Источник
Random Observations for Students of Economics
Выбор редакции
13 ноября, 19:22

The Case Against the Harvard-Yale Game

  • 0

I am sad to say that I find this persuasive.

Выбор редакции
05 ноября, 16:12

Furman on Tax Reform

  • 0

I don't agree with all of it, but these slides from a recent talk by Jason Furman make a lot of good points.

Выбор редакции
04 ноября, 18:15

Taxing Higher Ed

  • 0

One of the most surprising parts of the proposed tax bill is its tax on university endowments. If my rough calculations are correct, the tax would cost schools like Harvard between $1,000 and $2,000 per student every year.Is there a good argument for this policy? Not that I can see.

Выбор редакции
03 ноября, 21:40

The Good, the Bad, and the Fixable

  • 0

Click here to read my column in Sunday's NY Times on the Trump tax plan.

Выбор редакции
25 октября, 20:50

Where I am today

  • 0

Here.  Thank you, CEE.

Выбор редакции
24 октября, 21:25

The Dynamic Furman Ratio

  • 0

There has been a lot (maybe too much) commentary on my simple pedagogical exercise. To move the discussion forward, let me offer a challenge to readers: What is the dynamic Furman ratio in such a model--that is, the ratio the wage increase to the dynamic revenue loss, which I will call dw/dz?Note thatdz = - d[t*f '(k)*k]but now we take into account that k and f '(k) will change with t.Furman was the first to point out to me that, for Cobb-Douglas, the correct answer is: dw/dz = (1-α) / (1- α - t).For a capital share and tax rate of 1/3, we get dw/dz = 2.  Each dollar of a capital tax cut (dynamicly scored) raises wages by two dollars. See the derivation at Cochrane's blog. (Note that John and I have a slightly different notation, so don't be misled by the minus sign.)What is the general case?  I have not worked it out, but I will offer a conjecture: You can write dw/dz as a function of the tax rate, the capital share, and the elasticity of substitution between capital and labor. You can find a helpful hint in footnote 19 of this paper.

Выбор редакции
23 октября, 19:26

My Latest

  • 0

Click here to read "Friedman’s Presidential Address in the Evolution of Macroeconomic Thought," an essay I just finished writing with Ricardo Reis for the Journal of Economic Perspectives.

Выбор редакции
19 октября, 00:56

An Exercise for My Readers

  • 0

There has been a lot of discussion lately about how much a cut in the tax on capital will increase wages. So I thought I would pose a relevant exercise for my readers.An open economy has the production function y = f(k), where y is output per worker and k is capital per worker. The capital stock adjusts so that the after-tax marginal product of capital equals the exogenously given world interest rate r.r = (1-t)f '(k).Wages are set by the marginal product of labor, which (by Euler's theorem) equalsw = f(k) -f '(k)*k.We cut the tax rate t.  Because f '(k)*k is the tax base, the static cost of the tax cut (per worker) isdx = -f '(k)*k*dt.How much will the tax cut increase wages? In particular, what is dw/dx? The first person to email me the correct answer will get a shout-out on my blog.By the way, the same calculation would apply to the steady-state of a Ramsey model of a closed economy, where r would be interpreted as the rate of time preference.Bonus question: If there are positive externalities to capital accumulation, as suggested by DeLong and Summers, would the effect of the tax cut on wages be larger or smaller than in the standard neoclassical model above?-------------Update: Casey Mulligan, who has been thinking along similar lines, was the first to email me the correct answer:dw/dx = 1/(1 - t).So if the tax rate is one third, then every dollar of tax cut to capital (on a static basis) raises wages by $1.50.And if DeLong and Summers are right that there are positive externalities to capital, the effect will be larger than $1.50.Update 2: A friend asks to see the proof. Here goes. Start with my second equationw = f(k) -f '(k)*k.Take the total differential of this equation to getdw = -k*f "(k)*dk.This equation relates the change in wages to the change in capital. To find dk, use my first equationr = (1-t)f '(k).Take the total differential and solve for dk to obtaindk = {f '(k)/[(1-t)*f "(k)]}*dtThis equation relates the change in capital to the change in the tax rate. Substitute this expression into the dw equation to obtaindw = -[k*f '(k)/(1-t)]*dt.This equation relates the change in wages to the change in the tax rate. The third equation in the model can be rewritten asdt = dx/[-f '(k)*k].This equation relates the change in the tax rate to the static revenue loss. Substitute this expression into the preceding equation to yield the resultdw/dx = 1/(1 - t).I must confess that I am amazed at how simply this turns out. In particular, I do not have much intuition for why, for example, the answer does not depend on the production function.By the way, this derivative (dw/dx) is slightly different from what Casey calls the Furman ratio in his post.  Casey looks at the ratio of the wage change to the dynamic revenue loss, whereas dw/dx is the ratio of the wage change to the static revenue loss. We might call dw/dx the static Furman ratio. The dynamic Furman ratio is typically larger.Update 3: Alan Auerbach emails me the following comment:Just to place this result in context, it's a combination of (1) the standard result that in a small open economy labor bears 100% of a small capital income tax; and (2) the fact that starting at a positive tax rate, the burden of a tax increase exceeds revenue collection due to the first-order deadweight loss.Most people forget about the second point when arguing about where between 0 and 100% of a tax cut goes to labor vs. capital, and this is exacerbated by the fact that distribution tables assume revenue change = burden change, except in special cases (such as where a cut in capital gains taxes is presumed to lose little or no revenue).Update 4: John Cochrane weighs in.Update 5: Steven Landsburg weighs in.

Выбор редакции
09 октября, 21:33

A Talk from the CEA Chair

  • 0

Kevin Hassett speaks at the Tax Policy Center; click here for video. Click here to read the text.

Выбор редакции
30 сентября, 19:20

What I am reading

  • 0

Two of my favorite young macroeconomists (and former students) have a new essay on Identification in Macroeconomics.

Выбор редакции
26 сентября, 20:53

More on the Economics of Healthcare

  • 0

Back in July, I wrote a NY Times column about the economics of healthcare. Yesterday, my friend John Cochrane posted a lengthy response. I won't take the time to reply to all of John's points, but like everything John writes, his post is provocative and thoughtful. So I would encourage people to read it and decide for themselves.John is certainly correct when he speculates about my motivation in writing the column:It sounded like a good column idea, "I'll just run down the econ 101 list of potential problems with health care and insurance and do my job as an economic educator." I have always thought of my job as first and foremost being an economics educator, and my Times column is just one outlet.I wrote this particular column around the same time I was writing about the economics of healthcare in a longer piece, which is designed to be an optional chapter for users of my favorite textbook. You can read the longer piece here. 

Выбор редакции
19 сентября, 20:28

Still #1

  • 0

Harvard undergrads show their wisdom in course selection.