Optimal taxation in the presence of income-dependent relative income effects

Original Paper
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

Unlike neoclassical economics in which humans are typically described as self-interested, more and more social studies strongly support the notion that individuals derive utility not only from their own status, but also from comparisons with others. While prior studies have shown that relative income effects matter for optimal income taxation, most assumed either homogeneous relative income effects for the entire population, or relative income effects that differ only on the basis of whether one is above or below their comparison group. We investigate the importance of relative income effects within the context of an optimal income tax model with a broader form of heterogeneity. Specifically, we assume income-dependent relative income effects, which follow in the spirit of empirical evidence. Simulation results show that the optimal tax system becomes more progressive to the extent that the relatively wealthy have stronger concerns regarding others’ income than the relatively poor. This is an important result because it may provide theoretical evidence that increasing progressivity can be efficiency-enhancing.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Celeste Carruthers, Matthew Harris, Jacob LaRiviere, LeAnn Luna, Matthew Murray, William Neilson, Casey Rothschild, Rudy Santore, Adrienne Sudbury, Christian Vossler, Marianne Wanamaker, participants in the University of Tennessee Economics Brown Bag Workshop and the 2014 National Tax Association Annual Conference on Taxation, the associate editor and two anonymous referees for valuable suggestions. This project is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71603273).

References

  1. Akerlof GA (1978) Economics of tagging as applied to optimal income-tax, welfare program, and manpower-planning. Am Econ Rev 68(1):8–19Google Scholar
  2. Alesina A, Ichino A, Karabarbounis L (2011) Gender-based taxation and the division of family chores. Am Econ J Econ Policy 3(2):1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O (2005) How much do we care about absolute versus relative income and consumption? J Econ Behav Organ 56(3):405–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aronsson T, Johansson-Stenman O (2008) When the Joneses’ consumption hurts: optimal public good provision and nonlinear income taxation. J Public Econ 92(5–6):986–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aronsson T, Johansson-Stenman O (2010) Positional concerns in an OLG model: optimal labor and capital income taxation. Int Econ Rev 51(4):1071–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aronsson T, Johansson-Stenman O (2013a) Conspicuous leisure: optimal income taxation when both relative consumption and relative leisure matter. Scand J Econ 115(1):155–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aronsson T, Johansson-Stenman O (2013b) Veblen’s theory of the leisure class revisited: implications for optimal income taxation. Soc Choice Welf 41(3):551–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aronsson T, Johansson-Stenman O (2015) Keeping up with the Joneses, the Smiths and the Tanakas: on international tax coordination and social comparisons. J Public Econ 131:71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bos D, Tillmann G (1985) An envy tax—theoretical principles and applications to the German surcharge on the rich. Public Financ Finance Publiques 40(1):35–63Google Scholar
  10. Boskin MJ, Sheshinski E (1978) Optimal re-distributive taxation when individual welfare depends upon relative income. Quart J Econ 92(4):589–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyce CJ, Brown GDA, Moore SC (2010) Money and happiness: rank of income, not income, affects life satisfaction. Psychol Sci 21(4):471–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark AE, Oswald AJ (1996) Satisfaction and comparison income. J Public Econ 61(3):359–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corlett WJ, Hague DC (1953) Complementarity and the excess burden of taxation. Rev Econ Stud 21(1):21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diamond PA (1998) Optimal income taxation: an example with a U-shaped pattern of optimal marginal tax rates. Am Econ Rev 88(1):83–95Google Scholar
  15. Duesenberry James Stemble (1949) Income, saving, and the theory of consumer behavior. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Easterlin RA (1995) Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all. J Econ Behav Organ 27(1):35–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Easterlin RA (2001) Income and happiness: towards a unified theory. Econ J 111(473):465–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferrer-i-Carbonell A (2005) Income and well-being: an empirical analysis of the comparison income effect. J Public Econ 89(5–6):997–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischbacher U, Schudy S, Teyssier S (2013) Heterogeneous reactions to heterogeneity in returns from public goods. Soc Choice Welf:1–23Google Scholar
  20. Frank RH (2008) Should public policy respond to positional externalities? J Public Econ 92(8–9):1777–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ireland NJ (1998) Status-seeking, income taxation and efficiency. J Public Econ 70(1):99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ireland NJ (2001) Optimal income tax in the presence of status effects. J Public Econ 81(2):193–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johansson-Stenman O, Carlsson F, Daruvala D (2002) Measuring future grandparents’ preferences for equality and relative standing. Econ J 112(479):362–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kanbur R, Tuomala M (2013) Relativity, inequality and optimal nonlinear income taxation. Int Econ Rev 54(4):1199–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Luttmer EFP (2005) Neighbors as negatives: relative earnings and well-being. Quart J Econ 120(3):963–1002Google Scholar
  26. Mankiw NG, Weinzierl M (2010) The optimal taxation of height a case study of utilitarian income redistribution. Am Econ J Econ Policy 2(1):155–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mankiw NG, Weinzierl M, Yagan D (2009) Optimal taxation in theory and practice. J Econ Perspect 23(4):147–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mankiw NG, Weinzierl M, Yagan D (2009) Documentation of simulations. Optim Tax Theory Pract. http://www.aeaweb.org/jep/app/2304_Mankiw_Weinzierl_Yagan_appendix.pdf. Accessed on 09 Feb 2018
  29. Mayraz Guy, Wagner Gert G, Schupp Jürgen (2009) Life satisfaction and relative income: perceptions and evidence. IZA Discussion Papers 4390, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)Google Scholar
  30. McBride M (2001) Relative-income effects on subjective well-being in the cross-section. J Econ Behav Organ 45(3):251–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mccormick K (1983) Duesenberry and Veblen—the demonstration effect revisited. J Econ Issues 17(4):1125–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mirrlees JA (1971) Exploration in theory of optimum income taxation. Rev Econ Stud 38(114):175–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Naimzada A, Sacco P, Sodini M (2013) Wealth-sensitive positional competition as a source of dynamic complexity in OLG models. Nonlinear Anal Real World Appl 14(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oswald AJ (1983) Altruism, jealousy and the theory of optimal non-linear taxation. J Public Econ 20(1):77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peng L (2017) Estimating income-dependent relative income effects in the UK. Soc Indic Res 133(2):527–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sadka E (1976) Income-distribution, incentive effects and optimal income taxation. Rev Econ Stud 43(2):261–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saez E (2001) Using elasticities to derive optimal income tax rates. Rev Econ Stud 68(1):205–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Seade JK (1977) Shape of optimal tax schedules. J Public Econ 7(2):203–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Solnick SJ, Hemenway D (1998) Is more always better? A survey on positional concerns. J Econ Behav Organ 37(3):373–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Solnick SJ, Hemenway D (2005) Are positional concerns stronger in some domains than in others? Am Econ Rev 95(2):147–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tran A, Zeckhauser R (2012) Rank as an inherent incentive: evidence from a field experiment. J Public Econ 96(9–10):645–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tuomala Matti (1990) Optimal income tax and redistribution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Tversky A, Griffin D (1991) Endowment and contrast in judgments of well-being. In: Strack F, Argyle M, Schwartz N (eds) Subjective well-being: an interdisciplinary perspective, vol 21. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 101–118Google Scholar
  44. Veblen T (1899) [1934] The theory of the leisure class. Modern Library, Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Weinzierl M (2011) The surprising power of age-dependent taxes. Rev Econ Stud 78(4):1490–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Boyd Center for Business and Economic Research, Department of EconomicsUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Economics and FinanceNanjing Audit UniversityNanjingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations