Average marginal tax rates revisited

Stephenson, E. Frank

doi:10.1016/s0304-3932(97)00081-0

Cited by 44 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…8 These results are similar to the results of Stephenson (1998) for the USA. Stephenson (1998) calculates the average marginal income tax rates , which are the average tax rate (ATR), the ratio of income tax revenue to adjust gross income (AGI), the Seater-type series of average marginal effective income tax rates (AMEITR) weighted by shares of AGI in each income class, and Barro and Sahasakul's marginal statutory income tax rate (AMSITR), weighted by shares of AGI and shares of returns, respectively. He finds that all of the average marginal tax rate measures are greater than the corresponding average tax rate because of the progressive tax system in the USA.…”

Section: Changes In the Uk Tax System And The Resulting Effects supporting

confidence: 73%

“…They indicate that the time-series data on average marginal tax rates are useful in testing the implications of alternative macroeconomic theories and in analysing the impact of temporary versus permanent shifts in marginal tax rates on output, employment, and other macroeconomic variables. Stephenson (1998) extends the estimates of average marginal income and social security tax rates of Seater (1982Seater ( , 1985 and Sahasakul (1983, 1986) through 1994, and introduces a return-weighted social security tax rate. His results show that the average marginal tax rates decrease after 1981, but that the rates are still high by historical standards because of the large increase in the average marginal social security tax rate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Average marginal tax rates in the UK economy

Rym¹,

Koray²

2004

Applied Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a known methodology, this paper calculates the average tax rate (ATR) and three different average marginal tax rate (AMTR) measures for the UK. The three different AMTR measures are greater than the ATR in the same year because of the progressive tax system in the UK. Barro's AMTR measure weighted by total income is greater than Barro's AMTR measure weighted by number of returns because of the unequal distribution of income, and Barro's AMTR measure weighted by total income exceeds Seater's AMTR measure because total income before tax in Seater's AMTR measure is greater than total income after tax in Barro's AMTR measure.

show abstract

Section: Changes In the Uk Tax System And The Resulting Effects supporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Average marginal tax rates in the UK economy

Rym¹,

Koray²

2004

Applied Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although cross-country panels on tax distortions are scarce in supply, extensive research has been done on U.S. data to construct long time series on comprehensive marginal tax rates. Within the time range in the present paper , there is evidence of a decrease in the average marginal e¤ective income tax rate after 1981, and in the average marginal Social Security tax rate after 1978 (Stephenson 1998). Moreover, the average marginal tax rates were between 1 and 2 percentage points higher in 1960 than in 1994.…”

Section: Cross-country Patterns In the Growth And Variability Of The supporting

confidence: 43%

Costs of taxation and the size of government

Andersen

2011

Public Choice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing theory on the form of government suggests that a parliamentary system promotes a larger size of government than does a presidential system. This paper extends the existing theory by allowing for distortionary taxation. A main result is that if taxation is su¢ ciently distortionary, the parliamentary system may promote a smaller size of government than the presidential system. The proposed mechanism appears consistent with several empirical patterns in the data that cannot be explained by other theories.

show abstract

“…Two different approaches to estimating MTRs have been used. The first is by Seater (1982Seater ( , 1985 and Stephenson (1998), and the second by Sahasakul (1983, 1986). Mulligan and Marion (2001) argue there is no good reason to choose one method over the other, so both are included in Table Two …”

Section: Deadweight Loss and Marginal Tax Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deferments and the Relative Cost of Conscription

Perri¹

2010

The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A model of military conscription with costly deferments is developed. Deferments may enable the induction of only those with the lowest reservation wages, avoiding the usual misallocation of resources with conscription versus a volunteer military. With costly deferments, the tradeoff between conscription and a volunteer military involves the cost of deferments with the former and the higher deadweight cost of taxation with the latter. Among the results are: 1) conscription is socially preferable to a volunteer military only if a large percentage of eligible individuals is demanded by the military; 2) if conscription is used when it is socially cheaper than a volunteer military, welfare is improved if deferments have lower social benefits; and 3) ignoring other costs of conscription (e.g., higher turnover and reduced investment in human capital), the U.S. in World War II may have been near the point at which conscription and a volunteer military were of equal social cost.

show abstract

Average marginal tax rates revisited

Cited by 44 publications

References 8 publications

Average marginal tax rates in the UK economy

Average marginal tax rates in the UK economy

Costs of taxation and the size of government

Deferments and the Relative Cost of Conscription

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About