注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

N·格里高利·曼昆的博客

恒甫学社的学术性分支博客

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我
曼昆  

曼昆

网易考拉推荐

对“左派”税收理论的反击  

2009-03-23 21:08:11|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

中文博主按:我的美女同事译的!哈,相信大家现在都已经喜欢她得不得了!大家想表扬她,就多回她的贴吧!


Are taxes really distortionary?

The mysterious knzn says:
神秘的 knzn 说到:
I'vealways been skeptical of the importance of the purported bad incentiveeffects of high marginal tax rates on high income earners.
 据说高的边际税率对于高收入人群,会产生不好的激励影响,我对这种影响的重要性始终感到怀疑。
This view characterizes many left-leaning economists. I disagree, which is one reason I lean more to the right.
 这个观点是很多左倾经济学家的调调。对此我不敢苟同,这也是为什么我更倾向于右派的原因之一

Includingall forms of federal, state, and local taxes, high income earners facemarginal tax rates in the ballpark of 50 percent (and perhaps evenhigher to the extent that incremental dollars are to be left to one'skids and thus taxed a second time by the estate tax). So here is thequestion I would ask people like knzn:
考虑到联邦、州及地方所有形式的税收,高收入人群的边际税率大约是50%(那些要留给后代的部分,由于还要被征收一次遗产税,边际税率可能还要高)。所以,我就想问问Knzn之类的人一个问题:


Have you ever turned down a money-making opportunity that you would have accepted if it paid twice as much?
你们曾经拒绝过赚钱的机会吗?但是报酬翻倍的话,你就会接受这个机会。

Formany high income earners, the answer is yes, which means the tax systemis distorting their behavior and reducing the size of the economic pie.
对于许多高收入者来说,答案是肯定的。这就意味着税收体系扭曲了他们的行为,减少了经济蛋糕的规模。

Update:Several people have asked, "Isn't the right question whether you wouldwork more if all of your money-making opportunities were twice aslucrative, not just the ones you turned down?"
更新:一些人也曾问道,“不知道这样问对不对?除了拒绝的工作,如果所有赚钱的机会都加倍地有利可图,你会不会工作得更多?”

No, that is notthe right question. It is a standard result of economic theory that thedeadweight loss of taxation depends only on the substitution effect,which is measured by your response to a marginal opportunity. (That is,for this purpose, you need to use the compensated labor supply curve.)If we taxed your inframarginal work at a lower rate, the income effectwould induce you to work less, as long as leisure is a normal good. Butthat income effect is not relevant for the question of deadweight loss,for reasons explained more fully in this previous post.
不对,这个问题问得不对。在标准的经济理论中,税收导致的净损失(deadweight loss)仅仅依赖于替代效应,这个损失可以通过你对边际机会的反映度量出来。(基于这个目的,你需要使用补偿的劳动力供给曲线。)如果对你的边际内工作(inframarginal work)适用较低的税率,只要闲暇是正常品的话,收入效应就会导致你少工作。但是收入效应跟净损失的问题无关,其原因在以前的一篇博客里解释得更清楚。
 

原文
  评论这张
 
阅读(58)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017