scholarly journals Recycling Carbon Tax Revenue to Maximize Welfare

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (023) ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Stephie Fried ◽  
◽  
Kevin Novan ◽  
William B. Peterman ◽  
◽  
...  

This paper explores how to recycle carbon tax revenue back to households to maximize welfare. Using a general equilibrium lifecycle model calibrated to reflect the heterogeneity in the U.S. economy, we find the optimal policy uses two thirds of carbon-tax revenue to reduce the distortionary tax on capital income while the remaining one third is used to increase the progressivity of the labor-income tax. The optimal policy attains higher welfare and more equality than the lump-sum rebate approach preferred by policymakers as well as the approach originally prescribed by economists--which called exclusively for reductions in distortionary taxes.

Author(s):  
Lint Barrage

Abstract How should carbon be taxed as a part of fiscal policy? The literature on optimal carbon pricing often abstracts from other taxes. However, when governments raise revenues with distortionary taxes, carbon levies have fiscal impacts. While they raise revenues directly, they may shrink the bases of other taxes (e.g. by decreasing employment). This article theoretically characterizes and then quantifies optimal carbon taxes in a dynamic general equilibrium climate–economy model with distortionary fiscal policy. First, this article establishes a novel theoretical relationship between the optimal taxation of carbon and of capital income. This link arises because carbon emissions destroy natural capital: they accumulate in the atmosphere and decrease future output. Consequently, this article shows how the standard logic against capital income taxes extends to distortions on environmental capital investments. Second, this article characterizes optimal climate policy in sub-optimal fiscal settings where income taxes are constrained to remain at their observed levels. Third, this article presents a detailed calibration that builds on the seminal DICE approach but adds features essential for a setting with distortionary taxes, such as a differentiation between climate change production impacts (e.g. on agriculture) and direct utility impacts (e.g. on biodiversity existence value). The central quantitative finding is that optimal carbon tax schedules are 8–24% lower when there are distortionary taxes, compared to the setting with lump-sum taxes considered in the literature.


2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 810-828
Author(s):  
Darong Dai

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to study whether it is a rational choice for a tax authority to impose an exit tax on capitalists. Design/methodology/approach The tax authority chooses a lump-sum exit tax to maximize a weighted objective of expected tax revenue and expected tax horizon. The tax revene consists of capital income taxes and exit taxes. Capitalists are motivated by sustainable capital accumulation and hence maximize the terminal capital stock. Findings The author finds that the objective function of the tax authority is strictly increasing in the exit tax, which holds for extensions with sales tax, labor income tax or proportional exit tax, and hence equilibrium exit tax is equal to an exogenous upper bound. Originality/value To the author’s knowledge, no existing literature investigates this issue theoretically, and hence the current paper represents the first attempt. The author hopes this theoretical analysis can trigger related empirical studies.


2009 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Carlos Conesa ◽  
Sagiri Kitao ◽  
Dirk Krueger

We quantitatively characterize the optimal capital and labor income tax in an overlapping generations model with idiosyncratic, uninsurable income shocks and permanent productivity differences of households. The optimal capital income tax rate is significantly positive at 36 percent. The optimal progressive labor income tax is, roughly, a flat tax of 23 percent with a deduction of $7,200 (relative to average household income of $42,000). The high optimal capital income tax is mainly driven by the life-cycle structure of the model, whereas the optimal progressivity of the labor income tax is attributable to the insurance and redistribution role of the tax system. (JEL E13, H21, H24, H25)


2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 798-836 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Biljanovska

This paper examines optimal policy in a macroeconomic model with collateral constraints. Binding collateral constraints yield inefficient competitive equilibrium allocations because they distort the optimal utilization of real resources. I identify the set of policy instruments that can be used by a Ramsey planner to achieve the first-best and the second-best (i.e., constrained planner's) allocations. A system of distortionary taxes on capital and labor income, along with direct lump-sum transfers among borrowers and lenders replicates the first-best outcome. The tax rates correct for the marginal distortions, whereas the direct lump-sum transfers perform income redistributions among the agents. In absence of direct lump-sum transfers, the distortionary taxes have an additional role, i.e., to perform implicit income transfers, and only second-best outcomes are attainable. I also derive the optimal policy in response to real and financial shocks, and show how the policy recommendations differ depending on the set of policy instruments available.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 54
Author(s):  
Yusuke Miyake

This study analyzes whether taxation of labor income or capital income maximizes growth rates, with labor-argument type model, in an aging society. There are certain conditions that maximize growth rates which are indicated by the share of public capital-public pensions. The results of this analysis taxing capital income is better in an economy where private capital is drastically larger than the public capital found in an aging society.


2018 ◽  
Vol 09 (01) ◽  
pp. 1840010 ◽  
Author(s):  
RONALD D. SANDS

This paper documents application of the Future Agricultural Resources Model (FARM) to stylized carbon tax scenarios specified by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF). Model results show that the method of tax revenue recycling makes a difference. Either labor-tax, or capital-tax, recycling can reduce the welfare cost of a carbon tax policy relative to lump sum recycling. Of the two tax recycling options, reducing capital taxes provides the greater reduction in welfare costs. However, carbon tax revenues decline with stringent carbon dioxide (CO2) emission targets and the availability of a negative-emissions technology such as bio-electricity with CO2 capture and storage (BECCS). As BECCS expands, net carbon tax revenues peak and decline due to an offsetting subsidy for carbon sequestration, limiting the potential for labor- or capital-tax recycling to reduce welfare costs of a climate policy.


2018 ◽  
Vol 09 (03) ◽  
pp. 1850006 ◽  
Author(s):  
GOVINDA R. TIMILSINA ◽  
JING CAO ◽  
MUN HO

China has set a goal of reducing its CO2 intensity of GDP by 60–65% from the 2005 level in 2030 as its nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris Climate Change Agreement. While the government is considering series of market and nonmarket measures to achieve its target, this study assesses the economic consequences if the target were to meet through a market mechanism, carbon tax. We used a dynamic computable general equilibrium model of China for the analysis. The study shows that the level of carbon tax to achieve the NDC target would be different depending on its design features. An increasing carbon tax that starts at a small rate in 2015 and rises to a level to meet the NDC target in 2030 would cause smaller GDP loss than the carbon tax with a constant rate would do. The GDP loss due to the carbon tax would be smaller when the tax revenue is utilized to cut existing distortionary taxes than when it is transferred to households as a lump-sum rebate.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pascal Belan ◽  
Erwan Moussault

Abstract We consider a two-period overlapping generation model with rational altruism à la Barro, where time transfers and bequests are available to parents. Starting from a steady state where public spending is financed through taxation on capital income and labor income, we analyze a tax reform that consists in a shift of the tax burden from capital income tax toward inheritance tax. In the standard Barro model with no time transfer and inelastic labor supply, such a policy decreases steady-state welfare. In our setting, inheritance tax modifies parents’ trade-off between time transfers and bequests. We identify situations where the tax reform increases welfare for all generations. Welfare improvement mainly depends on the magnitude of the effect of higher time transfers on the labor supply of the young.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document