外国商科dissertation：税收对就业和失业的影响
08-26, 2014
The impact of taxation on employment and unemployment
税收对就业和失业的影响
勘查研究(2002)试图减少福利国家制度的经济方法和宏观体制方法之间的差距。不同的福利国家制度征税在失业方面，会导致不同的经济结果。他认为四个关键问题开始浮现。第一个问题就是税收在工业化国家对就业有多么不安全？税收应该一方面与不同类型的福利国家相联系而在另一方面应符合劳动力市场的现状。其次就是在一个不同的时间领域，不同的国家领域内，如何使这些影响形成差异化?这导致了寻求结构性突破和不同的管理机构治理“税收行业环节”。“第三,哪种行业获得的税收最高?我们必须了解是否主要是低收入工作是更容易受税收引导而被排挤,这是否属于普遍水平？最后且最为重要的是是否有一个最佳的最低税收，它能减轻效率和再分配之间的权衡?
The research done Kemmerling (2002) tries to the bridging the gap between economic approaches and macro-institutional approaches to welfare state regimes. Different regimes of welfare state taxation should lead to different economic outcomes in terms of unemployment. He considers four key questions come to the fore. First how unsafe was taxation in industrialized countries for employment? Taxation should be linked to different types of welfare states on the one hand and shape labor market outcomes on the other. Second how do these effects vary in a chronological and cross-country dimension? This leads to the search for structural breaks and different institutional settings governing the “tax-employment link.” Third which were the sectors that experience most from high taxation? It has to be shown whether low-wage jobs were mainly prone to tax-induced crowding out and whether this shows up on a collective level. Finally and most importantly was there an optimal tax-mix that mitigates the trade-off between efficiency and redistribution?
To a certain degree the empirical results of this paper corroborate the idea that tax-mixes matter. The importance of taxation especially of social security contributions and utilization taxes accounts for a deceleration of employment growth in OECD countries. Moreover the structure of taxation also matters for the number of unemployed people.
Payroll taxes which were defined as the percentage of non-wage labor costs to wages differ widely. On the one end was Denmark which charge nearly no payroll on taxes. At the other end were Italy and France which charges around 40 percent payroll taxes of total wages. The total tax load which was based on national income accounts shows a smaller amount of difference but on the other hand vary significantly (Heitger, 2002). The statistics shoes the variation from 28.7% in Australia to 70.7% in Sweden. These data point out the size of the tax wedge in the labor market—that was, compute the difference between real labor cost and real take-home pay and thus give an enhanced sense of the real tax load on labor (Nickell, 1997). The differences between Europe and non-Europe countries with respect to labor market firmness seem to be to a certain extent great. This was mainly true for OECD countries where total tax rate in 1989–94 was 48.2 percent but was 51.8 percent in Europe as compared with 37.3 percent in non-Europe.#p#分页标题#e#
Kemmerling (2002) conclude that for quite some time economists had modeled the impact of taxation on unemployment or employment. The major conclusion reach was twofold: First unemployment was only reasonably influenced by taxation in the long run. Second it was the total tax burden that matters for employment but not essentially the mix of different forms of taxation. Both ideas were somewhat at odds with the resurgent discussion about the apparent “under-performance” of low-wage sectors in European economies. The usual suspect was the taxation of labor which was in the forms of income taxes or social security contributions. But how do consumption taxes fit into this picture? Prima facie should be particularly harmful for these sectors because it reduces both the demand and supply for low-wage labor (e.g. Scharp, 2000a).
The basic framework for an analysis of the incidence of taxation was the standard microeconomic approach to labor supply. Taxation leads ceteris paribus to a changeover effect: work was moreover replaced by more spare time by other sources of income or by an increased amount of work in the future (Gustafsson, 1996:; Blundell, and MaCurdy, 1999). It had also leaded to the utilization of goods that were less labor-intensive. The main underlying mechanism was a “wedge” between gross and net wages. A lower net wage leads to a smaller supply of labor. Only if the income effect (IE) of taxation surpasses the substitution effect (SE) does the labor supply increase. Micro econometric studies had shown that certainly for some social groups such as single mothers IE dominates SE (e.g. Blundell, 1995). Kemmerling (2002) had expected a more customary scenario on an aggregate level for whole sectors of an economy or even for the entire labor market.
税收对就业和失业的影响
勘查研究(2002)试图减少福利国家制度的经济方法和宏观体制方法之间的差距。不同的福利国家制度征税在失业方面，会导致不同的经济结果。他认为四个关键问题开始浮现。第一个问题就是税收在工业化国家对就业有多么不安全？税收应该一方面与不同类型的福利国家相联系而在另一方面应符合劳动力市场的现状。其次就是在一个不同的时间领域，不同的国家领域内，如何使这些影响形成差异化?这导致了寻求结构性突破和不同的管理机构治理“税收行业环节”。“第三,哪种行业获得的税收最高?我们必须了解是否主要是低收入工作是更容易受税收引导而被排挤,这是否属于普遍水平？最后且最为重要的是是否有一个最佳的最低税收，它能减轻效率和再分配之间的权衡?
The research done Kemmerling (2002) tries to the bridging the gap between economic approaches and macro-institutional approaches to welfare state regimes. Different regimes of welfare state taxation should lead to different economic outcomes in terms of unemployment. He considers four key questions come to the fore. First how unsafe was taxation in industrialized countries for employment? Taxation should be linked to different types of welfare states on the one hand and shape labor market outcomes on the other. Second how do these effects vary in a chronological and cross-country dimension? This leads to the search for structural breaks and different institutional settings governing the “tax-employment link.” Third which were the sectors that experience most from high taxation? It has to be shown whether low-wage jobs were mainly prone to tax-induced crowding out and whether this shows up on a collective level. Finally and most importantly was there an optimal tax-mix that mitigates the trade-off between efficiency and redistribution?
To a certain degree the empirical results of this paper corroborate the idea that tax-mixes matter. The importance of taxation especially of social security contributions and utilization taxes accounts for a deceleration of employment growth in OECD countries. Moreover the structure of taxation also matters for the number of unemployed people.
Payroll taxes which were defined as the percentage of non-wage labor costs to wages differ widely. On the one end was Denmark which charge nearly no payroll on taxes. At the other end were Italy and France which charges around 40 percent payroll taxes of total wages. The total tax load which was based on national income accounts shows a smaller amount of difference but on the other hand vary significantly (Heitger, 2002). The statistics shoes the variation from 28.7% in Australia to 70.7% in Sweden. These data point out the size of the tax wedge in the labor market—that was, compute the difference between real labor cost and real take-home pay and thus give an enhanced sense of the real tax load on labor (Nickell, 1997). The differences between Europe and non-Europe countries with respect to labor market firmness seem to be to a certain extent great. This was mainly true for OECD countries where total tax rate in 1989–94 was 48.2 percent but was 51.8 percent in Europe as compared with 37.3 percent in non-Europe.#p#分页标题#e#
Kemmerling (2002) conclude that for quite some time economists had modeled the impact of taxation on unemployment or employment. The major conclusion reach was twofold: First unemployment was only reasonably influenced by taxation in the long run. Second it was the total tax burden that matters for employment but not essentially the mix of different forms of taxation. Both ideas were somewhat at odds with the resurgent discussion about the apparent “under-performance” of low-wage sectors in European economies. The usual suspect was the taxation of labor which was in the forms of income taxes or social security contributions. But how do consumption taxes fit into this picture? Prima facie should be particularly harmful for these sectors because it reduces both the demand and supply for low-wage labor (e.g. Scharp, 2000a).
The basic framework for an analysis of the incidence of taxation was the standard microeconomic approach to labor supply. Taxation leads ceteris paribus to a changeover effect: work was moreover replaced by more spare time by other sources of income or by an increased amount of work in the future (Gustafsson, 1996:; Blundell, and MaCurdy, 1999). It had also leaded to the utilization of goods that were less labor-intensive. The main underlying mechanism was a “wedge” between gross and net wages. A lower net wage leads to a smaller supply of labor. Only if the income effect (IE) of taxation surpasses the substitution effect (SE) does the labor supply increase. Micro econometric studies had shown that certainly for some social groups such as single mothers IE dominates SE (e.g. Blundell, 1995). Kemmerling (2002) had expected a more customary scenario on an aggregate level for whole sectors of an economy or even for the entire labor market.
Get expert help on all your writing
立即预定