IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/auu/dpaper/431.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why an Earned Income Tax Credit Program is a Mistake for Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Patricia Apps

Abstract

This paper examines the distributional and efficiency effects of an Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program of the kind being strongly advocated for Australia by a number of economists. The paper presents an empirical analysis of the Family Tax Credit proposed by the Australian Labor Party at the time of the 1998 election, as a case study. The results show that, due to the structure of effective tax rates implied by the program, introducing such a system would lead to a large shift in the overall burden of taxation to low and median wage two earner families. Drawing on the findings of empirical research on behavioural responses to taxes, the paper goes on to explain why the program can also be expected to lead to a fall in labour supply and household saving. Thus there is reason to be critical of the impact of the policy both on economic growth and on equity of the income distribution.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Patricia Apps, 2001. "Why an Earned Income Tax Credit Program is a Mistake for Australia," CEPR Discussion Papers 431, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    • Handle: RePEc:auu:dpaper:431
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cbe.anu.edu.au/researchpapers/CEPR/DP431.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Dawkins & David Johnson & Rosanna Scutella & Gillian Beer & Ann Harding, 1998. "Towards a Negative Income Tax System for Australia," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 31(3), pages 237-257, September.
    2. Peter Dawkins & John Freebairn, 1997. "Towards Full Employment," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 30(4), pages 405-417, December.
    3. Richard Blundell & Alan Duncan & Julian McCrae & Costas Meghir, 2000. "The labour market impact of the working families’ tax credit," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 21(1), pages 75-103, March.
    4. N. Eissa & H. W. Hoynes, "undated". "The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Labor Supply of Married Couples," Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers 1194-99, University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty.
    5. Patricia Apps & Ray Rees, 2001. "Household Saving and Full Consumpyion Over the Life Cycle," CEPR Discussion Papers 428, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    6. Patricia F. Apps & Ray Rees, 1999. "Individual versus Joint Taxation in Models with Household Production," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(2), pages 393-403, April.
    7. Heckman, James J, 1993. "What Has Been Learned about Labor Supply in the Past Twenty Years?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 116-121, May.
    8. William M. Gentry & Alison P. Hagy, 1996. "The Distributional Effects of the Tax Treatment of Child Care Expenses," NBER Chapters, in: Empirical Foundations of Household Taxation, pages 99-134, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Apps, Patricia & Rees, Ray, 1999. "On the taxation of trade within and between households," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 241-263, August.
    10. Martin Feldstein & James M. Poterba, 1996. "Empirical Foundations of Household Taxation," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number feld96-1, March.
    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. Patricia Apps & Ray Rees, 2005. "Gender, Time Use, and Public Policy over the Life Cycle," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 21(3), pages 439-461, Autumn.
    2. Peter Dawkins, 2002. "The 'Five Economists' Plan: The Original Idea and Further Developments," CEPR Discussion Papers 450, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    3. Peter B. Dixon & Maureen T. Rimmer, 2003. "A New Specification of Labour Supply in the MONASH Model with an Illustrative Application," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 36(1), pages 22-40, March.
    4. Sandra Dandie & Joseph Mercante, 2007. "Australian labour supply elasticities: Comparison and critical review," Treasury Working Papers 2007-04, The Treasury, Australian Government, revised Oct 2007.
    5. Patricia Apps, 2006. "Family Taxation: An Unfair and Inefficient System," CEPR Discussion Papers 524, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.

    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. Patricia Apps, 2003. "Gender, Time Use and Models of the Household," CEPR Discussion Papers 464, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    2. Patricia Apps, 1999. "Reforming the Australian Tax Transfer System," CEPR Discussion Papers 413, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    3. Patricia Apps, 2002. "Why the Five Economists' Plan for a "Wage-Tax Trade-Off" is a Mistake for Australia," CEPR Discussion Papers 446, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    4. Bargain, Olivier & Orsini, Kristian, 2006. "In-work policies in Europe: Killing two birds with one stone?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 667-697, December.
    5. Patricia Apps & Ray Rees, 2007. "The Taxation of Couples," Discussion Papers 07/21, Department of Economics, University of York.
    6. Patricia Apps, 2006. "Family Taxation: An Unfair and Inefficient System," CEPR Discussion Papers 524, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    7. David T. Ellwood & Jeffrey B. Liebman, 2001. "The Middle-Class Parent Penalty: Child Benefits in the US Tax Code," NBER Chapters, in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 15, pages 1-40, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Patricia M. Anderson & Phillip B. Levine, 1999. "Child Care and Mothers' Employment Decisions," JCPR Working Papers 64, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
    9. Patricia Apps, 2009. "Tax Reform, Targeting and the Tax Burden on Women," CEPR Discussion Papers 609, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    10. Wrede Matthias, 2003. "The Income Splitting Method: Is it Good for Both Marriage Partners?," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 203-216, May.
    11. Richard Blundell & Mike Brewer & Marco Francesconi, 2008. "Job Changes and Hours Changes: Understanding the Path of Labor Supply Adjustment," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(3), pages 421-453, July.
    12. Bargain, Olivier & Orsini, Kristian & Peichl, Andreas, 2011. "Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the US," IZA Discussion Papers 5820, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Olivier Bargain & Kristian Orsini & Andreas Peichl, 2014. "Comparing Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the United States: New Results," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 49(3), pages 723-838.
    14. Jara-Díaz, Sergio & Rosales-Salas, Jorge, 2017. "Beyond transport time: A review of time use modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 209-230.
    15. Pierre-Carl Michaud & Konstantinos Tatsiramos, 2005. "Employment Dynamics of Married Women in Europe," Working Papers WR-273, RAND Corporation.
    16. Alberto Alesina & Andrea Ichino & Loukas Karabarbounis, 2011. "Gender-Based Taxation and the Division of Family Chores," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 3(2), pages 1-40, May.
    17. Mike Brewer & Paul Gregg, 2001. "Eradicating child poverty in Britain: welfare reform and children since 1997," IFS Working Papers W01/08, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    18. Peter Haan, 2005. "State Dependence and Female Labor Supply in Germany: The Extensive and the Intensive Margin," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 538, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    19. Kai A. Konrad & Kjell Erik Lommerud, 2010. "Love and taxes - and matching institutions," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 43(3), pages 919-940, August.
    20. Kleven, Henrik Jacobsen & Kreiner, Claus Thustrup, 2006. "The marginal cost of public funds: Hours of work versus labor force participation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(10-11), pages 1955-1973, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    taxation; welfare;

    JEL classification:

    • H2 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
    • I3 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty

    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:auu:dpaper:431. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cpanuau.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.