IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

The Optimal Size of Public Spending and the Distortionary Cost of Taxation

  • Yew-Kwang Ng

Feldstein (1997) reviews his and others' contributions in the distortionary costs of taxation, arriving at a remarkable estimate that the cost per incremental dollar of government spending is a very high $2.65. Kaplow (1996) argues that it is optimal to supply a public good whenever the benefit/cost ratio exceeds one, contrary to the orthodox position since Pigou (1928) that the benefits of public goods must exceed their direct costs by an amount sufficient to outweigh the distortionary costs of taxation. This paper largely reconciles these two apparently opposing positions. The large distortionary costs exist on the revenue side but is largely offset by the negative distortionary costs or distributional gain on the spending side. However, both Kaplow's and Feldstein's arguments have to be subject to important qualifications. Additional arguments relevant to the central public finance question "How big should the public spending be?" are also reviewed. The prevalence of environmental disruption effects, the existence of burden-free taxes on diamond goods, and the importance of relative-income effects all favor the lowering of the required benefit/cost ratio for public goods and, as a rule, more public spending. The reason for the difference between the existence of distortion (in comparison to a lumpsum tax) as emphasized by Browning and Liu (1998) and the unitary marginal cost of public fund is also explained graphically.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.

File URL: http://ntj.tax.org/wwtax/ntjrec.nsf/5F758FFFBDD2768285256AFC007F23C7/$FILE/v53n2253.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Monash University, Department of Economics in its series Monash Economics Working Papers with number archive-19.

as
in new window

Length: 20 pages
Date of creation: 2000
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in National Tax Journal 53:2 (June 2000) pp 253-72.
Handle: RePEc:mos:moswps:archive-19
Contact details of provider: Postal: Department of Economics, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia
Phone: +61-3-9905-2493
Fax: +61-3-9905-5476
Web page: http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/eco/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Web: http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/eco/research/papers/ Email:


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.:

as in new window
  1. Ng, Yew-Kwang, 1987. "Relative-Income Effects and the Appropriate Level of Public Expenditure," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 293-300, June.
  2. Yew-Kwang Ng & Guang-Zhen Sun, 2006. "Introduction," Division of Labor & Transaction Costs (DLTC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 1(02), pages 99-103.
  3. Ng, Yew-Kwang, 1975. "Non-Economic Activities, Indirect Externalities, and Third-Best Politics," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 507-25.
  4. Ng, Yew-Kwang, 1977. "Towards a Theory of Third-Best," Public Finance = Finances publiques, , vol. 32(1), pages 1-15.
  5. Ng, Yew-Kwang & Wang, Jianguo, 1993. "Relative income, aspiration, environmental quality, individual and political myopia : Why may the rat-race for material growth be welfare-reducing?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 3-23, July.
  6. Martin Feldstein, 1999. "Tax Avoidance And The Deadweight Loss Of The Income Tax," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(4), pages 674-680, November.
  7. Ng, Yew-Kwang, 1987. "Diamonds Are a Government's Best Friend: Burden-Free Taxes on Goods Valued for Their Values," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(1), pages 186-91, March.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mos:moswps:archive-19. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Simon Angus)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.