Taxation and Employment

Gelauff, George

doi:10.1787/9789264120808-en

Cited by 29 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This opens a broader discussion on the role of international cooperation in resolving or amplifying apparent trade-offs (and the associated policy distortions) between competitiveness and equity in the design of domestic climate policies, which is beyond the scope of this survey. 10 This result is consistent with the usual wisdom that excess grandfathering under the EU-ETS results in higher firms' profits at the expenses of the government budget limiting government revenues and thus the ambition of welfare policies (Joltreau and Sommerfeld, 2019[146]). Note that excess grandfathering creating rents for incumbent companies has been documented also in the US (e.g., Goulder, Hafstead and Dworsky, 2010 [45]).…”

Section: Source-and Use-side Distributional Effectssupporting

confidence: 85%

“…For profits, Marin et al (2018[29]) find a small increase in mark-ups for European firms treated under the EU-ETS compared to a suitable counterfactual and other papers document a positive relationship between allowance prices and profits for the EU-ETS (e.g., Bushnell, Chong and Mansur, 2013[40]; Hintermann, Peterson and Rickels, 2016 [41]). 10 For average wages, Walker (2013 [30]) finds negative and modestly large effects for the US Clean Air Act using matched employeremployee data. Yip (2020 [31]) shows that the revenue-neutral British Columbia carbon tax (of around CAD$30) decreases wages by 2.7%, with wage cuts concentrated among new hires.…”

Section: Source-and Use-side Distributional Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A vast literature in economics and sociology find strong empirical support on the existence of an environmental justice gap, namely the fact that low-income households and ethnic minorities are significantly more exposed to several types of pollution risks including air pollutants, hazardous waste and various toxic chemicals (e.g., Hamilton, 1995[99]; Mohai and Saha, 2006[100]; Zwickl, Ash and Boyce, 2014 [10]). Hsiang et al (2017[16]) show that climate change is no exception, creating more damage to disadvantaged communities along several dimensions (i.e., excess mortality, agriculture productivity, labor supply, violent crime).…”

Section: The Environmental Justice Gapmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 Moreover, the widespread use of subsidies to clean energy investments (i.e., electric cars, home weatherization) disproportionately benefit richer households, further amplifying the inequity of existing environmental policies (Borenstein and Davis, 2016[8]). Importantly, the dramatic increase of inequality in last four decades looms as the backdrop of this unfair status quo (Atkinson, 2003[9]; OECD, 2011 [10]; Piketty and Saez, 2003[11]).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Managing the distributional effects of environmental and climate policies

2021

OECD Environment Working Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Source-and Use-side Distributional Effectssupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Source-and Use-side Distributional Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Environmental Justice Gapmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Managing the distributional effects of environmental and climate policies

2021

OECD Environment Working Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implemented via either a tax or benefits system, in-work benefit schemes differ considerably in their profiles and generosity. In many cases, eligibility requires working a certain number of weekly hours or earning a minimum income from paid work (OECD, 2011, p. 67f.).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fairness perceptions regarding in-work benefits: a survey experiment

Senghaas

Osiander

Stephan

et al. 2022

IJSSP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeIn many countries, individuals can receive welfare support whilst simultaneously being employed. The level of earned income that welfare recipients are allowed to keep has long been a subject of debate. Core issues include whether in-work benefit regulations provide incentives for individuals to expand labour market participation and are thus also socially effective and whether the population perceives welfare benefits for individuals who earn own income as fair. This article contributes to the debate about the social legitimacy of in-work benefit regulations by shedding light on the principles guiding judgements about an adequate amount of in-work benefit receipt.Design/methodology/approachThe authors use a factorial survey experiment to investigate which factors guide judgements about an adequate level of in-work benefit receipt. In the authors' factorial survey, the household composition, health status, and monthly earnings of a hypothetical in-work benefit recipient were varied experimentally. The study investigates Germany's basic income support programme, a means-tested social policy programme that targets both unemployed and employed individuals.FindingsThe results show that respondents consider higher earnings retention rates for lower-income earners to be fair. This preference mirrors the German legislation, which is based on the principle of need. Furthermore, the presence of children and of physical as well as mental health impairments are associated with support for higher earnings retention rates.Originality/valueThe findings suggest that citizens support the core features of in-work benefit regulations but do not consider in-work benefit recipients as a homogenous group when assessing the adequate level of benefit receipt.

show abstract

Saving Behavior and Portfolio Choice After Retirement

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the literature on saving behavior and portfolio choice after retirement and provides a descriptive analysis of this behavior by Dutch elderly households. Studying saving behavior in the Netherlands is informative because of the very different institutional background compared to the US, for which most of the empirical evidence is. In the Netherlands, the generous pension system and almost complete coverage of the public health-and long-term care insurance system makes precautionary saving less necessary. Using detailed administrative data, we present evidence on the extent to which the financial resources of retirees are affected by shocks such as the decease of a spouse or deteriorating health-similar to recent empirical studies by Poterba et al. ( 2014) for the US. Moreover, we examine the extent to which retirees who do not experience any shocks are able to keep positive wealth at their disposal and sustain their consumption level during retirement. Our results show that the death of the spouse results in a significant reduction of household wealth compared to surviving couples-which is also found in the USwhile health shocks result in higher household savings in old-age due to the almost complete coverage of health care expenditures. Although retirees in the Netherlands face limited uncertainty about health expenditures, our analysis shows that the elderly, on average, keep large amounts of assets even at a very old age. Our findings suggest that (1) the generous pension benefits are protective of household wealth, (2) illiquid housing wealth constrains the decumulation of household wealth, (3) bequests and transfers after the death of the first spouse are important.

show abstract

Taxation and Employment

Cited by 29 publications

References 0 publications

Managing the distributional effects of environmental and climate policies

Managing the distributional effects of environmental and climate policies

Fairness perceptions regarding in-work benefits: a survey experiment

Saving Behavior and Portfolio Choice After Retirement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About