1
$\begingroup$

Model 1:

The tax rate $\tau$ which maximizes tax revenue equals $\frac{1}{1 + a\epsilon}$ where $\epsilon$ is the elasticity of how taxable income responds to changes in the tax rate across and $a$ is some parameter. See this paper: https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-slemrod-giertzNBER09.pdf (see page 6)

We can estimate $a$ to be about 1.5 and $\epsilon$ to be about 0.4 or less, hence the maximizing rate is about 60 % or more.

Model 2:

Tax revenue is $\tau Y(\tau)$ where $Y(\tau)$ is total production which depends on the tax rate. If we say that a 1 % increase in the tax rate leads to a 2.5 % decrease in total output, we get that $Y'(\tau) = -2.5Y(\tau)$. So, $Y(\tau) = Ce^{-2.5\tau}$.

So revenue is $\tau C e^{-2.5\tau}$. Maximizing this simple equation in $\tau$ gives a tax maximizing rate of 40 %.


These two models give highly different results. Which one makes more "sense"?

Model 2 is simple to understand, but I have not read the paper which uses Model 1, it seems a bit advanced for me.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What context(s) are you considering? Model 1 seems to be based on micro-level household behavior, while Model 2 appears to be related to macro-level national income and tax variables. $\endgroup$ – Herr K. Mar 1 '18 at 17:51
  • $\begingroup$ If the difference is due to the parameters, then question depends on those magic numbers too. It seems $60\%=1.5\times 0.4$ and $40\% = \frac{1}{2.5}$ $\endgroup$ – Henry Mar 1 '18 at 18:43

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.