Enhancing the earned income tax credit would do
more to reduce poverty, at less cost, than increasing the minimum wage
Minimum wage increases are not an effective
mechanism for reducing poverty. And there is little causal evidence that
they do so. Most workers who gain from minimum wage increases do not live in
poor (or near-poor) families, while some who do live in poor families lose
their job as a result of such increases. The earned income tax credit is an
effective way to reduce poverty. It raises only the after-tax wage rates of
workers in low- and moderate-income families, the tax credit increases with
the number of dependent children, and evidence shows that it increases labor
force participation and employment in these families.
The type, quality, and quantity of
entrepreneurship are influenced significantly by corporate income
taxes—though only slightly
Corporate income taxation influences the
quantity and type of entrepreneurship, which in turn affects economic
development. Empirical evidence shows that higher corporate income tax rates
reduce business density and entrepreneurship entry rates and increase the
capital size of new firms. The progressivity of tax rates increases
entrepreneurship entry rates, whereas highly complex tax codes reduce them.
Policymakers should understand the effects and underlying mechanisms that
determine how corporate income taxation influences entrepreneurship in order
to provide a favorable business environment.
To boost the employment rate of the low-skilled
trapped in inactivity is it sufficient to supplement their earnings?
High risk of poverty and low employment rates
are widespread among low-skilled groups, especially in the case of some
household compositions (e.g. single mothers). “Making-work-pay” policies
have been advocated for and implemented to address these issues. They
alleviate the above-mentioned problems without providing a disincentive to
work. However, do they deliver on their promises? If they do reduce poverty
and enhance employment, is it possible to determine their effects on
indicators of well-being, such as mental health and life satisfaction, or on
the acquisition of human capital?
Promoting intergenerational mobility makes
societies more egalitarian
Income inequality has been on the rise in many
countries. Is this bad? One way to decide is to look at the degree of change
in incomes across generations (intergenerational mobility) and, more
generally, at the extent to which income differences among individuals are
traceable to their social origins. Inequalities that reflect factors largely
out of an individual’s control—such as parents’ education, local schools,
and communities—require attention in order to reduce income inequality.
Evidence shows a negative association between income inequality and
intergenerational mobility, and a positive relationship between mobility and
Market adjustments to tax evasion alter factor
and product prices, which determine the true impacts and beneficiaries of
How does tax evasion affect the distribution of
income? In the standard analysis of tax evasion, all the benefits are
assumed to accrue to tax evaders. However, tax evasion has other impacts
that determine its true effects. As factors of production move from
tax-compliant to tax-evading (informal) sectors, these market adjustments
generate changes in relative prices of products and factors, thereby
affecting what consumers pay and what workers earn. As a result, at least
some of the gains from evasion are shifted to consumers of goods produced by
tax evaders, and at least some of the returns to tax evaders are competed
away via lower wages.
Keeping older workers in the workforce longer
not only doesn’t harm the employment of younger workers, but might actually
The fiscal sustainability of state pensions is
a central concern of policymakers in nearly every advanced economy.
Policymakers have attempted to ensure the sustainability of these programs
in recent decades by raising retirement ages. However, there are concerns
that keeping older workers in the workforce for longer might have negative
consequences for younger workers. Since youth unemployment is a pressing
problem throughout advanced and developing countries, it is important to
consider the impact of these policies on the employment prospects of the
Despite major efforts at equal pay legislation,
gender pay inequality still exists—how can this be put right?
Despite equal pay legislation dating back 50
years, American women still earn 18% less than their male counterparts. In
the UK, with its Equal Pay Act of 1970, and France, which legislated in
1972, the gap is 17% and 10% respectively, and in Australia it remains
around 14%. Interestingly, the gender pay gap is relatively small for the
young but increases as men and women grow older. Similarly, it is large when
comparing married men and women, but smaller for singles. Just what can
explain these wage patterns? And what can governments do to speed up wage
convergence to close the gender pay gap? Clearly, the gender pay gap
continues to be an important policy issue.
Workers and policymakers may fear that
privatization leads to job losses and wage cuts, but what’s the empirical
Conventional wisdom and prevailing economic
theory hold that the new owners of a privatized firm will cut jobs and
wages. But this ignores the possibility that new owners will expand the
firm’s scale, with potentially positive effects on employment, wages, and
productivity. Evidence generally shows these forces to be offsetting,
usually resulting in small employment and earnings effects and sometimes in
large, positive effects on productivity and scale. Foreign ownership usually
has positive effects, and the effects of domestic privatization tend to be
larger in countries with a more competitive business environment.
Temporary government schemes can have a
positive economic effect
Government schemes that compensate workers for
the loss of income while they are on short hours (known as short-time work
compensation schemes) make it easier for employers to temporarily reduce
hours worked so that labor is better matched to output requirements. Because
the employers do not lay off these staff, the schemes help to maintain
permanent employment levels during recessions. However, they can create
inefficiency in the labor market, and might limit labor market access for
freelancers and those looking to work part-time.
Countries give basic education and health
care to everyone, and for good reasons—why not basic income?
Globalization and automation have brought
about a tremendous increase in productivity, with enormous benefits, but
also a dramatic reallocation of jobs, skills, and incomes, which might
jeopardize the full realization of those benefits. Current social policies
may not be adequate to successfully redistribute the gains from automation
and globalization or to advance the reallocation of jobs and skills. Under
certain circumstances, an unconditional basic income might be a better
alternative for achieving these goals. It is simple, transparent, and has
low administrative costs, though it may require higher taxes or a
cut/reallocation of other public expenditures.