劳动收入对所得税或经济状况调查福利改革的反应更大吗?

IF 2.2 3区 经济学 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Fiscal Studies Pub Date : 2022-08-24 DOI:10.1111/1475-5890.12306
Michaël Sicsic
{"title":"劳动收入对所得税或经济状况调查福利改革的反应更大吗?","authors":"Michaël Sicsic","doi":"10.1111/1475-5890.12306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>I provide estimates of compensated elasticities of labour income with respect to the marginal net-of-tax rate on the 2006–15 period for France, exploiting not only income tax reforms but also means-tested benefits reforms. I use semi-parametric graphical evidence and a classic two-stage least-squares estimation applied to a rich data set including both financial and socio-demographic variables. I obtain an estimated compensated elasticity on the intensive margin around 0.2–0.3 in response to income tax reforms, and around 0.1 in response to in-work benefit reforms, while I found no statistically significant response to family allowance reforms. I show that the difference between elasticities contradicts the theoretical prediction of the classical labour supply model. These asymmetric responses are very robust to a large number of robustness checks. The most plausible explanation is that income tax reforms are more salient and better perceived than benefit reforms. I also highlight an average compensated elasticity of 0.1 for all transfers on the intensive margin and provide heterogeneous elasticities depending on types of people, which could be used for optimal tax analyses.</p>","PeriodicalId":51602,"journal":{"name":"Fiscal Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does labour income react more to income tax or means-tested benefits reforms?\",\"authors\":\"Michaël Sicsic\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1475-5890.12306\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>I provide estimates of compensated elasticities of labour income with respect to the marginal net-of-tax rate on the 2006–15 period for France, exploiting not only income tax reforms but also means-tested benefits reforms. I use semi-parametric graphical evidence and a classic two-stage least-squares estimation applied to a rich data set including both financial and socio-demographic variables. I obtain an estimated compensated elasticity on the intensive margin around 0.2–0.3 in response to income tax reforms, and around 0.1 in response to in-work benefit reforms, while I found no statistically significant response to family allowance reforms. I show that the difference between elasticities contradicts the theoretical prediction of the classical labour supply model. These asymmetric responses are very robust to a large number of robustness checks. The most plausible explanation is that income tax reforms are more salient and better perceived than benefit reforms. I also highlight an average compensated elasticity of 0.1 for all transfers on the intensive margin and provide heterogeneous elasticities depending on types of people, which could be used for optimal tax analyses.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fiscal Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fiscal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-5890.12306\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fiscal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-5890.12306","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

我提供了2006-15年期间法国劳动收入相对于边际净税率的补偿弹性估计,不仅利用了所得税改革,还利用了经经济状况调查的福利改革。我使用半参数图形证据和经典的两阶段最小二乘估计,应用于包括金融和社会人口变量在内的丰富数据集。所得税法改革的密集边际补偿弹性估计在0.2-0.3左右,在职福利改革的密集边际补偿弹性估计在0.1左右,而家庭津贴改革的密集边际补偿弹性估计没有统计学意义。我表明,弹性之间的差异与经典劳动力供给模型的理论预测相矛盾。这些非对称响应对于大量的鲁棒性检查是非常健壮的。最合理的解释是,所得税改革比福利改革更引人注目,也更容易被接受。我还强调了密集边际上所有转移的平均补偿弹性为0.1,并提供了根据人的类型不同的异质性弹性,这可以用于最佳的税收分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Does labour income react more to income tax or means-tested benefits reforms?

I provide estimates of compensated elasticities of labour income with respect to the marginal net-of-tax rate on the 2006–15 period for France, exploiting not only income tax reforms but also means-tested benefits reforms. I use semi-parametric graphical evidence and a classic two-stage least-squares estimation applied to a rich data set including both financial and socio-demographic variables. I obtain an estimated compensated elasticity on the intensive margin around 0.2–0.3 in response to income tax reforms, and around 0.1 in response to in-work benefit reforms, while I found no statistically significant response to family allowance reforms. I show that the difference between elasticities contradicts the theoretical prediction of the classical labour supply model. These asymmetric responses are very robust to a large number of robustness checks. The most plausible explanation is that income tax reforms are more salient and better perceived than benefit reforms. I also highlight an average compensated elasticity of 0.1 for all transfers on the intensive margin and provide heterogeneous elasticities depending on types of people, which could be used for optimal tax analyses.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Fiscal Studies
Fiscal Studies Multiple-
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
1.40%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Institute for Fiscal Studies publishes the journal Fiscal Studies, which serves as a bridge between academic research and policy. This esteemed journal, established in 1979, has gained global recognition for its publication of high-quality and original research papers. The articles, authored by prominent academics, policymakers, and practitioners, are presented in an accessible format, ensuring a broad international readership.
期刊最新文献
Mortality inequality in Chile Is there a public sector earnings premium in UK healthcare? Market concentration and productivity: evidence from the UK Issue Information Labour market and income inequalities in the United Kingdom, 1968–2021
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1