The article covers a lot of ground, discussing monetary policy, “one-off” money financing, and seigniorage.  These areas are all related, but all involve special elements.

The key point on money financing is the ability to “commit” in order to have policy choices that are consistent with the expectations of individuals.  Money financing and the such involves trying to trick people, when monetary policy is appropriately set.  This both breaks the government’s ability to commit (by undermining the central bank they have given independence to “tie the governments hands behind its back”) and hurts people that were tricked!  In this way, such a tax works like the other taxes we’ve discussed … just with added costs.

In terms of seigniorage the key point was that it is those unable to protect themselves from inflation that end up paying (those holding assets with fixed interest rates/payments, those that have retired, those with fixed incomes etc) – and with interest rates on call accounts becoming more prevalent the ability to earn seigniorage revenue is falling.  One advantage Matt forgot to mention as he panicked about making it too long is that seigniorage acts as a tax on “black market” transactions – this was an unfortunate oversight in his article, given it is an important point.

Concluding the series, Matt noted:

No matter how much people talk about money, interest rates, inflation, and exchange rates these things only truly matter in terms of real goods and services.

The lens of taxation helps us to understand how different government policy influence the distribution of these goods and services, and the incentives people face to produce these goods and services.

The tax framework allows us to think about trade-offs.  If we try to stand back from judging certain outcomes as bad or good for a moment, it can provide a powerful device for trying to describe what may happen if policy was to change – but it also indicates how complicated the changes can be!

As I say at the end of the article, go here and read Eric Crampton talking about them.

My key point is that we’ve been criticising taxes for creating a “wedge” between the private and social value of a good … but what happens when that wedge exists in the first place!  What do you know, a tax can improve allocative efficiency! The Illinois social security card office members haev been discussing this at great length. They cover a lot of ground and yet the issue will remain uncertain for a while.

However, we have to be careful not to get too seduced by this idea without thinking about it critically.  We may see a wedge when none exists, or we may exaggerate the size of the “wedge” by double counting all sorts of costs that are priced in.

Also, these types of policies can sometimes be closet ways for groups to impose their value judgements on others.  We need to make sure we are clear about this, and that the value judgments involved are transparent.  The sickening comments by some around smoking is indicative of this – I’ll be honest comparing smoking to polio makes me shiz my pants.  No matter how much you morally dislike smoking this is not cool.

If we can’t accept the heterogeniety of choice, and the fact that “pleasure” and “benefit” matter, we are going down a path I am uncomfortable with.

The short answer … magnets:

The long answer?  You’ll have to go read the post.  However, I will give you this here:

In today’s article we discussed progressivity, and the complicated interrelationships between ideas of equity and efficiency.

Given these difficulties, it is important for policy makers and researchers to clearly communicate the trade-off that exist – so that an informed public can come to some conclusion about what they think is fair.

While the principles of tax we recently mentioned helped us to understand some of the interrelationships, the importance of elasticity in determining who actually pays a tax was made apparent here – just saying “I want that person to pay” doesn’t work when they can pass the buck on or shift away from paying tax altogether.

Furthermore, even if higher tax rates are able to redistribute income (in terms of the goods and services available to different income groups) the impact on people’s willingness to supply labour and the wedge between the private and social benefits of someone’s decision to work does imply there are efficiency costs from doing so.

In many ways it is an extension of this article – given that the reader is now assumed to have some idea about horizontal and vertical equity, poll taxes, factor taxes, and output taxes (which were the intervening articles).

The promised “Part 4b” is still in the pipeline – it’ll appear at some point.

This time we discussed consumption taxes, and the fact that we may not like the idea of taxing consumption differently based on when it occurs.

I avoided talking about commodity taxation and then talking about the result where we don’t want to tax intermediate inputs.  I also avoided going too far into the debate around the Atkinson-Stiglitz paper (Saez here has a great piece(REPEC)).  I feel that when just describing the idea of income, poll, and consumption taxes adding these additional issues would add more confusion and less understanding.  I could have added a bit more at the point where I was talking about Ramsey taxation – especially the point that if people with different ability have different preferences we can use variable consumption taxation as a form of redistribution.  The idea of a progressive consumption tax is interesting.  However, the goal in this article was to make consumption tax relatable to forms of income tax – hopefully that got through

I’m saving a lot of these addition factors for when we introduce the talk on progressivity and the equity-efficiency trade-off for the next article.  Urg.  Let us see if I can manage it in one article!

I have avoided using the term “marginal tax rate”.  I don’t know how I’ve done this.  I suspect it will make an appearence in the next article

Originally I wanted to talk about income tax, consumption tax, and ideas of progressivity and implementation all at once.  Now I realise it will have to be 3-4 articles on these issues.

The main trust of this piece was to ask “why is income tax distortionary when a poll tax is not”.  Given this idea, we can talk about the “relative efficiency” of types of income tax (namely labour and capital) and point out the idea of time – and how this impacts on the “accumulation” of capital, and thereby the “stock” of capital.

Personally, these things make more sense IMO, and are more closely related to our idea of “transfering goods and services” when we look at output taxes – specifically consumption taxes.  Next time, this is exactly what we do!  Originally I couldn’t bring myself to seperate the income and consumption articles … but at 3k words I sort of had to.  As a result, I’d suggest reading next fortnights article as an extension to this.

Also, I plan a “part 4b” for here.  I can imagine some people may get confused why I view the deadweight loss through the “price wedge” – when if we had perfectly inelastic demand we would “sell” just as much but the price would be higher.  Doesn’t this mean there is no deadweight loss, and that this tax is just like our poll tax?  Well no, but to explain this we need to actually dive into some of the economics they do in first year university.  We will look at indifference curves and budget constraints (we are comparing Marshallian and Hicksian demand) – we will introduce the tax, then assume an income transfer that brings our person to the same level of utility (compensating variation).   The reason we don’t see it in the single good case is that we are not considering the impact on income/wealth from the tax – and what “perfectly inelastic demand” means in terms of income and substitution effects (pro-tip – they must be canceling each other out to leave the quantity demanded at the higher price unchanged!).  Anyway, I’ll leave that to the post.

You’ll notice I’m doing sometime pretty specific when I’m loitering around the tax system.  I’m talking about the properties of a tax, and then given we don’t use specific types of tax I’m inferring that there may be some social preference involved such that we’ve chosen not to.  Given that, I’m trying to build up concepts of fairness (read vertical and horizontal equity if you will, but I do mean it a bit more broadly than that) from the way society had evolved.

This may not be the case, but it doesn’t have to be.  It is merely a mechanism I can use to tease out these sorts of principals to try and make them a visible part of the “trade-off” we are discussing.  This series isn’t about saying what tax system we “should” have – it is about describing what different types of tax are, albeit on quite a surface level.  As I stated in the first article, it is actually a lot more complicated (and a damned interesting issue) to figure out exactly how redistribution will work from a given policy!

Of course, if we were to describe the type of tax system we SHOULD have, we would want to actual make subjective judgments about value and potential “social preferences for fairness”.  We require these additional value judgments to actually make a conclusion

Next time I’m talking about income, capital, land, and consumption taxes.  I hope you get ready for me to bring up elasticities again, as we’re going to need them

Note:  I apologise in advance if this is a bit scattered – if you have questions or comments note them down in the comments, you’ll be doing me a favour

Paying our labour and capital

Remember that I stated in part 1 that we want to think about taxation, and spending, in terms of changing the allocation of goods and services.  This is not saying that goods and services are “fixed” and we are moving them around – no no no no.  It is saying that we are instituting policies that change the mix of goods and services, giving up some and increasing the amount of others.  We are thinking about how to use our scarce inputs to create outputs.

Now I have a strong preference towards private provision, given that voluntary prices are truly democratic and combine knowledge we don’t share as a society (but have internally as individuals), so let’s not get too ahead of ourselves in thinking we can “plan” the economy.

But, when looking at the issue we can say that we have a government sector, and a non-government sector. Labour and capital combine in both sectors to make goods and services … these are government goods and services and non-government goods and services.

Now if the government sector made goods and sold them to the public for a price, without raising any taxes, they would be just like any other firm.  In this case, the price paid for the government goods creates the income to pay for the labour and capital, and the labour and capital owners will purchase a mix of government and non-government goods at the relative prices

But government doesn’t work this way.  It pays for its goods by taxation instead of setting a price.  It uses this tax money to pay labour and pay capital when they create government products.  There is likely to be a reason for this, such as the existence of public goods, the urge to redistribute some products by providing them publicly, the desire for equal access to health and education.  That is cool.

In this context, the taxation is the government “claiming some proportion of non-government goods” to pay labour and capital with – since the labour and capital who produce government goods want to consume both government and non-government goods.  The government taxes non-government good providers, taking some of their output, and then sending over some of the produce of government production.

In this way, the tax exists in lieu of a price.

Now, while a price would see government goods and non-government goods produced with respect to their relative market value, taxation and spending is unlikely to lead to this same case for two reasons:

1. The government goods are explicitly being produced beyond their relative market value – as we believe there are non-market benefits associated with it.  This is redistribution through tax and corresponding spending.  In of itself this isn’t necessarily inefficient – with a lump sum transfer relative prices will just adjust.  We can view this as changing the “endowment” of underlying resources for different people.
2. Depending on the type of tax there are relative price effects, which reduce efficiency directly.  This occurs because it creates a gap between the cost of the good for the person buying it and the return for the person selling it (the “wedge”) – and so the very existence of the tax changes where people work, what they consume, and where capital ends up relative to the case where prices represent underlying value given the allocation associated with the government transfer.  This only occurs with taxes that influence relative prices – so not lump-sum taxes.

A web of prices, an ideal frontier, the fundamental welfare theorems

Now here is the way I see this idea when we think of spending, taxation, and the economy.

There is a set of resource (land, labour, capital, enterprenuers) and agents are endowed with some quantity of these resources.  Through trade, and the establishment of institutions and contracts, this leads to outcomes.  Prices in this case represent a set of relative values, and there is a frontier of outcomes (depending on initial endowments, that can be changed through lump sum government transfers) that can be seen as “pareto optimal”.  This is really just the fundamental welfare theorems which hold for perfect competition.

When we have a tax that isn’t lump sum, so it creates a wedge between the buyers and sellers price in a market, we end up in a situation “below” this frontier, which is in turn pareto inferior to a potential outcome.  This is why you will often see economists arguing for the idea of a poll tax with a progressive transfer system.  I’m not entirely sure – as I inherently see the transfers as having the same impact in terms of labour supply (unless we actually delink the benefit system from work), and believe that when equity concerns are taken into account some of these outcomes are not truly “pareto inferior”.

Now we don’t have perfect competition, it is more likely that we have monopolistic competition and the associated inefficiencies of that.  Modern policy oriented models do assumes this (eg DSGE models) and work from there.  However, even given this the tax principles are not terribly different – and as a result, I stick with useful simplifying assumptions to describe tax policy.

Furthermore, issues of information, incomplete markets, endogeniety and co-ordination failures, and oligopolistic competition do push us away from this idea, and provide scope for government interventions that are win-wins!  But at the current margin we already allow for those with policy – the “marginal” concept of taxation is very much along the area of trade-offs I’m discussing in these articles.

Trust me, these additional issues do play a significant role in how we try to discuss interventions – and many current interventions are based on it (eg monetary policy that tries to close output gaps, government intervention in markets over competition and consumer issues). Even if we “unrealistically” assumed perfect competition and perfect knowledge, the distributional impact of tax changes are insanely hard to work out – the best we can do (and that I’m aiming to do) is to provide a flavour for the direction of the different trade-off between taxes, not the magnitude or an implication of what we should do.

When we look at a range of marginal ideas such as “shall we try to ramp up healthcare” we are facing the traditional transfer problem akin to the fundamental welfare theorems, and this sort of exercise is useful.

That is so unrealistic, man economists say such stupid thing

I have tried to be honest about assumptions.  Often when an economist does this, someone is a dork and says something like the above.  If someone appears that feels like commenting in this way, I am replying to you right here.

Excuse me for admitting that allocation is an incredibly complicated issue that requires great care and thought when setting up a policy.  Why don’t you just go back to telling the world about your “make everyone better off by magic plans” and not bother talking to me again.

Why am I bothering with this comment – because there are innumerable people out there who simultaneously believe:

1. There are really obvious and easy solutions to economic problems.
2. Economists make really dumb assumptions and are stupid.
3. Economists massively overcomplicate issues with maths and terminology.

I find those assumptions mutually inconsistent, and whenever I meet a person like that (which is far too often) I can’t help but feel that there is really something wrong in their life that they are trying to make up for.  If I had any empathy I’d be sympathetic – instead I’m going to write this part of my post to insult them.

To everyone who has avoided their snark and has constructive things to say – thank you, I want to give you a hug.

Conclusion

Hopefully these examples helped to clear up the idea of burden and distortion – it is an interesting issue, and one that requires careful analysis when we actually go to investigate policy!  Next week I will have an article up with some “ideal taxes” (poll taxes, land taxes, ability taxes), and I will touch on ideas of horizontal and vertical equity!  With all that we will be ready to hit factor taxes and consumption taxes the following week, inflation taxes the week after, and externality taxes the week after that.

Where I have gone in parts of this post is beyond where I’m heading on the Rates Blog posts – quantitatively I am talking about the same results, but the description involved is more involved.  It wouldn’t be fair to burden that on the larger public on Rates Blog who are less likely to be as nerdy as anyone over here … unless they are interested in the ideas, in which case I hope they see it!

By the end of it, we should all have an idea about the framework we view tax within.  Given that, we can make our own judgments about what is fair, and interpret the evidence about burden to try to figure out whether that makes much sense.  To be honest, all of that is far beyond me

We focus on two specific issues, the way taxes distort behaviour, and the idea of where the burden of tax falls.  As we explained in the first article these issues are really really difficult to actually work out – and the purpose of the second argument is just to give a “flavour” to the argument.  In honesty, if you wanted to figure out the true burden and distortions you’ll have to get yourselve a series of these CGE modeling economists armed with other economists who focus on normative judgments.

Last time I promised to discuss tax systmes that seem idea, that we don’t use.  And why we don’t.  Well, that is now the next article.

Also, thanks to Agnitio who helped me clear up this article.  It is a fairly wonkish one, and he came in at the last minute and helped me clarify what the hang I was doing

I get onto other issues later – in fact, this will be a five article series.  Here all I do is combine the idea of “government spending” and “paying for government spending”, and give a little wink to ideas such as equity and tax incidence.  They will play a more central role in the next article, when I discuss tax systems that seem ideal … but that we don’t use for often good reasons.