IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cca/wpaper/157.html

Using a Microeconometric Model of Household Labour Supply to Design Optimal Income Taxes

Author

Listed:
  • Rolf Aaberge
  • Ugo Colombino

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Rolf Aaberge & Ugo Colombino, 2010. "Using a Microeconometric Model of Household Labour Supply to Design Optimal Income Taxes," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 157, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
  • Handle: RePEc:cca:wpaper:157
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.carloalberto.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/no.157.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Colombino Ugo & Locatelli Marilena & Narazani Edlira & O'Donoghue Cathal & Isilda Shima, 2008. "Behavioural and Welfare Effects of Basic Income Policies: An A Simulation for European Countries," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 200806, University of Turin.
    2. Porath Elchanan Ben & Gilboa Itzhak, 1994. "Linear Measures, the Gini Index, and The Income-Equality Trade-off," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 443-467, December.
    3. Knut Røed & Steinar Strøm, 2002. "Progressive Taxes and the Labour Market: Is the Trade–off Between Equality and Efficiency Inevitable?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 77-110, February.
    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. Matteo Picchio & Giacomo Valletta, 2018. "A welfare evaluation of the 1986 tax reform for married couples in the United States," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 25(3), pages 757-807, June.
    2. Julia Tanndal & Daniel Waldenström, 2018. "Does Financial Deregulation Boost Top Incomes? Evidence from the Big Bang," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 85(338), pages 232-265, April.
    3. Morini, Matteo & Pellegrino, Simone, 2018. "Personal income tax reforms: A genetic algorithm approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(3), pages 994-1004.
    4. Islam, Nizamul & Colombino, Ugo, 2018. "The case for NIT+FT in Europe. An empirical optimal taxation exercise," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 38-69.
    5. Colombino Ugo, 2012. "A microeconometric-computational approach to empirical optimal taxation: outline of a project," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201218, University of Turin.
    6. Doerrenberg, Philipp & Duncan, Denvil, 2014. "Experimental evidence on the relationship between tax evasion opportunities and labor supply," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 48-70.
    7. Vandyck, Toon & Van Regemorter, Denise, 2014. "Distributional and regional economic impact of energy taxes in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 190-203.
    8. Dolls, Mathias & Peichl, Andreas & Zimmermann, Klaus F., 2011. "Eine Herausforderung für die G20: Global vereinbarte Schuldenbremsen und transnationale fiskalpolitische Aufsichtsgremien," IZA Standpunkte 45, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Thor O. Thoresen & Zhiyang Jia & Peter J. Lambert, 2016. "Is there More Redistribution Now? A Review of Methods for Evaluating Tax Redistributional Effects," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 72(3), pages 302-333, September.
    10. Bart Capéau & André Decoster, 2016. "Getting tired of work, or re-tiring in absence of decent job opportunities? Some insights from an estimated random utility/random opportunity model on Belgian data," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven 542044, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.

    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. Margherita Fort & Nichole Schneeweis & Rudolf Winter-Ebmer, 2011. "More Schooling, More Children: Compulsory Schooling Reforms and Fertility in Europe," Economics working papers 2011-05, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    2. Rolf Aaberge & Ugo Colombino, 2005. "Designing Optimal Taxes With a Microeconometric Model of Household Labour Supply," Public Economics 0510013, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Rolf Aaberge & Ugo Colombino, 2011. "Empirical Optimal Income Taxation: A Microeconometric Application to Norway," CHILD Working Papers wp16_11, CHILD - Centre for Household, Income, Labour and Demographic economics - ITALY.
    4. Simone Pellegrino & Guido Perboli & Giovanni Squillero, 2019. "Balancing the equity-efficiency trade-off in personal income taxation: an evolutionary approach," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 36(1), pages 37-64, April.
    5. Casilda Lasso de la Vega & Ana Urrutia & Oscar Volij, 2011. "An Axiomatic Characterization Of The Theil Inequality Order," Working Papers 1103, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    6. Rolf Aaberge & Magne Mogstad, 2009. "On the Measurement of Long-Term Income Inequality and Income Mobility," ICER Working Papers 09-2009, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    7. Aaberge, Rolf & Mogstad, Magne & Peragine, Vito, 2011. "Measuring long-term inequality of opportunity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3-4), pages 193-204, April.
    8. Stefania Minardi & Fan Wang & Itzhak Gilboa, 2025. "Consumption of Values," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(3), pages 2623-2634, March.
    9. Satya R. Chakravarty, 2009. "Equity and efficiency as components of a social welfare function," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 5(2), pages 181-199, June.
    10. Satya R. Chakravarty & Pietro Muliere, 2003. "Welfare indicators: A review and new perspectives. 1. Measurement of inequality," Metron - International Journal of Statistics, Dipartimento di Statistica, Probabilità e Statistiche Applicate - University of Rome, vol. 0(3), pages 457-497.
    11. Luis José Imedio Olmedo & Elena Bárcena Martín, 2007. "Dos familias numerables de medidas de desigualdad," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 31(1), pages 191-217, January.
    12. Rydqvist, Kristian & Schwartz, Steven T. & Spizman, Joshua D., 2014. "The tax benefit of income smoothing," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 78-88.
    13. Luciano Andreozzi, 2019. "On Being Inequality Averse: Measurement and Behavioral Characterization," DEM Working Papers 2019/10, Department of Economics and Management.
    14. Argyris, Nikolaos & Karsu, Özlem & Yavuz, Mirel, 2022. "Fair resource allocation: Using welfare-based dominance constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 560-578.
    15. Herwig Immervoll & Cathal O'Donoghue, 2009. "Towards a multi-purpose framework for tax-benefit microsimulation: lessons from EUROMOD," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 2(2), pages 43-54.
    16. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2003:i:19:p:1-16 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Kirsten Rohde, 2010. "A preference foundation for Fehr and Schmidt’s model of inequity aversion," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(4), pages 537-547, April.
    18. Etienne Lehmann & Claudio Lucifora & Simone Moriconi & Bruno Van der Linden, 2016. "Beyond the labour income tax wedge: the unemployment-reducing effect of tax progressivity," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 23(3), pages 454-489, June.
    19. O'Donoghue, Cathal & Colombino, Ugo & Narazani, Edlira & Locatelli, Marilena & Shima, Isilda, 2008. "Behavioural and welfare effects of basic income policies: a simulation for European countries," EUROMOD Working Papers EM5/08, EUROMOD at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    20. Szczepaniak, Małgorzata & Geise, Andrzej & Bariyah, Nurul, 2022. "Impact of institutional determinants on income inequalities in Indonesia during the Era Reformasi," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    21. Wennberg, Karl & Stadin, Evelina & Bergström, Andreas, 2014. "How policy could handle workplace digitization," Ratio Working Papers 237, The Ratio Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cca:wpaper:157. 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: Giovanni Bert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fccaait.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.