There are all sorts of long-running battles in the economics profession, perhaps most notably the never-ending dispute about Keynesian economics.
Another contentious issues is the degree to which society should accept less growth in order to achieve more equality, with Arthur Okun – author of Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff – being the most famous advocate for prioritizing equity.
I don’t agree with Okun, but I applaud him for honesty. Unlike many modern politicians, as well as most international bureaucracies (and even the occasional journalist), he didn’t pretend that big government was a free lunch.
Let’s take a closer look at this issue in today’s column.
We’ll start by perusing a working paper, published by Spain’s central bank, that explores the optimal tax rate for that nation. The author, Dario Serrano-Puente, concludes that society will be better off if tax rates are increased.
Many modern governments implement a redistributive fiscal policy, where personal income is taxed at an increasingly higher rate, while transfers tend to target the poorest households. …In Spain there is an intense debate about…so-called “fiscal justice”, which is putting on the table a tax rate increase for the high-income earners…
once the theoretical framework is defined, a bunch of potential progressivity reforms are assessed… Then a Benthamite social planner, who takes into account all households in the economy by putting the same weight on each of them, discerns the optimal progressivity reform. The findings suggest that aggregate social welfare is maximized when the level of progressivity of the Spanish personal income tax is increased to some extent. More precisely,in the optimally reformed scenario (setting the optimal level of progressivity), welfare gains are equivalent to an average increase of 3.08% of consumption.
I have a fundamental problem with the notion of government acting as a “Benthamite social planner,” but I don’t want to address that issue today.
Instead, I want to applaud Senor Serrano-Puente because he openly acknowledges that higher tax rates and more redistribution will lead to less growth.
Here’s some of what he wrote about that tradeoff.
For each reformed economy evaluated in the progressivity gridτ={0.00, …,0.50}, the main macroeconomic aggregates are calculated. …the evolution of these magnitudes on progressivity is depicted in Figure 4. …Broadly speaking, it is clear that aggregate capital and output are decreasing in progressivity in a (almost) linear pathway, with the drop in capital being more pronounced than in output. …aggregate consumption and aggregate labor are also decreasing in progressivity.
Here’s a look at the aforementioned Figure 4, and it is easy to see that the economy suffers as progressivity increases.
Kudos, again, to the author for acknowledging the tradeoff between equity and efficiency. But applauding the author for honesty is not the same as applauding the author’s judgement.
Simply stated, he is trying to justify a policy that will hurt poor people in the long run. That’s because even small differences in growth can have a big effect over time.
Let’s illustrate how this works with a chart showing the life-time earnings of a hypothetical low-income Spaniard.
- The orange line shows how much money the workers gets if he starts with an extra 3.08 percent of income thanks to higher taxes and additional redistribution, but the economy grows 2.0 percent per year.
- The blue line shows income for the same worker, which starts at a lower level because tax rates have not been increased to fund additional redistribution, but the economy grows 2.2 percent per year..
As you can see, that low-income worker is a net beneficiary of bigger government for about 10 years. But as time goes on, the worker would be far better off with smaller government and faster growth.
Different assumptions will lead to different results, of course. My goal is simply to help readers understand two things.
- Bigger government leads to less economic growth.
- Less growth leads to big income losses over time.
P.S. To illustrate the high cost of big government, let’s shift from hypothetical examples to real-world data. Most relevant, OECD data shows that the average low-income person in the United States is better off than the average middle-class person in Spain.
P.P.S. The study cited above considers what happens if Spanish politicians raise taxes on the rich. That would be a mistake, as illustrated by the chart, but let’s not forget that Spanish politicians also over-tax low-income people.
[…] Honest leftists who understand economics and recognize tradeoffs (I think of them as “Okunites“). […]
[…] rational left are people like Larry Summers, Bill Clinton, and Arthur Okun (and Jason Furman, who also was cited in the […]
[…] everyone thinks policy makers should focus on getting more economic growth. Some of them (the “Okunites“) are willing to sacrifice some prosperity to achieve more equality, while others dislike growth […]
[…] thinks policy makers should focus on getting more economic growth. Some of them (the “Okunites“) are willing to sacrifice some prosperity to achieve more equality, while others dislike […]
[…] policies hinder American prosperity (as honest folks on the left acknowledge), but we can survive with slower growth. What really worries me is that we may […]
[…] that’s bad news over time, even for the people who are the supposed […]
[…] that’s bad news over time, even for the people who are the supposed […]
[…] Where they go wrong is thinking that bigger government is needed for growth and/or thinking that less growth is okay if rich people suffer more than poor people (they tend to be so fixated on inequality that they […]
[…] Where they go wrong is thinking that bigger government is needed for growth and/or thinking that less growth is okay if rich people suffer more than poor people (they tend to be so fixated on inequality that they […]
[…] policies hinder American prosperity (as honest folks on the left acknowledge), but we can survive with slower growth. What really worries me is that we may […]
[…] earlier this year, I showed how that works […]
[…] policies hinder American prosperity (as honest folks on the left acknowledge), but we can survive with slower growth. What really worries me is that we may […]
[…] of a discussion about the tradeoff between free markets (efficiency) and redistribution (equity), I put together a chart to show how poor people are better off in the long run if policy makers focus on the former rather […]
[…] The core problem is that our friends on the left don’t appreciate that low-income people will be better off if the focus is on growth rather than […]
[…] policies hinder American prosperity (as honest folks on the left acknowledge), but we can survive with slower growth. What really worries me is that we may […]
[…] Honest leftists who understand economics and recognize tradeoffs (I think of them as “Okunites“). […]
[…] Honest leftists who understand economics and recognize tradeoffs (I think of them as “Okunites“). […]
[…] and some of the interest groups getting additional handouts also might be winners (though I’ve previously pointed out that many of them wind up being losers as well in the long […]
[…] close by acknowledging that there is a very legitimate Arther Okun-style argument to accept weaker growth in exchange for more handouts from […]
[…] and some of the interest groups getting additional handouts also might be winners (though I’ve previously pointed out that many of them wind up being losers as well in the long […]
[…] Honest leftists who understand economics and recognize tradeoffs (I think of them as “Okunites“). […]
[…] Honest leftists who understand economics and recognize tradeoffs (I think of them as “Okunites“). […]
[…] The core problem is that our friends on the left don’t appreciate that low-income people will be better off if the focus is on growth rather than […]
[…] and some of the interest groups getting additional handouts also might be winners (though I’ve previously pointed out that many of them wind up being losers as well in the long […]
[…] some of the interest groups getting additional handouts also might be winners (though I’ve previously pointed out that many of them wind up being losers as well in the long […]
[…] government in their pockets in the short run, but even a small reduction in economic growth will lead to larger income losses in the long […]
[…] policies hinder American prosperity (as honest folks on the left acknowledge), but we can survive with slower growth. What really worries me is that we may […]
[…] policies hinder American prosperity (as honest folks on the left acknowledge), but we can survive with slower growth. What really worries me is that we may […]
[…] policies hinder American prosperity (as honest folks on the left acknowledge), but we can survive with slower growth. What really worries me is that we may […]
[…] The core problem is that our friends on the left don’t appreciate that low-income people will be better off if the focus is on growth rather than […]
[…] P.S. Arthur Okun would be very disappointed. […]
[…] The core problem is that our friends on the left don’t appreciate that low-income people will be better off if the focus is on growth rather than […]
[…] The core problem is that our friends on the left don’t appreciate that low-income people will be better off if the focus is on growth rather than […]
[…] when I point out that even small differences in growth make a big difference to income levels over just a few decades. Which means poor people ultimately will be richer if there’s more […]
[…] when I point out that even small differences in growth make a big difference to income levels over just a few decades. Which means poor people ultimately will be richer if there’s more […]
[…] I was first learning about economics in the 1970s and 1980s, Arthur Okun’s equality-efficiency tradeoff was part of just about any discussion of public […]
[…] I was first learning about economics in the 1970s and 1980s, Arthur Okun’s equality-efficiency tradeoff was part of just about any discussion of public […]
[…] I was first learning about economics in the 1970s and 1980s, Arthur Okun’s equality-efficiency tradeoff was part of just about any discussion of public […]
[…] GMU Econ alum Dan Mitchell writes about Arthur Okun, class warfare, redistribution, and income growt…. […]
[…] GMU Econ alum Dan Mitchell writes about Arthur Okun, class warfare, redistribution, and income growt…. […]
[…] Reprinted from International Liberty […]
[…] The obvious takeaway is that big government causes deadweight loss and hinders growth (as honest folks on the left have always acknowledged). […]
[…] Reprinted from International Liberty […]
You only know a good joke because of all the bad ones to which you can compare it.
Q. How many politicians would it take to change a light bulb in a democracy?
A. A Majority!
[…] Source: Arthur Okun, Class Warfare, Redistribution, and Income Growth | International Liberty […]
[…] « Arthur Okun, Class Warfare, Redistribution, and Income Growth […]
Joker,
It’s a good thing you’re unlicensed. If you were licensed, after that weak joke I might have to push for your license to be revoked. I guess that illustrates how licenses are usually an infringement on liberty!
I have a great slogan for a T-shirt- “to Hayek with Keynes!”