This paper analyzes redistributional and macroeconomic effects of differential taxation of financial assets with a different risk levels. The redistributive effect stems from the fact that various households hold portfolios with a starkly different risk levels. In particular, poor households primarily save in safe assets, while rich households often invest a substantially higher share of their wealth in (risky) equity. At the same time, equity and safe assets are often taxed at different rates in many tax codes. This is primarily because investments in equity (which are relatively riskier) are taxed both as corporate and personal income, unlike debt, which is tax deductible for corporations. This paper firstly builds a simple theoretical two-period model which shows that the optimal tax wedge between risky and safe assets is increasing in the underlying wealth inequality. Furthermore, I build a quantitative model with a continuum of heterogeneous agents, parsimonious life-cycle, borrowing constraint, aggregate shocks and uninsurable idiosyncratic shocks, in which the government raises revenue by using linear taxes on risky and safe assets. Simulations of quantitative models shows that elimination of differential asset taxation leads to a welfare loss equivalent to a 0.3% permanent reduction in consumption. I find that the optimal tax wedge between taxes on equity and debt is higher than the one in the U.S. tax code.

No abstract

This paper studies the effects of a change in firm leverage on wealth inequality and macroeconomic aggregates. The question is studied in a general equilibrium model with a continuum of heterogeneous agents, life-cycle, incomplete markets, and idiosyncratic and aggregate risk. The analysis focuses on the particular change in firm leverage that occurred in the U.S. during the 1980s, when firm leverage increased significantly, and subsequently has been dropping since the early 1990s. In the benchmark model, an increase in firm leverage of the size that occurred during the 1980s increases capital accumulation by 5.38%, decreases wealth inequality by 1.07 Gini points and decreases government revenues by 0.11% of output. An increase in firm leverage increases average after-tax returns on savings, as firm debt has beneficial tax treatment. This increases the saving rates of all households, and disproportionately increases the saving rates of relatively poorer households. Consequently, the model implies that the increase in firm leverage did not contribute to rising inequality in the U.S. in the 1980s, but rather the opposite; that the reduction in leverage from the early 1990s to 2008 has contributed to rising wealth inequality. Furthermore, I show that if the model abstracts from beneficial tax treatment of corporate debt, the change in leverage has only minor effects on macro aggregates and inequality, despite having significant implications for asset prices. This is consistent with the previous result in the literature showing that the Modigliani-Miller theorem approximately holds in the heterogeneous agents model with imperfect markets.

No abstract

This paper analyzes redistributional and macroeconomic effects of differential taxation of financial assets with a different risk levels. The redistributive effect stems from the fact that various households hold portfolios with a starkly different risk levels. In particular, poor households primarily save in safe assets, while rich households often invest a substantially higher share of their wealth in (risky) equity. At the same time, equity and safe assets are often taxed at different rates in many tax codes. This is primarily because investments in equity (which are relatively riskier) are taxed both as corporate and personal income, unlike debt, which is tax deductible for corporations. This paper firstly builds a simple theoretical two-period model which shows that the optimal tax wedge between risky and safe assets is increasing in the underlying wealth inequality. Furthermore, I build a quantitative model with a continuum of heterogeneous agents, parsimonious life-cycle, borrowing constraint, aggregate shocks and uninsurable idiosyncratic shocks, in which the government raises revenue by using linear taxes on risky and safe assets. Simulations of quantitative models shows that elimination of differential asset taxation leads to a welfare loss equivalent to a 0.3% permanent reduction in consumption. I find that the optimal tax wedge between taxes on equity and debt is higher than the one in the U.S. tax code.