Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: welfare state

Pizza..16659_5.5_000015914228XSmall

When government gives us more, can it tell us what to do?

During October, 2011, Denmark became the first country in the world to have a fatty foods tax. Targeting all foods with more than a 2.3% saturated fat content, the list included butter, pizza, potato chips and even meat and milk. With a price hike of approximately $2.70 per 2.2 pounds of saturated fat, a half pound of butter sold for an extra 37 cents.

Then, the unintended consequences entered the picture.

It actually all started before the tax hit when rumors spread that people were hoarding butter and demand soared for foods high in saturated fats. Afterwards, rather than change their eating habits, some families switched where they shopped. One cheese eater said that several times a year, she stocked up at a German food shop across the border. Others purchased lower quality cheeses. Meanwhile companies reported that tax compliance required costly administrative expenses. The Danish Food Workers Union complained of 1300 job lay-offs in retailing and manufacturing.

Perhaps because of the tax’s economic impact, Danish officials soon changed their mind.

Saying, “Now we have to try improving the public health by other means, ” Denmark’s minister for food, agriculture and fisheries announced during November 2012 that the tax had been repealed. Government officials added that they will also cancel plans for a tax on sugary drinks and cut their beer tax. Lower taxes, they hoped, would boost GDP.

The Denmark story takes us back to government.

In the US, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, increasingly, though not nearly as much as Denmark,  government is paying for health care. One economist friend of mine commented that our relationship with government has shifted. The more government gives us, the more it can tell us what to do. Your opinion?

Sources and Resources: More about the story of Denmark’s fatty foods tax starts here with its inception and ends here and here with its repeal.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Tax Revenue

Talking about taxes, economists like to quote Louis XIV’s finance minister: “The art of taxation consists of so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing.”

We have been hearing a lot of “hissing” about France’s 75% tax hike proposal. News articles tell us that business executives are planning to leave France because of high taxes. And yes, looking at other countries, France’s taxes are high. The new 75% rate would move France to the top of a list of high income tax countries that currently is led by Sweden, Japan, the UK and Germany.

A progressive tax, the 75% rate reflects an approach through which those who earn more pay a higher rate than people who earn less. For France and most other countries, the top rate is marginal. It just applies to a slice of income at the top of what an individual earns.

In France, currently, if you earn €100,000, then…

  • The first €5963 of your paycheck has a 0% income tax.
  • The next layer of earnings between €5964 – €11,896 is taxed at 5.5%.
  • Then, for the slice that is between €11,897 – €26,420, 14%.
  • And, for earnings between €26,421 and €70,830, 30%.
  • Finally, everything above €70,830 has a 41% rate.

 

Now, the new law would mean that on the amount you earn above €1,000,000, you give back 75% to the government.

This table from the NY Times provides a specific example:

A French Millionaire’s Taxes: With and Without the 75% Proposed Rate

A family with 2 children

Current Tax Law

(In euros)

Proposed Tax Law

(in euros)

Gross Salary

2,224,694

2,224,694

Income Taxes

-837,242

-1,137,383

Employee Social Taxes

-289,210

-289,210

Take-home pay after taxes

1,098,242

798,101

Source: NY Times

The income tax is not France’s only tax. People also pay social taxes that relate primarily to healthcare, retirement and unemployment and a value added tax (sort of the equivalent of a sales tax) of 19.6%.

France’s tax approach represents considerable income redistribution from those who earn it to those who spend it for medical reasons, as old age pensions and when they are unemployed. Looking at income redistribution (below), you can see that France is among those countries with more equality.

Equality Among Selected Countries For Disposable Income: Ranking From First (most equal) to Fifth (least equal)

#1

The Most Equal

#2

Almost as Equal

#3

Less Equal

#4

Even Less Equal

#5

The Least Equal

Denmark

Iceland

Norway

Sweden

Switzerland

Belgium

Czech Republic

Estonia

Finland

France

Italy

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

Austria

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Poland

Spain

Australia

Canada

Ireland

Netherlands

New Zealand

UK

Chile

Israel

Mexico

Portugal

Turkey

USA

Source: OECD

France’s President Hollande says his tax proposal is all about social justice. Disagreeing, others believe that the income redistribution he proposes will further diminish France’s stagnant economic growth, worsen its fiscal slide, and thereby harm social welfare.

Your opinion?

And finally, nearby states seem to delight when their neighbors raise taxes. Belgian business people are smiling as French inquiries about home purchases and business investment increase. (Similarly, when Illinois raised taxes, Wisconsin said, “Come here!”)

News stories about the 75% proposal and the facts I cite are here and here. You might also want to look at this OECD paper on income inequality. My information on French tax  rates came from here.

Please note this post was slightly edited after it first appeared.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

justice...scale...16871_scale

Split down the middle, opinion about the US economy puts private initiative or government first. Those who place individual enterprise first believe most private income belongs to those who generate it. By contrast, government’s advocates see a growing share of private income as tax revenue that is fairly collected and redistributed.

Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, who would have been 100 years old today, had an opinion about “fair” government.  According to Dr. Friedman, being “fair” to one group meant less fairness to others. If government is more equitable to consumers, then it is less fair to businesses. As he said in a 1977 Newsweek column, “To a producer or seller, a ‘fair’ price is a high price. To the buyer or consumer, a ‘fair’ price is a low price. How is the conflict to be adjudicated? By competition in a free market? Or by government bureaucrats in a ‘fair’ market?”

Dr. Friedman reminds us that neither the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights contains the word “fair.” He says that instead, government should be “policeman and umpire.” It should provide “a framework within which individuals could pursue their own objectives in their own way.”

So yes, we have always had a mixed economy with some government limiting freedom. The question for each of us is how much of each. The coming election will probably provide an opportunity to select a tradeoff.

You can read the entire Milton Friedman (1912-2006) column, “Free Versus Fair,” here. And, for further discussion of America’s 2 economic perspectives, you might enjoy this WSJ editorial column from Daniel Henninger. Finally, during presidential election years, I always ask my classes to read Arthur Okun’s Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Tax Revenue

What happens when a philosopher who believes in less government gets benefits from government?

Here is the story:

In a building that Love Story author Erich Segal owned, Harvard professor Robert Nozick (1938-2002), a libertarian philosopher, was a tenant. After paying annual rent hikes, Nozick discovered that his apartment was rent controlled and the increases were illegal. Segal, however, refused to give him a refund saying, “You’ve abdicated the right to complain.” The reason was Novick’s book, Anarchy State and Utopia, in which he explained why society had no right to “commandeer” the fruits of an individual’s talent and hard work through redistribution.

Like taxes, rent control is redistribution. Rather than moving money from the rich to the poor, rent control redistributes income from landlords to tenants through government mandated lower rent.

This story ends in court where Nozick got a favorable decision and his money.

For us, though, the story is never ending. Dr. Novick’s ideas on distributive justice take us to how we view our tax system. Is the “just” society built on a foundation of individual talent with minimal redistribution or community sharing?

For a fascinating discussion of distributive justice from the divergent views of John Rawls (redistribution can be okay) and Robert Novick (not okay), I highly recommend this Econtalk podcast and transcript. More on rent control is here and from Novick, his single page “Tale of a Slave,” here.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

ikea_000017626720XSmall

Our story starts when Ikea’s founder, Ingvar Kamprad, left Sweden during the 1970s. It ends with Sweden’s current finance minister saying that taxes were the reason.

Associated with a more humane form of capitalism, Sweden was the prototype for the welfare state. But then a real estate bubble burst during the early 1990s. Government spending soared as the economy sank.

Sounds familiar.

Sweden’s response included less public sector involvement through deregulation of industries like postal services and electricity. They eliminated a wealth tax, inheritance tax and gift taxes. They cut the size and duration of unemployment benefits. With retirement options at 61, 65 and 67, their political leadership has suggested 75 years old.

Because the Swedish economy has been relatively healthy, it is being cited as a country that coped with contraction by cutting taxes, diminishing spending, and vastly improving its debt to GDP ratio. Economist Ed Yardeni says that Sweden’s story proves that more spending is not necessarily the answer to recession and unemployment.

And that takes us back to Ikea. Sweden’s finance minister says that his goal is to attract people like Ikea’s Ingvar Kamprad to start businesses, grow them, and remain in Sweden because it is business friendly.

Our Bottom Line: Don’t we always seem to return to the Smith/Hayek v. Keynes debate? Do we need more business friendly environments or more government spending?

To read about how Sweden’s economy is changing, you might want to look here in the Globe and Mail while here is what The Economist has to say and here is The Spectator’s discussion.  For a more academic consideration of the changing Swedish economic model, this Harvard paper is a possibility. And, here is the “Ease of Doing Business” rank for Sweden.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment