2016
DOI: 10.1257/aer.20131189
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Taxpayer Confusion: Evidence from the Child Tax Credit

Abstract: A fundamental assumption in public finance is that individuals consider taxes when making economic choices. Indeed, a voluminous literature shows that taxes significantly influence behavior along several margins including labor supply, portfolio allocations, and savings.1 The literature typically assumes that individuals understand the tax schedule they face, and therefore the standard interpretation is that these behavioral responses arise from changes in tax rates.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
40
2
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 96 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
1
40
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A recent natural experiment used administrative data to show that taxpayers are often confused by complex tax systems (Feldman et al ., ). This study, conducted in the USA, analyses labour responses to the loss of Child Tax Credit when a household's child turns 17.…”
Section: Review Of Tax Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…A recent natural experiment used administrative data to show that taxpayers are often confused by complex tax systems (Feldman et al ., ). This study, conducted in the USA, analyses labour responses to the loss of Child Tax Credit when a household's child turns 17.…”
Section: Review Of Tax Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…For example, if the biases arise from the misperception of taxes so that τ b,h =τ − τ s,h , then perceived taxes τ s,h could be estimated by comparing consumption behavior in the environment under consideration where taxes might not be fully salient to consumption behavior in an environment where taxes are very salient (see e.g. Chetty, Looney and Kroft (2009), Allcott, Mullainathan and Taubinsky (2014), and Feldman, Katuscak and Kawano (2016)). We flesh out the details regarding the implementation of this strategy in the quantitative illustration at the end of Section 3.1.…”
Section: Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…where v w is the marginal utility of a dollar received lump-sum. 58 If the agent works too much-perhaps because he underperceives taxes (see Feldman, Katuscak and Kawano (2016) for recent evidence on confusion about marginal tax rates) or overperceives the benefits of working-then τ b is positive. We also define the renormalized behavioral wedge τ b (z) = g (z) τ b (z).…”
Section: Endogenous Attention and Saliencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Just like in the Ramsey model, we define the "behavioral wedge" τ b (z) = − (1−T (z))uc(c,z)+uz (c,z) vw , where v w is the marginal utility of a dollar received lump-sum. 58 If the agent works too much-perhaps because he underperceives taxes (see Feldman, Katuscak and Kawano (2016) for recent evidence on confusion about marginal tax rates) or overperceives the benefits of working-then τ b is positive. We also define the renormalized behavioral wedge τ b (z) = g (z) τ b (z).…”
Section: Setupmentioning
confidence: 99%