Tag Archives: Income and Substitution Effect

Zero sum game – Tax cuts v Higher interest rates.

The recent tax cuts in the US by the Trump administration are estimated to create above 4% growth each year according to Gary Cohn – Director of the National Economic Council. If the US does achieve this level of growth, tax reform is said to have little impact as long-term growth – studies have estimated that the tax bill will have an impact of between 0.4% – 0.9% on GDP.

Textbooks that cover supply-side policies tend to suggest that lower taxes on labour income should raise its supply whilst lower taxes on capital income should increase saving and investment which should then increase labour productivity and competitiveness in the market place. But there is the income and substitution effect to consider. With tax cuts people’s income increase therefore there is the chance that the substitution and income effects come into play.

Substitution effect – if wages are higher workers may forgo some of their leisure time and work longer hours. SS1 on the graph

Income effect – if wages are higher workers may reduce some of their working hours as the demand for leisure time goes up – SS2 on the graph

Most textbooks favour the substitution effect with tax cuts although research shows that neither labour-force participation nor hours worked move in response to tax changes. However reported labour income does rise in response to income tax cuts, thanks largely to less tax avoidance. Furthermore savings rates have changed little with tax cuts in fact they have decreased in the US over the past 40 years. Savings rates are important for investment purposes although the current administration believes that this shortfall will be filled by overseas investors.

Oligopolists to benefit

With the lack of competition in US industry – especially in the banking sector – it is the these companies (many whom are oligopolists) and their shareholders who will reap the benefits of tax cuts. Research has shown that a cut in corporate tax of 10% would raise long-run output output by 0.15%. National Income would raise less with much of the addition to GDP going overseas.

What about higher interest rates?

Although tax cuts (increase in demand) do help out especially when there is a lot of spare capacity in the economy this is hardly the case at the moment. The US has limited spare capacity and the Federal Reserve fearing inflation have been more contractionary in their actions by recently increased interest rates which cancels out the stimulatory tax cuts.

Tax cuts and inequality

Although the republican rhetoric has been that tax cuts will benefit all they haven’t mentioned the distributional consequences. The cuts will reduce the tax burden of the top 0.2% by an average of $278,000 by 2017. This is in contrast to the bottom 20% of earners will get an extra $10 dollar by 2017.

Income and Substitution Effects – do they still apply?

fig10-05In most A2 courses income and substitution effects are examined. The textbook identifies each as follows:

Income effect – higher real wages might persuade people to work less hours and enjoy extended leisure time (see graph – SS2).

Substitution effect – people have an incentive to work extra hours because the financial rewards of working are raised, and the opportunity cost of not working has increased (see graph – SS1).

However recent research has shown that since 1980’s the salaries of those in top management jobs has increased whilst those in the middle and lower income bracket have fallen. With inequality rising the higher incomes tend to work more and the lower income less. Furthermore with jobs being more intellectually challenging work has come to offer the sort of pleasures that high income people used to seek in their time off. Leisure is no longer a sign of social power – does it now symbolise people in low skilled jobs and unemployment?

Job satisfaction tends to increase with the prestige of the occupation – “I come to work to relax”. The Economist mentioned a study in 2006 which revealed that Americans with a household income of more than $100,000 indulged in 40% less “passive leisure” (such as watching TV) than those earning less than $20,000. Also the income effect has impacted the lower incomes as technology has allowed them to high-quality and cheap home entertainment.