IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bin/bpeajo/v51y2020i2020-01p231-300.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the US Tax Code Favor Automation?

Author

Listed:
  • Daron Acemoglu

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

  • Andrea Manera

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

  • Pascual Restrepo

    (Boston University)

Abstract

We argue that the US tax system is biased against labor and in favor of capital and has become more so in recent years. As a consequence, it has promoted levels of automation beyond what is socially desirable. Moving from the US tax system in the 2010s to optimal taxation of capital and labor would raise employment by 4.02 percent and the labor share by 0.78 percentage point and restore the optimal level of automation. If moving to optimal taxes is infeasible, more modest reforms can still increase employment by 1.14- 1.96 percent, but in this case it is also beneficial to impose an additional automation tax to reduce the equilibrium level of automation. This is because marginal automated tasks do not bring much productivity gains but displace workers, reducing employment below its socially optimal level. We additionally show that reducing labor taxes or combining lower capital taxes with automation taxes can increase employment much more than the uniform reductions in capital taxes enacted between 2000 and 2018.

Suggested Citation

  • Daron Acemoglu & Andrea Manera & Pascual Restrepo, 2020. "Does the US Tax Code Favor Automation?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 51(1 (Spring), pages 231-300.
    • Handle: RePEc:bin:bpeajo:v:51:y:2020:i:2020-01:p:231-300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/does-the-u-s-tax-code-favor-automation/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2018. "The Race between Man and Machine: Implications of Technology for Growth, Factor Shares, and Employment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(6), pages 1488-1542, June.
    2. Elira Kuka & Na'ama Shenhav & Kevin Shih, 2020. "Do Human Capital Decisions Respond to the Returns to Education? Evidence from DACA," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 293-324, February.
    3. Marius Brülhart & Jonathan Gruber & Matthias Krapf & Kurt Schmidheiny, 2016. "Taxing Wealth: Evidence from Switzerland," NBER Working Papers 22376, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Joao Guerreiro & Sergio Rebelo & Pedro Teles, 2022. "Should Robots Be Taxed? [Skills, Tasks and Technologies: Implications for Employment and Earnings]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(1), pages 279-311.
    5. Raj Chetty & Adam Guren & Day Manoli & Andrea Weber, 2011. "Are Micro and Macro Labor Supply Elasticities Consistent? A Review of Evidence on the Intensive and Extensive Margins," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 471-475, May.
    6. David H. Autor & David Dorn & Gordon H. Hanson, 2013. "The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2121-2168, October.
    7. Schoefer, Benjamin & Mui, Preston, 2019. "Reservation Raises: The Aggregate Labor Supply Curve at the Extensive Margin," CEPR Discussion Papers 14209, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Benjamin Austin & Edward Glaeser & Lawrence Summers, 2018. "Jobs for the Heartland: Place-Based Policies in 21st-Century America," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 49(1 (Spring), pages 151-255.
    9. Michael Cooper & John McClelland & James Pearce & Richard Prisinzano & Joseph Sullivan & Danny Yagan & Owen Zidar & Eric Zwick, 2016. "Business in the United States: Who Owns It, and How Much Tax Do They Pay?," Tax Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(1), pages 91-128.
    10. David H. Autor & Frank Levy & Richard J. Murnane, 2003. "The skill content of recent technological change: an empirical exploration," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, issue Nov.
    11. Katrine Jakobsen & Kristian Jakobsen & Henrik Kleven & Gabriel Zucman, 2020. "Wealth Taxation and Wealth Accumulation: Theory and Evidence From Denmark," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(1), pages 329-388.
    12. Marius Brülhart & Jonathan Gruber & Matthias Krapf & Kurt Schmidheiny, 2022. "Behavioral Responses to Wealth Taxes: Evidence from Switzerland," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 111-150, November.
    13. Matthew Wiswall & Basit Zafar, 2015. "Determinants of College Major Choice: Identification using an Information Experiment," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(2), pages 791-824.
    14. Arnaud Costinot & Iván Werning, 2023. "Robots, Trade, and Luddism: A Sufficient Statistic Approach to Optimal Technology Regulation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(5), pages 2261-2291.
    15. Judd, Kenneth L., 1985. "Redistributive taxation in a simple perfect foresight model," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 59-83, October.
    16. Dana Goldman & Neeraj Sood & Arleen Leibowitz, 2005. "Wage and Benefit Changes in Response to Rising Health Insurance Costs," NBER Working Papers 11063, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Chamley, Christophe, 1986. "Optimal Taxation of Capital Income in General Equilibrium with Infinite Lives," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(3), pages 607-622, May.
    18. Joulfaian, David, 2006. "The Behavioral Response of Wealth Accumulation to Estate Taxation: Time Series Evidence," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 59(2), pages 253-268, June.
    19. Danny Yagan, 2015. "Capital Tax Reform and the Real Economy: The Effects of the 2003 Dividend Tax Cut," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(12), pages 3531-3563, December.
    20. Dana P. Goldman & Neeraj Sood & Arleen Leibowitz, 2005. "Wage and Benefit Changes in Response to Rising Health Insurance," NBER Chapters, in: Frontiers in Health Policy Research, Volume 8, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Joel Slemrod & Wojciech Kopczuk, 2000. "The Impact of the Estate Tax on the Wealth Accumulation and Avoidance Behavior of Donors," NBER Working Papers 7960, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. Eric Zwick & James Mahon, 2017. "Tax Policy and Heterogeneous Investment Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(1), pages 217-248, January.
    23. Robert Jensen, 2010. "The (Perceived) Returns to Education and the Demand for Schooling," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(2), pages 515-548.
    24. Christopher L. House & Matthew D. Shapiro, 2008. "Temporary Investment Tax Incentives: Theory with Evidence from Bonus Depreciation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 737-768, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cui, Xiaoyong & Gong, Liutang & Li, Wenjian, 2021. "Supply-side optimal capital taxation with endogenous wage inequality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    2. Eichfelder, Sebastian & Jacob, Martin & Schneider, Kerstin, 2023. "Do tax incentives affect investment quality?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    3. E. Mark Curtis & Daniel G. Garrett & Eric C. Ohrn & Kevin A. Roberts & Juan Carlos Suárez Serrato, 2021. "Capital Investment and Labor Demand," NBER Working Papers 29485, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Minouche Shafik, 2021. "Capitalism needs a new social contract [‘Does the US Tax Code Favor Automation?’]," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 37(4), pages 758-772.
    5. Katya Klinova & Anton Korinek, 2021. "AI and Shared Prosperity," Papers 2105.08475, arXiv.org.
    6. Oscar Afonso & Tiago Sequeira & Derick Almeida, 2023. "Technological knowledge and wages: from skill premium to wage polarization," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 140(2), pages 93-119, October.
    7. Kerstin Hotte & Angelos Theodorakopoulos & Pantelis Koutroumpis, 2021. "Automation and Taxation," Papers 2103.04111, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.
    8. Marcel Steffen Eckardt, 2022. "Minimum wages in an automating economy," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 24(1), pages 58-91, February.
    9. Jonas Loebbing, 2020. "Redistributive Income Taxation with Directed Technical Change," CESifo Working Paper Series 8743, CESifo.
    10. Xiaomeng Zhang & Theodore Palivos & Xiangbo Liu, 2022. "Aging and automation in economies with search frictions," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 35(2), pages 621-642, April.
    11. Holzer, Harry J., 2021. "After COVID-19: Building a More Coherent and Effective Workforce Development System in the US," IZA Policy Papers 174, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Orhan Erem Atesagaoglu & Hakki Yazici, 2021. "Optimal Taxation of Capital in the Presence of Declining Labor Share," CESifo Working Paper Series 9101, CESifo.
    13. Shafik, Minouche, 2021. "Capitalism needs a new social contract," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112213, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Wacks, Johannes, 2021. "Labor Market Polarization with Hand-to-Mouth Households," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242391, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    15. Orhan Erem Atesagaoglu & Hakki Yazici, 2021. "Optimal Taxation of Capital in the Presence of Declining Labor Share," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 21/739, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
    16. Röser, Florian & Niemann, Stefan & Angelini, Daniele, 2023. "Fiscal Policy and Human Capital in the Race Against the Machine," VfS Annual Conference 2023 (Regensburg): Growth and the "sociale Frage" 277672, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. Nakatani, Ryota, 2022. "Optimal fiscal policy in the automated economy," MPRA Paper 115003, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Spencer Bastani & Daniel Waldenström, 2020. "How Should Capital Be Taxed?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 812-846, September.
    2. Florian Scheuer & Joel Slemrod, 2020. "Taxation and the Superrich," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 189-211, August.
    3. Chirvi, Malte & Schneider, Cornelius, 2020. "Preferences for wealth taxation: Design, framing and the role of partisanship," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 260, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    4. Stefanie Stantcheva, 2020. "Dynamic Taxation," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 801-831, August.
    5. Burkhard Heer & Andreas Irmen & Bernd Süssmuth, 2023. "Explaining the decline in the US labor share: taxation and automation," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 30(6), pages 1481-1528, December.
    6. Thomas Blanchet, 2022. "Uncovering the Dynamics of the Wealth Distribution," Working Papers hal-03865295, HAL.
    7. Glogowsky, Ulrich, 2021. "Behavioral responses to inheritance and gift taxation: Evidence from Germany," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    8. Reichlin, Pietro & Borri, Nicola, 2018. "Wealth Taxes and Inequality," CEPR Discussion Papers 13067, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Florian Scheuer & Joel Slemrod, 2021. "Taxing Our Wealth," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 35(1), pages 207-230, Winter.
    10. Lerche, Adrian, 2022. "Investment Tax Credits and the Response of Firms," IZA Discussion Papers 15668, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Kapeller, Jakob & Leitch, Stuart & Wildauer, Rafael, 2023. "Can a European wealth tax close the green investment gap?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    12. Gasteiger, Emanuel & Prettner, Klaus, 2022. "Automation, Stagnation, And The Implications Of A Robot Tax," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 218-249, January.
    13. Sarah Perret, 2021. "Why were most wealth taxes abandoned and is this time different?," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3-4), pages 539-563, September.
    14. Casas, Pablo & Torres, José L., 2022. "Government size and automation," MPRA Paper 115271, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Chirvi, Malte & Schneider, Cornelius, 2019. "Stated preferences for capital taxation - tax design, misinformation and the role of partisanship," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 242, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    16. Elin Halvorsen & Thor O. Thoresen, 2021. "Distributional Effects of a Wealth Tax under Lifetime‐Dynastic Income Concepts," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 123(1), pages 184-215, January.
    17. Fisman, Raymond & Gladstone, Keith & Kuziemko, Ilyana & Naidu, Suresh, 2020. "Do Americans want to tax wealth? Evidence from online surveys," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    18. Emmanuel Saez & Gabriel Zucman, 2019. "Progressive Wealth Taxation," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 50(2 (Fall)), pages 437-533.
    19. Karl Schulz, 2021. "Redistribution of Return Inequality," CESifo Working Paper Series 8996, CESifo.
    20. Daniel G. Garrett & Eric Ohrn & Juan Carlos Suárez Serrato, 2020. "Tax Policy and Local Labor Market Behavior," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 83-100, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    US economy; tax; automation; employment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J23 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Labor Demand
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bin:bpeajo:v:51:y:2020:i:2020-01:p:231-300. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Haowen Chen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esbrous.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.