View source for The Simple Analytics of Soaking the Rich
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
Jump to:
navigation
,
search
<!-- you can have any number of categories here --> [[Category:Paul Krugman]] [[Category: Progressive Taxes]] <!-- 1 URL must be followed by >= 0 Other URL and Old URL and 1 End URL.--> {{URL | url = http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/the-simple-analytics-of-soaking-the-rich-wonkish/}} <!-- {{Other URL | url = }} --> <!-- {{Old URL | url = }} --> {{End URL}} {{DES | des = Why it makes sense (with standard microeconomics) to tax the rich more heavily, even if they were job creators. | show=}} {{Quotes}} {{Text | So President Obama is going after the Ryan plan; good. And better yet, he’s taking on the underlying economic premise, which is that low taxes on the rich are the answer to, well, everything, and good for everyone. For this premise is just bad economics. I’ve written about this before, drawing on Diamond and Saez, but I thought I’d try a different take. The way Diamond and Saez do the analysis is to argue that because the rich are rich, their marginal utility of income is very low, which means that at the margin their income doesn’t matter for social welfare. So they should be taxed at the rate which maximizes revenue, which is 1/(1+ε) — where ε is the elasticity of labor supply from the rich. And since we have a lot of evidence suggesting that ε is quite low, the appropriate tax rate for the rich is quite high — 70 percent or more. But what if the rich in their Galtian goodness supply something nobody else can? Call it J, for jobcreation. Doesn’t the imperative to encourage J mean that we should keep their taxes low? Actually, no. So here’s my alternative way to think about it: we can think of society as a whole — or, if you like, society not including the top 0.1 percent — as having monopsony power over the rich. The picture looks like this: The optimal thing, from the point of view of the non-rich, is to set a tax that makes the cost of hiring rich people to produce J equal to the true marginal cost of that J, a cost that includes the fact that buying more drives up the price of inframarginal purchases. And if you grind through, you find that the optimal tax is … 1/(1+ε). Even if the rich are uniquely able to supply the magic of jobcreation, they should face much higher taxes than they do. And this is all perfectly standard economics — indeed, Econ 101. So what’s the basis for claims that we must tax the rich lightly? Often, it seems as if conservatives believe that there are somehow big positive externalities to what the rich do; it’s as if they believe that industrial policy is nonsense, unless the industry in question is jobcreation by the rich, in which case loose arguments about huge spillovers are just fine. But the simple analytics say that we should soak the rich, hard.}}
Template:DES
(
view source
)
Template:End URL
(
view source
)
Template:Extension DPL
(
view source
)
Template:Quotations
(
view source
)
Template:Quotes
(
view source
)
Template:Text
(
view source
)
Template:URL
(
view source
)
Return to
The Simple Analytics of Soaking the Rich
.
Navigation menu
Views
Page
Discussion
View source
History
Personal tools
Log in
Search
Search For Page Title
in Wikipedia
with Google
Translate This Page
Google Translate
Navigation
Main Page (fast)
Main Page (long)
Blog
Original Critiques site
What's new
Current events
Recent changes
Bibliography
List of all indexes
All indexed pages
All unindexed pages
All external links
Random page
Under Construction
To Be Added
Site Information
About This Site
About The Author
How You Can Help
Support us at Patreon!
Site Features
Site Status
Credits
Notes
Help
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Guidelines To Create
Indexable Page/Quote
Indexable Book/Quote
Indexable Quote
Unindexed
Templates
Edit Sidebar
Purge cache this page