Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may AbstractEvidence on the portfolio holdings and transaction patterns of households suggests that the burden of in ation is not evenly distributed. We build a monetary growth model consistent with key features of cross-sectional household data and use this framework to study the distributional impact of in ation. At the aggregate level, our model economy behaves similarly to standard monetary growth models within the representative agent abstraction. In ation has, however, important distributional e ects since it is e ectively a regressive consumption tax. Thus, neglecting the distributional consequences of in ation may prove misleading in assessing the e ects of in ation in our economy.

We use a very standard life-cycle growth model, in which individuals have a labor-leisure choice in each period of their lives, to prove that an optimizing government will almost always find it optimal to tax or subsidize interest income. The intuition for our result is straightforward. In a life-cycle model the individual's optimal consumption-work plan is almost never constant and an optimizing government almost always taxes consumption goods and labor earnings at different rates over an individual's lifetime. One way to achieve this goal is to use capital and labor income taxes that vary with age. If tax rates cannot be conditioned on age, a non-zero tax on capital income is also optimal, as it can (imperfectly) mimic age-conditioned consumption and labor income tax rates.

We use a very standard life-cycle growth model, in which individuals have a labor-leisure choice in each period of their lives, to prove that an optimizing government will almost always find it optimal to tax or subsidize interest income. The intuition for our result is straightforward. In a life-cycle model the individual's optimal consumption-work plan is almost never constant and an optimizing government almost always taxes consumption goods and labor earnings at different rates over an individual's lifetime. One way to achieve this goal is to use capital and labor income taxes that vary with age. If tax rates cannot be conditioned on age, a non-zero tax on capital income is also optimal, as it can (imperfectly) mimic age-conditioned consumption and labor income tax rates. JEL: E62, H21where c = (c 0 , . . . , c J ), l = (l 0 , . . . , l J ), and G(·) is homothetic.Proposition 6 For utility functions of the form given by (27), the Ramsey problem prescribes zero taxes on capital income for time period 1 and thereafter provided labor income taxes can be age-conditioned.Proof. Since preferences are homothetic in consumption, we know that for every t (see Atkinson and Stiglitz (1980) and Chari and Kehoe (1998)for all j ∈ j 0 (t), . . . , J.Thus,

We build a model of heterogeneous individuals—who make investments in schooling quantity and quality—to quantify the importance of differences in human capital vs. total factor productivity (TFP) in explaining the variation in per capita income across countries. The production of human capital requires expenditures and time inputs; the relative importance of these inputs determines the predictions of the theory for inequality both within and across countries. We discipline our quantitative assessment with a calibration firmly grounded on US micro evidence. Since in our calibrated model economy human capital production requires a significant amount of expenditures, TFP changes affect disproportionately the benefits and costs of human capital accumulation. Our main finding is that human capital accumulation strongly amplifies TFP differences across countries: to explain a 20‐fold difference in the output per worker, the model requires a 5‐fold difference in the TFP of the tradable sector, vs. an 18‐fold difference if human capital is fixed across countries.

We build a heterogeneous agents life cycle model that captures a large number of salient features of individual male labour supply over the life cycle, by education, both along the intensive and extensive margins. The model provides an aggregation theory of individual labour supply, firmly grounded on individual-level micro-evidence, and is used to study the aggregate labour supply responses to changes in the economic environment. We find that the aggregate labour supply elasticity to a transitory wage shock is 1.75, with the extensive margin accounting for 62% of the response. Furthermore, we find that the aggregate labour supply elasticity to a permanent-compensated wage change is 0.44.