Taxes are a key element in redistributive policies: taxes on the rich can be spent on benefits to the poor. The more progressive the taxes (i.e. the more steeply they rise with rising incomes), the bigger will be the redistributive effect and hence the more equal will post-tax incomes be.
But high and steeply progressive taxes can act as a disincentive to work longer, or to go for promotion or to move to a better paid job. High corporate taxes and income taxes can act as disincentive to inward investment and may encourage a ‘brain drain’ and capital flight with people and capital leaving the country for lower tax regimes abroad.
Raising taxes has two effects. First there is the substitution effect: people may work less and substitute it with leisure – after all, work is now less rewarding. People may also substitute working abroad for working at home. But the second effect works in the opposite direction. This is the income effect. As taxes are raised and people’s take-home pay is thereby reduced, they may feel the need to work longer hours or try harder for promotion in order to make up the lost income and maintain their living standards. Thus the effect of higher taxes is not clear-cut. It is an empirical question of which of the two effects is the stronger.
One important determinant of the effects of different tax rates is their relative position compared with other countries. Another is the international mobility of labour and capital. The greater the mobility, the greater the elasticity of supply with respect to changes in tax rates.
The following report and articles look at relative tax rates between different countries and the effects on output and factor movements
Articles
Wide tax gaps among countries, UHY study finds UHY International, Press Release (10/6/11)
Britain’s most talent workers flee to avoid high tax rates The Telegraph, Myra Butterworth (13/6/11)
UK tax rate ‘one of the highest’ Belfast Telegraph (13/6/11)
Data
Tax Rates Around the World – Comparison UHY Worldwide-tax.com
Effects of taxes and benefits on household income National Statistics
(see especially Data: The effects of taxes and benefits on household income, 2009/10)
Questions
- Why may relative income tax rates between countries give only a partial picture of the international competitiveness of these countries? What else would need to be taken into account?
- Does making taxes more steeply progressive necessarily act as a disincentive to output? Explain.
- What factors are likely to determine the relative size of the income and substitution effects of tax changes?
- How progressive are income taxes in the UK compared with other countries? Give examples.
- What externalities (positive and negative) might result from steeply progressive income tax rates?
- What determines the international elasticity of supply of labour?
- What is the Laffer curve? How will the shape of the Laffer curve be affected by the international mobility of labour and international tax rates?
Inequality is growing in most countries. This can be illustrated by examining what has been happening to countries’ Gini coefficient. The Gini coefficient measures income inequality, where 0.00 represents perfect equality, with everyone in the country earning the same, and 1.00 represent perfect inequality, with one person earning all the country’s income. (Note that sometimes it is expressed as the ‘Gini index’, with 100 representing perfect inequality). In virtually all countries, the Gini coefficient has been rising. In the OECD countries it has risen by an average of 0.3% per annum over the past 25 years. The OECD average is now 0.31.
But despite the fact that the Gini coefficient has been rising, its value differs markedly from one country to another, as does its rate of change. For example, Finland’s Gini coefficient, at 0.26, is below the average, but it has been rising by 1.2% per annum. By contrast, Turkey’s Gini coefficient, at 0.41, is above the average and yet has been falling by 0.3% per annum.
The most unequal of the developed countries is the USA. According to OECD data, its Gini coefficient is 0.38, well above the values in the UK (0.34), Japan (0.33), Germany (0.30) France (0.29) and Denmark (0.26). What is more, inequality in the USA has been increasing by an average of 0.5% per annum since the mid 1980s.
According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report 2010, the USA’s Gini coefficient is even higher, at 0.41 (see Table 3 of the report). But this is still below that of Russia, with a figure of 0.44, a figure that has markedly worsened over time, along with those of other former Soviet countries. According to the report (page 72):
The worsening is especially marked in countries that were part of the former Soviet Union – which still have relatively low Gini coefficients because they started with low inequality. Transition has eroded employment guarantees and ended extensive state employment. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, 9 of 10 people in socialist countries were employed by the state, compared with 2 of 10 in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economies. While the privileged elite (the nomenklatura) often attained higher material well-being, the measured differences in income were narrow.
The Gini coefficient for Russia is the same as the average of the 39 developing countries with the lowest level of human development &nbash; and developing countries are generally much less equal than developed ones. Of course, some developing countries have an even higher Gini coefficient: for Angola the figure is 0.59; for Haiti it is 0.60.
The following three webcasts look at aspects of the growing inequality in Russia.
Webcasts
Gap between rich and poor widens in Russia BBC News, Jamie Robertson (29/5/11)
Corruption slows Russian modernisation BBC News, Emma Simpson (29/5/11)
Corruption and poverty in Russia’s far east Al Jazeera (28/2/11)
Articles
Russia’s rich double their wealth, but poor were better off in 1990s Guardian, Tom Parfitt (11/4/11)
Russia’s growing wealth gap BBC News, Jamie Robertson (28/5/11)
A Country of Beggars and Choosers Russia Profile, Svetlana Kononova (16/5/11)
Rich and poor, growing apart The Economist (3/5/11)
Data
Distribution of family income – Gini Index CIA World Factbook (ranked by country in desending order)
Society at a Glance 2011 – OECD Social Indicators OECD: see particularly the Excel file 6. Equity Indicators: Income inequality (click on No if prompted about a linked workbook)
Russia Distribution of family income – Gini index Index Mundi
Chart of the week: inflation stoking inequality in China and India Financial Times, Andrew Whiffin (24/5/11)
List of countries by income equality Wikipedia
Reports
Growing Income Inequality in OECD Countries: What Drives it and How Can Policy Tackle it? OECD Forum on Tackling Inequality (2/5/11)
Human Development Report 2010 United Nations Development Programme
Questions
- Explain what is meant by the Gini coefficient. How does it relate to the Lorenz curve? What does a figure of 0.31 mean?
- Why has income inequality been growing in most countries of the world? Has the process of globalisation dampened or exacerbated this trend?
- What specific factors in Russia can explain the growing inequality?
- How is privatisation likely to affect income distribution??
- Why is it difficult to quantify the extent of inequality in Russia?
- What maxim of taxation has been used in setting income tax rates in Russia?
- What role does corruption play in determining the degree of inequality in Russia?
- What policy measures, if any, could realistically be adopted in Russia to reduce inequality? What constraints are there on adopting such policies?
In January 2011, Chinese growth accelerated to 9.8% as industrial production and retails sales picked up. As the second largest economy, this very high growth is hardly surprising, but it has caused concern for another key macroeconomic variable: inflation. Figures show that inflation climbed to 5.2% in March from a year before and the billionaire investor George Soros has said it is ‘somewhat out of control’. High property and food prices have contributed to high and rising inflation and this has led to the government implementing tightening measures within the economy.
In March, growth in property prices did finally begin to slow, according to the survey by the National Bureau of Statistics. Prices of new built homes had risen in 49 out of 70 Chinese cities in March from the previous months, but this was down from 56 cities in February. A property tax has also been implemented in cities like Shanghai and the minimum down payment required for second-home buyers has risen in a bid to prevent speculative buying. Bank reserve requirements have also been increased for the fourth time, after an increase in the interest rate at the beginning of April. The required reserve ratio for China’s biggest banks has now risen to 20.5%.
The situation in China is not the only country causing concern. Inflation in emerging markets is a growing concern, especially for the richer nations. The Singaporean finance minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, said:
“When inflation goes up in emerging markets, it’s not just an emerging market problem, it’s a global inflation and possibly interest rate problem … We have learned from painful experience in the past few years that nothing is isolated and that risk in one region rapidly gets transmitted to the rest of the world.”
He has said that inflation in emerging markets needs addressing to ensure that it does not begin to threaten the economic recovery of other leading economies. The following articles consider the latest Chinese developments.
New home price growth dips amid government tightening BBC News (18/4/11)
China growth may cool in boost for Wen’s inflation campaign Bloomberg Business (14/4/11)
China steps up inflation fight with bank reserves hike Independent, Nikhil Kumar (18/4/11)
China raises bank reserves again Reuters (17/4/11)
China’s economy ‘is just too hot’ says Peter Hoflich BBC News (18/4/10)
Top G20 economies face scrutiny over imbalances AFP, Paul Handley (16/4/11)
Inflation in China poses big threat to global trade Global Business, David Barboza (17/4/11)
Chinese inflation to slow to 4% by year-end: IMF AFP (17/4/11)
Chinese economic growth slows but inflation soars Guardian, Tania Branigan (15/4/11)
Questions
- What type of inflation is the Chinese economy experiencing? Explain your answer using a diagram.
- To what extent will the minimum payment on second homes and the property tax help reduce the growth in Chinese property prices?
- Why is there concern about high inflation in emerging markets and the impact it might have on other countries?
- How could the inflation in China hurt the economic recovery of countries such as the UK?
- How will the increase in the banks’ reserve requirements help inflation?
- Is high Chinese growth and high inflation the relationship you would expect to occur between these macroeconomic objectives? Explain your answer.
There’s been a lot of bad news about the economy, but perhaps things are looking up. Inflation is now at 4% and the latest data suggests that unemployment has fallen, with more jobs being created in the private sector. An estimated 143,000 jobs were created, many of which were full-time and the ILO measure if unemployment is down by some 17,000. There is still some doom and gloom, as growth in annual average earnings has fallen slightly and this will undoubtedly affect retail sales. Numbers claiming JSA have also increased marginally to 1.5 million and youth unemployment has seen a small increase to 20.4%. A big area of concern is that unemployment might rise in the coming months due to the time lag. Growth in the last quarter of 2010 was negative and this could increase unemployment when the full effects are felt in the labour market later in the year. Howard Archer, the Chief Economist at HIS Global Insight had this to say about the latest data.
‘Despite the overall firmer tone of the latest labour market data, we retain the view that unemployment is headed up over the coming months. We suspect that likely below-trend growth will mean that the private sector will be unable to fully compensate for the increasing job losses in the public sector that will result from the fiscal squeeze that is now really kicking in. Indeed, we believe that private sector companies will become increasingly careful in their employment plans in the face of a struggling economy and elevated input costs.’
The wage price spiral hasn’t begun as many though, and this may encourage the Bank of England to keep interest rates down, especially as inflation has come down to 4% and concerns about growth still remain. So despite good news about unemployment overall falling, young workers, women and public sector workers have not benefited. Youth unemployment is up, more women are claiming JSA and more jobs in the public sector are expected to be cut this year. The following articles consider the implications.
UK Unemployment: What the experts say Guardian (13/4/11)
Good news on jobs BBC News blogs: Stephanomics, Stephanie Flanders (13/4/11)
Unemployment falls, but young are left on the shelf Independent, Sean O’Grady (14/4/11)
Unemployment falls but jobs market remains fragile Telegraph, Louisa Peacock (14/4/11)
UK unemployment data reveals downturn victims as jobless total drops Guardian, Heather Stewart (13/4/11)
FTSE boosted by dip in unemployment The Press Association (14/4/11)
Unemployment falls: reaction (including video) Telegraph (14/4/11)
Questions
- What is the ILO method of measuring unemployment?
- To what extent does the change in unemployment and inflation conform with the Phillips curve?
- What can explain the fall in the unemployment rate, despite the decline in the economy in the last quarter of 2010?
- Explain how the FTSE was affected by the lower unemployment rate.
- Why is unemployment expected to rise later this year?
- Why has there been a rise in the numbers claiming JSA, despite unemployment falling?
- What is meant by the wage-price spiral and why has it not occured?
As the new tax year begins, many changes are taking place. In order to cut the large budget deficit, sacrifices have to be made by all. The tax and benefit changes could make households worse off by some £2bn this year – definitely not good news for those households already feeling the squeeze. However, the Coalition say that the poorest households will be made better off relative to the rich.
Personal allowance is increasing by £1,000, which is expected to benefit £800,000 people who will no longer pay any tax. At the same time, the 40% tax bracket is being reduced from £43,875 to £42,475, which will bring another 750,000 people into this higher tax bracket, bringing in much needed revenue for the government. Employee’s national insurance contributions will rise by 1% and according to Credit Action, this will leave households £200 worse off per year. Benefits do rise with inflation, but they are to be indexed against the CPI rather than the RPI. The RPI is usually higher and hence benefits will not increase by as much, again leaving some people worse off. Child benefit will be frozen for all and will then be removed for higher rate tax payers from 2013. According to the Treasury, it is the top 10% of households who will lose the most from these needed changes. However, as Justine Greening, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said:
‘Labour left behind a complete mess with no plan to deal with it, apart from to run up more debts for the next generation to pay off.’
In order to cut the deficit, which stands at an estimated £146bn, spending must fall and tax revenue for the government must rise. The government argues that if cuts are not made today, even higher cuts will be necessary in the future and this will harm the poorest even more. Whilst the Treasury have accepted that there was a ‘marginal loss’ across the population, it is the highest earning households that will suffer the most.
Wednesday of woe as the taxman bites: Changes could leave you £600 worse off Daily Mail, Becky Barrow (6/4/11)
Benefit cuts: Labour warns of ‘Black Wednesday’ BBC News (6/4/11)
Tax and benefit changes: row over financial impact BBC News (6/4/11)
Black Wednesday will hig millions in tax changes and cuts Metro, John Higginson (5/4/11)
Taxman to take extra £750 from families this year Scotsman, Tom Peterkin and Jeff Salway (6/4/11)
Tax and welfare changes will hit women and children hardest, says Ed Balls Guardian, Helene Mullholland, Polly Curtis and Larry Elliott (6/4/11)
Black Wednesday for millions of British families Telegraph (6/4/11)
Majority of households ‘better off’ The Press Association (6/4/11)
Questions
- Where does the term ‘Black Wednesday’ come from?
- What is the likely impact of the 1% rise in NICs? Think about the income and substitution effects. Can you illustrate the effect using indifference analysis?
- Why are Labour arguing that women and children will be hit the hardest and the coalition arguing that it is the highest income households who will lose the most? Can both parties be right?
- What are the arguments (a) for and (b) against bringing in tax and benefit changes today rather than in a few years?
- How might these changes affect the economic recovery?
- Is it equitable that child benefit should eventually be removed from those paying the higher rates of income tax?
- Why has the government indexed benefit payments to rise in line with the CPI rather than the RPI?