American workers toiled for 37 days more than their French counterparts in 2013 econ.st/1M645uQ http://t.co/faN8XtmLAW—
The World If (@EconWorldIf) August 10, 2015
How @equitablegrowth showed inequality helps growth when arguing inequality harms growth
10 Aug 2015 1 Comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, comparative institutional analysis, currency unions, economic growth, economic history, economics of regulation, entrepreneurship, Euro crisis, fiscal policy, global financial crisis (GFC), income redistribution, labour economics, labour supply, macroeconomics, Marxist economics, poverty and inequality, Public Choice, public economics, rentseeking Tags: British disease, entrepreneurial alertness, Eurosclerosis, France, German unification, Germany, growth of government, sick man of Europe, social insurance, Sweden, taxation and entrepreneurship, taxation and investment, taxation and labour supply, welfare state
The Washington Centre for Equitable Growth recently tweeted that inequality harms growth in the USA as compared to Sweden, France, Germany and the UK. It was relying on some dodgy OECD research.
.@OECD sees continued rise in growth-harming inequality, reports @PaulHannon29 on.wsj.com/1EZpq1S http://t.co/xt4heZysXT—
Equitable Growth (@equitablegrowth) May 21, 2015
The Washington Centre for Equitable Growth did not check their inequality ratios they tweeted against trends in economic growth and economic policy since 1970, which I have reproduced in figure 1. Germany is not included in figure 1 because German data on growth is thrown askew by German unification.
Figure 1: Real GDP per British, French and Swede aged 15-64, 2014 US$ (converted to 2014 price level with updated 2011 PPPs), 1.9 per cent detrended, 1970-2013
Source: Computed from OECD Stat Extract and The Conference Board. 2015. The Conference Board Total Economy Database™, May 2015, http://www.conference-board.org/data/economydatabase/
Figure 1 shows that France has been in a long-term decline since the late 1970s despite the blessings of a more equal society than the USA as championed by the Washington Centre for Equitable Growth. In figure 1, a flat line is growth in real GDP per working age person, PPP, at the same rate as the USA for the 20th century, which was 1.9% per year. A falling line in figure 1 indicates growth of less than 1.9% while a rising line indicates growth in real GDP per working age person, PPP, in excess of 1.9%. In figure 1, France hardly ever grew at the trend rate of growth for the USA of 1.9% per year and was frequently well below that rate.
Sweden tells a slightly different story in figure 1 because of regime change in the early 1990s when Sweden adopted more liberal economic policies where taxes and government spending were reduced:
The rapid growth of the state in the late 1960s and 1970s led to a large decline in Sweden’s relative economic performance. In 1975, Sweden was the 4th richest industrialised country in terms of GDP per head. By 1993, it had fallen to 14th.
@alexvoronov använda smygfinansiering av Generell Välfärd är alltid av ondo. @NimaSanandaji: bit.ly/1Nar2eV http://t.co/wD0YEgncIE—
Old Whig (@aClassicLiberal) August 05, 2015
That regime change reversed a long economic decline since 1970 under the egalitarian policies of the Swedish Social Democratic Party. Under the Swedish Social Democratic Party, Sweden was almost always growing at less than the trend rate of growth of the USA, which was 1.9%. That position reversed only when there was a turn away from big government and high taxes.
Figure 1 tells a similar story for the British economy: a long economic decline in the 1970s when Britain was the sick man of Europe. Under Thatchernomics, Europe had a long economic boom for 20 years or more – see figure 1.
In the 1970s, under the high taxes of the Heath, Callaghan and Wilson administrations, as figure 1 shows, Britain was the sick man of Europe. With the election of the Thatcher Government, Britain soon grew at better than the US trend growth rate for nearly 20 years through few exceptions.
Graph of the Day: The UK has among the lowest total tax rates on businesses in the G7 http://t.co/l6mMhN9yLD—
CPS Think Tank (@CPSThinkTank) August 04, 2015
Swedosclerosis and Eurosclerosis compared
10 Aug 2015 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, comparative institutional analysis, economic growth, economic history, economics of regulation, industrial organisation, labour economics, labour supply, macroeconomics, survivor principle Tags: Eurosclerosis, Sweden, taxation and entrepreneurship, taxation and investment, taxation and labour supply, welfare state
The taxes paid by the rich, middle-class and the poorer in the USA
09 Aug 2015 Leave a comment
in politics - USA, public economics Tags: creative destruction, entrepreneurial alertness, envy, taxation and entrepreneurship, taxation and investment, taxation and the labour supply, top 1%
Average Income Before & After Federal Taxes from "An Illustrated Guide to Income" bit.ly/1j9ymXF #inequality http://t.co/eabwDATSlU—
Catherine Mulbrandon (@VisualEcon) April 28, 2014
The tax rates of the top 1%
04 Aug 2015 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, entrepreneurship, fisheries economics, income redistribution, politics - USA, rentseeking Tags: entrepreneurial alertness, envy, taxation and entrepreneurship, taxation and investment, taxation and the labour supply, top 1%
Historical Tax Rates of Top 0.01% (15,000 returns reporting more than $8 million in 2010) visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2013/8/14… http://t.co/XygW0t0npu—
Catherine Mulbrandon (@VisualEcon) August 15, 2013
Trigger warning for the Twitter Left
31 Jul 2015 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, constitutional political economy, income redistribution, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, Public Choice, public economics, rentseeking Tags: antimarket bias, endogenous growth theory, expressive voting, laffer curve, Leftover Left, taxation and entrepreneurship, taxation and human capital, taxation and investment, taxation and the labour supply, top 1%, Twitter left
Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP, selected OECD member countries
28 Jul 2015 Leave a comment
in politics - Australia, politics - USA, public economics Tags: Eurosclerosis, growth of government, sick man of Europe, size of government, taxation and entrepreneurship, taxation and investment, taxation and the labour supply
How does America's tax revenue compare to the average collected by OECD countries? bit.ly/1HTtRTg #TaxDay http://t.co/Q17jMuwtNI—
The Hamilton Project (@hamiltonproj) April 15, 2015
Gary Becker and Kevin Murphy on inequality and growth in living standards
23 Jul 2015 Leave a comment
Top marginal income tax rate throughout the 20th century
29 Jun 2015 Leave a comment
in economic history, entrepreneurship, income redistribution, politics - USA, Public Choice, public economics, rentseeking Tags: Eurosclerosis, taxation and entrepreneurship, taxation and investment, taxation and the labour supply, top 1%
Piketty presents the changes in the top marginal income tax rate throughout the 20th century… #GCLIS http://t.co/sFpV0ypC5C—
LIS (@lisdata) April 16, 2014
Who is where on the Laffer curve?
20 Jun 2015 Leave a comment
in economic growth, fiscal policy, human capital, labour economics, labour supply, macroeconomics, politics - USA, public economics Tags: endogenous growth theory, EU, Eurosclerosis, laffer curve, optimal tax theory, taxation and entrepreneurship, taxation and investment, taxation and the labour supply
@asymmetricinfo paper:"How Far Are We From The Slippery Slope? The Laffer Curve Revisited" bit.ly/1HMhmqu http://t.co/D9IffNhd92—
Old Whig (@aClassicLiberal) April 20, 2015
The role of new taxes in the Great Recession
24 Apr 2015 Leave a comment
in economic growth, fiscal policy, great recession, labour economics, labour supply, macroeconomics, politics - USA Tags: great recession, obama, Obamacare, taxation and entrepreneurship, taxation and investment, taxation and labour supply
.
Stephen Williamson on Marginal Taxation
03 Aug 2014 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, fiscal policy, income redistribution, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, Public Choice Tags: envy, Stephen Williamson, taxation and entrepreneurship, taxation and human capital, taxation and investment, taxation and labour supply, top 1%
He says a lot. I’ll try to address piece by piece.
Next, some people have shown interest in this paper by Diamond and Saez. A key result that seemed to get these people excited is the calculation of a top optimal marginal tax rate (including all taxes) of 73%, relative to the current rate of 42.5%. There are two key assumptions that Diamond and Saez make to come up with the 73% optimal rate. First, we should not care about the welfare (at the margin) of the rich people. This argument is based solely on the notion that marginal utility of income is low for the top income-earners. Second, Diamond and Saez use a “behavioral elasticity” of tax revenue with respect to the tax rate of 0.25. To see how this matters, if you use their formula and an elasticity of one, you get an optimal top tax rate…
View original post 1,215 more words
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments