Download Comparative Public Finance

Public Sector Economics
Comparative Public Finance
Very Common Areas of Nearly Total
Public Monopoly
• law and order
• defense
• post office
(in developed countries)
• pensions
• medicine
• schooling
• banking
Measuring the Size of Government
• Public enterprises (ie, public provision of
private goods). Which should be included
as gov spending:
– value-added?
– the amount of the subsidy
• regulation
• tax credits
• transfer payments
Cash flows with a universal benefit
Workers
Nonworkers
Government budget (per capita)
-$4,000
-$3,000
-$2,000
-$1,000
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$3,000
$4,000
Tax or benefit
Tax payment, shown as a negative benefit
Benefit received
Incentives with a universal benefit
Net subsidy to nonemployment
Value of health benefit
-$4,000
-$3,000
-$2,000
-$1,000
$0
$1,000
$2,000
Cash flows with a targeted benefit
Workers
Nonworkers
Government budget (per capita)
-$4,000
-$3,000
-$2,000
-$1,000
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$3,000
$4,000
Tax or benefit
Tax payment, shown as a negative benefit
Benefit received
Incentives with a targeted benefit
Net subsidy to nonemployment
Value of health benefit
-$4,000
-$3,000
-$2,000
-$1,000
$0
$1,000
$2,000
Long-Term Government Growth in 7 countries
(Mitchell, B.R. International Historical Statistics)
• spending has grown in all upper and middle
income countries
• mainly a 20th century phenomenon (see U.K. )
Source: Besley and Persson. 2013
Long-Term Government Growth in 7 countries
(Mitchell, B.R. International Historical Statistics)
• spending has grown in all upper and middle
income countries
• mainly a 20th century phenomenon (see U.K. )
• decline of Customs taxes
– US, UK, CA, SW
– growing in India
– low level and less trend in JA and SP
• JA: a first lesson in measuring government policy
• small tax rates do not necessarily mean small distortions
• small tax revenues do not necessarily mean small tax rates
Source: Besley and Persson. 2013
Long-Term Government Growth in 7 countries
(Mitchell, B.R. International Historical Statistics)
• spending has grown in all upper and middle
income countries
• mainly a 20th century phenomenon (see U.K. )
• decline of Customs taxes
– US, UK, CA, SW
– growing in India
– low level and less trend in JA and SP
• JA: a first lesson in measuring government policy
• small tax rates do not necessarily mean small distortions
• small tax revenues do not necessarily mean small tax rates
• growth of payroll and personal income taxes
• much government growth is transfers
• see, e.g., Mueller for 17 other OECD countries
Chart 1a. U.S. Government Spending by Type
40%
All levels, 1930-present, excludes interest
35%
Transfers
Purchases
percentage of GDP
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2014 National Accounts (billions of dollars, calendar year)
Expenditure
(loosely speaking, "demand")
Personal consumption expenditures
Gross private domestic investment
nonresidential fixed
residential fixed
Change in private inventories
11,866
2,860
2,234
549
77
Net exports of goods and services
-530
Government consumption and gross investment
3,152
Federal
1,220
State and local
1,932
TOTAL = GDP
17,348
Confusing government spending with purchases
•
Dr. Chad Stone, Chief Economist, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
“I know it sounds strange to people used to talking about “out-ofcontrol” government spending, but changes in combined federal
and state and local spending on goods and services have made a
negative contribution to economic growth since 2009 — not
because government spending has been growing, because it has
not.” [written testimony. italics added]
• Valerie Ramey QJE 2011
“Identifying Government Spending Shocks: It’s All in the Timing”
Regional Differences in Public Spending
(I.M.F. Government Finance Statistics)
• poor data quality
– definition changes over time and across
countries
– keypunch errors
– discontinued by IMF
• 1972-90
• “latitude” pattern
– ie, development. or aging?
– exceptions: Chile, Israel, Egypt, Syria, Congo,
Gabon
Regional Differences in Public Spending
(O.E.C.D. Social Expenditure Database)
• O.E.C.D. country-years since 1980 only
• good data quality. esp. spending comparisons for
detailed categories
• main categories
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
old age (OA) cash
disability (DI) cash
occupational injury and disease
sickness (HI)
services for OA & DI
survivors (S)
family cash
– family services
– active labour market
programmes
– unemployment (UI)
– public expenditure on
health
– housing
– other contingencies
• O.E.C.D. data less detailed prior to 1980
The Prevalence of Wage and Wage-like Taxes
• many taxes can often be analyzed as if they
were labor-income taxes (proof next
lecture):
–
–
–
–
–
payroll taxes
personal income taxes
sales taxes
value-added taxes
conscription (?)
• these taxes bring in a sizeable majority of
all government revenue
Combined payroll tax rate, 2014
Source: OECD Taxing Wages
France
Hungary
Austria
Greece
Slovak Republic
Belgium
Czech Republic
Germany
Slovenia
Italy
Poland
Sweden
Portugal
Spain
Turkey
Estonia
Japan
Finland
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Norway
United Kingdom
Canada
Korea
United States
Ireland
Israel
Switzerland
Mexico
Iceland
Chile
Australia
Denmark
New Zealand
0
5
10
15
20
25
Percentage of employer cost
30
35
40
The Composition of Taxes in the United States
The Composition of Taxes in OECD Countries
Other
3%
Income and
profits
33%
Consumption
31%
Property
5%
Payroll
1%
Social
security
26%
The Composition of Taxes in Germany
The Composition of Taxes in Japan
The Composition of Taxes in S. Korea
The Composition of Taxes in Spain
The Composition of Taxes in Turkey
Statutory Marginal Labor Tax Rates
36%
34%
32%
30%
NBER marginal pers. inc. rate
28%
26%
24%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Statutory Marginal Labor Tax Rates
36%
50%
Includes implicit taxes,
esp. employment taxes
34%
48%
32%
46%
30%
44%
NBER marginal pers. inc. rate
including employment and
implicit taxes
28%
42%
26%
40%
24%
38%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
New Employment and Income Taxes in Recent History
Explicit taxes are indicated in italics; all other taxes are implicit taxes
Time period Employment taxes
before 2007 Disability expansions
esp., wider range of ailments
Income Taxes
Medicaid expansions
Eligibility, esp. children
Growing market value of free health insurance
2007-2013 Work requirements dropped
UI expansions
more weeks of eligibility
other eligibility expansions
benefit increases
Unemployment-tested assistance
with health insurance
3 Federal minimum wage increases
Food stamps expansions
2014-2016 ACA HI assistance
ACA employer penalty
ACA HI assistance
ACA Medicaid expansions
ACA Medicare tax surcharges
eligibility
benefit increases
Means-tested loan forgiveness
mortgages
student loans
New Employment and Income Taxes in Recent History
Explicit taxes are indicated in italics; all other taxes are implicit taxes
Time period Employment taxes
before 2007 Disability expansions
esp., wider range of ailments
Income Taxes
Medicaid expansions
Eligibility, esp. children
Growing market value of free health insurance
2007-2013 Work requirements dropped
UI expansions
more weeks of eligibility
other eligibility expansions
benefit increases
Unemployment-tested assistance
with health insurance
3 Federal minimum wage increases
Food stamps expansions
2014-2016 ACA HI assistance
ACA employer penalty
ACA HI assistance
ACA Medicaid expansions
ACA Medicare tax surcharges
eligibility
benefit increases
Means-tested loan forgiveness
mortgages
student loans
Labor tax rates during and after the crisis: U.S. and U.K.
50%
72%
45%
67%
U.S.
U.K. (right scale)
40%
62%
35%
57%
2007-Q4
2008-Q4
2009-Q4
2010-Q4
2011-Q4
2012-Q4
2013-Q4
percentage of compensation
percentage of compensation
On the employment margin. U.S. series does not include sales taxes.
Figure 1. The Evolution of Employment Rates in Two Countries
102
Persons aged 25-54, 2005-2014
101
Index (2007-Q4 = 100)
100
99
98
97
U.K.
U.S.
96
95
94
Source: OECD
93
Jan-05
Jan-07
Jan-09
Jan-11
Quarter beginning
Jan-13
Social Security Across Countries
• common characteristics (88 country sample, 1995)
–
–
–
–
–
98% “pay-as-you-go”
97% of countries use payroll tax
91% have “shared” payroll tax
85% have benefits increasing with lifetime earnings
75% induce retirement (ie, reduce benefits with
earnings or work status)
– 89% do not reduce benefits with asset income
• payroll tax magnitude is unappreciated
– 75% of U.S. taxpayers pay more in PT than PIT
– rates near 50% in some countries
• “latitude” pattern – apparently both an age and
income effects
Employment vs Earnings Tests
benefit
amount
b0
earningstested benefit
employmenttested benefit
0
(magnitude of) slope =
“benefit reduction rate”
beneficiary
earnings
Variations on the Employment Test
benefit
amount
b0
employmenttested benefit
0
beneficiary
earnings
Variations on the Employment Test
benefit
amount
b0
employmenttested benefit
0
beneficiary
earnings
How does elderly’s population slice compare to
its group-income slice?
Population
Labor income
Non-elderly
Elderly
Calibrated to Italy 1995
How does elderly’s population slice compare to
its group-income slice?
Population
Other elderly
wage income
Public pension
Non-elderly
Elderly
Calibrated to Italy 1995
Labor income
Capital Taxation Over Time
corporate income
personal income
property
0.6
capital tax rate
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1929
1939
1949
1959
year
1969
1979
1989
Measuring “the” capital income tax rate
𝑇𝑡 + 𝑃𝑡+1
𝜏𝑡 =
𝑅𝑡 + 𝑃𝑡
• Taxation of a “representative” piece of capital
• Tt = date t direct capital income tax revenues
– corporation income taxes
– estimate of personal capital income taxes
– federal, state, and local
– dated according to payer’s tax year
• Pt =property tax revenue paid in year t
• Rt= aggregate capital income (after indirect business taxes,
before direct taxes)
• does not depend on how the capital stock is measured
• see also Auerbach (1983, on reading list) and related
calculations by Lucas, Mendoza et al
Sources of Measured Corporate Rate Changes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1913 income taxation becomes constitutional
early 1940’s statutory rate increased to 38%
1949-52 statutory rate increase from 38 to 52%
1964 statutory rate cut from 52 to 48%
1968 Vietnam War surcharge
1967-69: ITC suspended
1979 statutory rate reduced from 48 to 46%
1981-83 reduced inflation, accelerated
depreciation
• 1986-88 statutory rate reduced from 46 to 34%,
but depreciation deductions less generous
• 1993 statutory rate increased to 35%
Relations with Democracy
• only a minority of countries and people live under
democracy (nondemocratic = no more voting, or competition for
election that, say, Guatemala 1986-95: military control with only
appearances of democracy)
Relations with Democracy
• only a minority of countries and people live under
democracy (nondemocratic = no more voting, or competition for
election that, say, Guatemala 1986-95: military control with only
appearances of democracy)
• democracy has “latitude” pattern
– raw (+) correlation with government spending
– zero or negative partial correlation
Relations with Democracy
• only a minority of countries and people live under
democracy (nondemocratic = no more voting, or competition for
election that, say, Guatemala 1986-95: military control with only
appearances of democracy)
• democracy has “latitude” pattern
– raw (+) correlation with government spending
– zero or negative partial correlation
• budget examples (controlling for GDP per cap. &
communism):
– SS: Spain vs Italy
– democracies spend the same fr of GDP on:
• education, health
• pensions
• nonpension social spending
– democracies have the same corporate tax rates, and propensity to cap
payroll taxes
– democracies have flatter personal income taxes
– democracies spend smaller fr of GDP on military, and have about the
same amount less collected in taxes
Relations with Democracy (cont’d)
• political regulation examples (controlling for
GDP per cap. & communism):
–
–
–
–
democracies torture and execute less
democracies censor less
democracies regulate religion less (?)
democracies regulate trade more (?)
• military examples
– democracies spend smaller fr of GDP on military
(and have about the same amount less collected in
taxes)
– democracies equally likely to draft
Regulation Across Countries
• Product Market Regulation (OECD study)
–
–
–
–
–
state ownership and involvement in business operation
barriers to competition
barriers to trade and investment
regulatory and administrative opacity
administrative burdens on startup
• Employment Protection Regulation (antidismissal) (OECD study)
–
–
–
–
procedural inconveniences
length of notice period
severance pay
consequences for “unfair” dismissal
• Shleifer/World Bank group. British legal origin!
– securities laws
– business entry procedures
– tenant eviction
– labor laws
2.5
Turkey
Italy
Czech Rep.
Greece
Norway
Poland
France
2
Belgium
Product Market Regulation
Korea
Switzerland
Finland
Mexico
Portugal
1.5
Spain
Japan
Germany
Canada
Netherlands
Hungary
Denmark
Sweden
Austria
New Zealand
1
United States
Australia
Ireland
0.5
United Kingdom
0
0
5
10
15
20
Public Social Expenditure, % of GDP
25
30
35
4
Portugal
Turkey
3.5
Greece
Italy
Spain
France
3
Employment Regulation
Norway
Germany
Japan
2.5
Netherlands
Sweden
Austria
Belgium
2
Finland
Poland
Czech Rep.
1.5
Denmark
Hungary
Switzerland
1
Ireland
New Zealand
Canada
0.5
United Kingdom
United States
0
0
5
10
15
20
Public Social Expenditure, % of GDP
25
30
35