Search results

It is well recognised that the issue of the social rate of discount applies only to the gains from public investment that accrues to the public sector. When it comes to measurement, however, there is a problem: public investment in infrastructure and the like do not usually yield direct pecuniary returns to the public exchequer. Instead public capital may be plausibly argued to lead to increases in factor productivity in the private economy. This paper observes that government typically shares in the latter gains via the collection of tax revenues. Hence to the extent the risk discount rate should reflect the co-variability between the return from public investment and that of the market, we are led to measuring the risk premium implicit in various revenue flows. We apply the above methodology to the United States budget data for the period, 1950-2000, and show that the social risk premium is relatively small vis-à-vis the market. Consequently, the use of the risk free rate as the correct risk discount rate for public sector investment would involve only a minor error. The intuition here is that the portfolio of assets embedded in the state's revenue claims provides additional diversification than is available through financial markets. Therefore, even investors holding well-diversified stock portfolios may legitimately view claims on state revenue as vehicles for further risk shifting.

The importance of capital loss offset provisions in a world of risk is well documented in the tax literature. However, the potential deadweight losses owing to imperfect offset has not been fully explored. This paper develops a framework whereby that investigation can be carried out and utilizes numerical simulations to investigate the size of potential losses. Results show that when the government and private sector are equally efficient in handling market risk, welfare losses owing to the absence of offset provisions could be substantial. Under plausible assumptions about attitudes towards risk and time preference, and with a capital income tax rate of forty percent, over sixty cents per dollar of tax revenue raised would be dissipated. In contrast, full loss offset would reduce that loss to approximately fourteen cents.

ABSTRACTThis paper examines the double dividend hypothesis in the presence of labour income uncertainty. Empirical evidence shows that uncertainty over labour income is particularly significant in developing, while not negligible in developed countries. Under uncertainty, and assuming incomplete capital markets, the tax system plays a role in providing social insurance, and a green tax reform influences its effectiveness. We show that the increase in environmental tax reduces consumption risk, while the balanced budget decrease in labour income tax increases income risk. We find that the total welfare effect of a green tax reform differs substantially from the case of certainty. The critical parameters determining the existence of a second dividend are the lump-sum transfers, the relative substitutability of the two goods for leisure, and the initial tax rates relative to their optimal that determine also the response of labour supply to a change in the tax mix.

In this paper we examine capital income taxation of a reference dependent sufficiently loss averse investor in a two period portfolio choice model under full loss offset provisions. Capital income taxation with loss offset provisions has been found to stimulate risk taking in expected utility models under certain assumptions about attitudes towards risk but would such effect be found under prospect theory type of preferences? We observe that the impact of capital income taxation depends on investors' reference levels relative to their endowment income and thus we explore capital income taxation for different types of loss averse investors in terms of their ambition. We consider the less ambitious investors to be the ones with relatively low reference levels (they avoid relative losses in both periods) and more ambitious investors to be those with relatively high reference levels. We analyze two types of more ambitious investors: investors with higher time preference (who experience relative losses only in the second period under the bad state of nature) and investors with lower time preference (who experience relative losses only in the first period). We observe that capital income taxation stimulates current consumption in most cases which encourages risk taking, although the final outcome would depend on the investors' degree of risk aversion, the rate of time preference and the tax rate in relation to certain thresholds. Current consumption could be discouraged for some ambitious type of investors that have relatively high second period reference levels but not necessary first period reference levels. In summary, to determine the impact of capital income taxation on the decision variables the reference levels in relation to endowment income play the most significant role. Ignoring reference depended preferences can lead to different conclusions for investors reaction to capital income taxation. We also find certain type of investors whose happiness level increases with capital income taxation under full loss offset provisions.

Financial constraints or economic needs, career development, psychological satisfaction as well as demographic and situational factors cause workers to seek more than one job while enjoying leisure time. In this paper we examine how a worker with prospect theory type of preferences allocates her time between leisure, a safe job and a risky job. Optimal time allocation for a sufficient loss averse worker depends on the reference level which in turn determines whether the worker is willing to experience relative losses or not. When the reference level is relatively low then the sufficiently loss averse worker will allocate some of her time to leisure and will hold both jobs in order to diversify risk and reduce income loss arising from the risky job. However, if the probability of a good state of nature is very high and the reference level is very low, the worker spends time only on leisure and the risky job while avoids the safe job. Loss aversion does not affect the optimal time allocation to the three activities as the time allocation results in avoiding relative losses for any state of nature. When the reference level is relative high, but not too high, the worker will allocate her time between both safe and risky jobs as well as to the leisure. Worker with very high reference level will avoid the safe job and will divide her time between the risky job and the leisure. In both cases the worker is willing to accept relative losses in the bad state of nature provided it is compensated with relative gains in the good state of nature. Here the allocation of time to the three activities depends on the degree of loss aversion. When the reference level is relatively low, but not too low, an increase in the reference level will reduce leisure time, reduce time in the risky job and increase time in the safe job. At very low reference levels, an increase in the reference level will result in the worker re-allocating her time from leisure to the risky job assuming the probability of a good state of nature is higher than a threshold. When the reference level is high the opposite effects are observed. We also examine other comparative statics including the effect of changes in the wage rate.