IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Capital Income Taxation and Public Choice


  • Dr Martin Weale



The supply-side argument that taxes on income from capital are distortionary and therefore reduce welfare is widely accepted by economists. We conduct an analysis of taxation of income from capital in a dynamic general equilibrium model. We show that, when young people face liquidity constraints, they favour taxation of income from capital, because it allows them to defer part of their of their tax bills to a point at which they can afford to pay them. Old people, on the other hand favour a shift from taxation of capital to taxation of labour and, with the population structure implied by the 1991 life table this is sufficient to provide a majority against taxation of income from capital. The outcome of a plebiscite differs from the choice made by a benevolent social planner because the former does not take into account the votes of those not yet born. We show that, if young people receive resources such as bequests at the start of their working lives, this alleviates their wealth constraint and changes the welfare implications of tax on income from capital. We also show that the outcome of a vote on capital income taxation is sensitive to the life-expectancy of the population.

Suggested Citation

  • Dr Martin Weale, 2000. "Capital Income Taxation and Public Choice," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 162, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:nsr:niesrd:180

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Benhabib, Jess & Schmitt-Grohe, Stephanie & Uribe, Martin, 2001. "The Perils of Taylor Rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-2), pages 40-69, January.
    2. McCallum, Bennett T. & Nelson, Edward, 1999. "Nominal income targeting in an open-economy optimizing model," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 553-578, June.
    3. Svensson, Lars E. O., 1997. "Inflation forecast targeting: Implementing and monitoring inflation targets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1111-1146, June.
    4. repec:sae:niesru:v:164:y::i:1:p:90-99 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Andrew P. Blake, 1996. "Forecast Error Bounds By Stochastic Simulation," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 156(1), pages 72-79, May.
    6. Barrell, R. & Dury, K. & Hurst, I., 1999. "Analysing Monetary and Fiscal Policy Regimes using Deterministic and Stochastic Simulations," Economics Working Papers eco99/37, European University Institute.
    7. John B. Taylor, 1999. "A Historical Analysis of Monetary Policy Rules," NBER Chapters,in: Monetary Policy Rules, pages 319-348 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Clarida, Richard & Gali, Jordi & Gertler, Mark, 1998. "Monetary policy rules in practice Some international evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1033-1067, June.
    9. Svensson, Lars E. O., 2000. "Open-economy inflation targeting," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 155-183, February.
    10. Clements,Michael & Hendry,David, 1998. "Forecasting Economic Time Series," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521632423, May.
    11. Hall, S G, 1985. "On the Solution of Large Economic Models with Consistent Expectations," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 157-161, May.
    12. Taylor, John B., 1999. "The robustness and efficiency of monetary policy rules as guidelines for interest rate setting by the European central bank," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 655-679, June.
    13. Barrell, Ray & Sefton, James, 1997. "Fiscal Policy and the Masstricht Solvency Criteria," The Manchester School of Economic & Social Studies, University of Manchester, vol. 65(3), pages 259-279, June.
    14. Ray C. Fair, 1998. "Estimated Stabilization Costs of the EMU," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 164(1), pages 90-99, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:nsr:niesrd:180. 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: (Library & Information Manager). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.