Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

Upside of Inequality Unintended Consequences
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • Blog
  • Topics
    • All Media Appearances
    • Productivity
    • Monetary Policy
    • Banking
    • Politics
    • Upside endnotes
    • Stuff Ed’s Assistant Thought He Might Like
  • OpEds
  • Reviews
  • About
    • About the Author
    • About the Books
    • Read Excerpts
    • Read the Reviews
    • Debates
    • Media and TV
  • Contact
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • youtube
  • linkedin
  • Advanced SearchChoose Categories To Search Within
    • Close Advanced Search

Advanced Search

Marginal Tax Rate above 30% Likely Suboptimizes Social Welfare

Stanford’s Charles Jones corrects glaring shortcomings in the Diamond/Saez’s optimal tax analysis to show why top marginal tax rates of 30% or less likely maximize social welfare in an innovation-driven economy. Jones concludes:

“Because ideas are nonrival, each person’s wage is an increasing function of the entire stock of ideas. A distortion that reduces the production of new ideas therefore impacts everyone’s income, not just the income of the inventor herself. These conditions lead to a new term in the Saez (2001) formula for the optimal top tax rate: by slowing the creation of the new ideas that drive aggregate GDP, top income taxation reduces everyone’s income, not just the income at the top. When the creation of ideas is the ultimate source of economic growth, this force sharply constrains both revenue-maximizing and welfare-maximizing top tax rates. For example, in a baseline calculation, the revenue-maximizing top tax rate that ignores the innovation spillover is 92%. In contrast, the rate that incorporates innovation and maximizes a utilitarian social welfare function is just 29%. Moreover, if ideas play an even more important role than assumed in this baseline, it is possible for the optimal top income tax rate to turn negative: the increase in everyone’s income associated with subsidizing innovation exceeds the gains associated with redistribution.”

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

© Copyright 2020 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved