply or demand bear taxes; parties with elastic supply or demand avoid them. • Demand is more elastic when there are many good substitutes (for example, fast food at restaurants). Demand is less elastic when there are few substitutes (for example, insulin medication). • Supply is more elastic when suppliers have more alternative uses to which their resources can be put.
Figure 6 More inelastic supply, smaller consumer burden. More elastic supply, larger consumer burden. (a) Tax on steel producer (b) Tax on street vendor P P S2 S1 Tax S2 B B P2 P2 Tax Consumer burden Consumer burden S1 A P1 A P1 D D Q Q Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1
Tax on workers Figure 8a • With a minimum wage, wages cannot fully adjust, so the incidence may be different. Wage (W) S2 A binding minimum wage changes the analysis, however. When imposed on employees, the analysis is similar to before. S1 Tax B W2=$5.65 Firm burden A Wm=$5.15 Worker burden W3=$4.65 C D1 Hours of labor (H) H2 H1 • The incidence is borne in the same manner as when there was no minimum wage.
Tax on firms Figure 8b Without wage shifting, would end up at C’. In this case, the firm bears the economic burden. Wage (W) Employers cannot fully wage shift with the binding minimum wage. When imposed on employers, the incidence differs! S1 B With fully shifting wages, would end up at C. W2=$6.15 Firm burden A C’ Wm=$5.15 $4.65 C Tax D1 D2 Hours of labor (H) H3 H2 H1
Tax on consumers Figure 9b With a tax, both D and MR change, as does the quantity. P • The tax on consumers shifts the demand curve downward to D2, and the associated marginal revenue curve to MR2. • Setting MR2=MC, the quantity Q2 now maximizes profits. • The monopolist’s price falls from P1 to P2, so it bears some of the tax, just as a competitive firm does. • The three rules of tax incidence continue to apply for a monopolist. P1 S S B’ P2 D1 A B D2 MR1 MR2 Q2 Q1 Q
GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM TAX INCIDENCE • Our models so far have focused on partial equilibrium. • Partial equilibrium tax incidence is analysis that considers the impact of a tax on a market in isolation. • To study the effects on related markets, we use general equilibrium analysis. • General equilibrium tax incidence is analysis that considers the effects on related markets of a tax imposed on one market.
Figure 10 The demand for restaurant meals in a single town Price per meal (P) S2 S1 In this case demand for meals is perfectly elastic. $1 B A D P1 = $20 Meals sold per day (Q) Q2 = 950 Q1 = 1000 • The $1 tax on meals is borne by the firm, meaning that it is borne by the factors of production (labor and capital).
Incidence on input markets Figure 11 The incidence is “shifted backward” to labor and capital. Capital is inelastically supplied. (a) Labor (b) Capital Rate of return (r) Wage (W) S We assume the supply of labor in the locality is perfectly elastic. Labor therefore does not bear any of the tax burden. D1 Capital bears the tax. D2 B A A r1 = 10% W1 = $8 S B r2 = 8% D2 D1 Hours of labor (H) Investment (I) H2 = 900 H1 = 1,000 I1 = $50 million
General equilibrium tax incidenceIssues to consider in GE incidence analysis • As illustrated, the supply of labor (restaurant workers) is perfectly elastic, because those workers can easily find a job in another locality. • The tax on output, restaurant meals, would reduce the firm’s demand for labor, reducing the number of workers hired, but not their wage rate. • On the other hand, in the short-run, the supply of capital is likely to be fixed. The firm’s demand for capital shifts in, lowering the rate of return on capital. • In the short run, the owners of capital bear the tax in the form of a lower return on their investment.
General equilibrium tax incidenceIssues to consider in GE incidence analysis • In the longer-run, the supply of capital is not inelastic. • Investors can close or sell the restaurant, take their money, and invest it elsewhere. • In the long-run, capital is likely to be perfectly elastic as there are many good substitutes for investing in a particular restaurant in a particular town.
General equilibrium tax incidenceIssues to consider in GE incidence analysis • If both labor and capital are highly elastic in the long run, who bears the tax? • The one additional inelastic factor in the restaurant production process is land. • The supply is clearly fixed. • When both labor and capital can avoid the tax, the only way restaurants can stay open is if they pay a lower rent on their land.
General equilibrium tax incidenceIssues to consider in GE incidence analysis • The scope of a tax matters for tax incidence as well. Consider imposing a restaurant tax on the entire state rather than just a city. • Demand in the output market is less elastic; consumers bear some of the burden. • Labor supply is less elastic as well. • The scope of the tax matters to incidence analysis because it determines which elasticities are relevant to the analysis: taxes that are broader based are harder to avoid than taxes that are narrower, so the response of producers and consumers to the tax will be smaller and more inelastic.
General equilibrium tax incidenceIssues to consider in GE incidence analysis • There are also potentially spillovers into other output markets from the restaurant tax, not just input markets. • Consider the statewide restaurant tax that raises the price of meals: • It has an income effect for consumers. • It increases consumption of goods that are substitutes for restaurant meals, such as meals at home. • It decreases consumption of goods that are complements for restaurant meals, such as valets. • A complete general equilibrium analysis must account for the effects in these other markets.
THE INCIDENCE OF TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATESCBO incidence assumptions • The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has examined the incidence of taxation in the U.S. • The CBO assumes: • Income taxes are fully borne by the households that pay them. • Payroll taxes are fully borne by workers, regardless of the statutory incidence. • Excise taxes are fully shifted forward to prices. • Corporate taxes are fully shifted forward to the owners of capital. • This is very similar to the State of Wisconsin tax incidence study that is (briefly) described in the class readings.
