The purpose of this paper is to present an exercise where we identify optimal income tax rules according to various social welfare criteria, keeping fixed the total net tax revenue. Empirical applications of optimal taxation theory have typically adopted analytical expressions for the optimal taxes and then imputed numerical values to their parameters by using “calibration” procedures or previous econometric estimates. Besides the restrictiveness of the assumptions needed to obtain analytical solutions to the optimal taxation problem, a shortcoming of that procedure is the possible inconsistency between the theoretical assumptions and the assumptions implicit in the empirical evidence. In this paper we follow a different procedure, based on a computational approach to the optimal taxation problem. To this end, we estimate a microeconomic model with 78 parameters that capture heterogeneity in consumption-leisure preferences for singles and couples as well as in job opportunities across individuals based on detailed Norwegian household data for 1994. For any given tax rule, the estimated model can be used to simulate the labour supply choices made by single individuals and couples. Those choices are therefore generated by preferences and opportunities that vary across the decision units. We then identify optimal tax rules – within a class of 9-parameter piece-wise linear rules - by iteratively running the model until a given social welfare function attains its maximum under the constraint of keeping constant the total net tax revenue. The parameters to be determined are an exemption level, four marginal tax rates, three “kink points” and a lump sum transfer that can be positive (benefit) or negative (tax). We explore a variety of social welfare functions with differing degree of inequality aversion. All the social welfare functions imply monotonically increasing marginal tax rates. When compared with the current (1994) tax systems, the optimal rules imply a lower average tax rate. Moreover, all the optimal rules imply – with respect to the current rule – lower marginal rates on low and/or average income levels and higher marginal rates on relatively high income levels. These results are partially at odds with the tax reforms that took place in many countries during the last decades. While those reforms embodied the idea of lowering average tax rates, the way to implement it has typically consisted in reducing the top marginal rates. Our results instead suggest to lower average tax rates by reducing marginal rates on low and average income levels and increasing marginal rates on very high income levels.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by ICER - International Centre for Economic Research in its series ICER Working Papers with number
19-2008.
Length: 46 pages Date of creation: Jun 2008 Date of revision: Handle: RePEc:icr:wpicer:19-2008
Contact details of provider: Postal: Viale Settimio Severo, 63 - 10133 Torino - Italy Phone: +39 011 6604828 Fax: +39 011 6600082 Email: Web page: http://www.icer.it More information through EDIRC
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Alessandra Calosso).
Find related papers by JEL classification: H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation H31 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - Household J22 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Time Allocation and Labor Supply
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Marc Fleurbaey & Francois Maniquet, 2002.
"Fair Income Tax,"
Economics Working Papers
0021, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
[Downloadable!]
Other versions:
MARC FLEURBAEY & FRANÇOIS MANIQUET, 2006.
"Fair Income Tax,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Blackwell Publishing, vol. 73(1), pages 55-83, 01.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Robin Boadway & Michael Keen, 1999.
"Redistribution,"
Working Papers
983, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
[Downloadable!]
Other versions:
Boadway, Robin & Keen, Michael, 2000.
"Redistribution,"
Handbook of Income Distribution,
in: A.B. Atkinson & F. Bourguignon (ed.), Handbook of Income Distribution, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 12, pages 677-789
Elsevier.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Dickens, William T & Lundberg, Shelly J, 1993.
"Hours Restrictions and Labor Supply,"
International Economic Review,
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 34(1), pages 169-92, February.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)