2021年4月30日 星期五

Wonking Out: Why doesn’t cutting taxes on the wealthy work?

Maybe because it's a giveaway, not an incentive.
Author Headshot

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

Today's column was mainly about the payoffs to expanded child care, but I also talked a bit about the consistent failure of conservative predictions that say raising taxes on high incomes will lead to economic disaster and introducing tax cuts will lead to nirvana. However, I didn't talk about why tax rates on the rich don't seem to have major economic consequences. So I thought I'd devote today's newsletter to some speculations on that question.

It's not because incentives don't matter. Clearly, they do. France's high taxes haven't led to low employment of prime-age adults, but generous benefits for those who retire early have led to low employment among near-seniors:

The French are a retiring people.OECD

How, then, can we explain the lack of clear responses (other than tax avoidance) to changes in the tax rate on top incomes?

One answer, which I suspect is relevant in the uppermost strata of the income distribution, is that at that level people don't seek more money so they can afford more things, since they're already able to afford far more luxury than anyone can enjoy. Instead, it's about keeping score; that is, their goal is to make as much or more than the people they compare themselves with. And raising taxes on rich people in general doesn't eliminate the race to out-earn one's rivals.

Even to the extent that the rich seek income for what it can buy, however, it's not clear that cutting their taxes will lead to greater effort. Indeed, it could lead to reduced effort, because it becomes easier for them to afford what they want.

Readers who took economics probably realize that I'm talking about income effects as opposed to substitution effects, a distinction that plays a crucial role in understanding how wages affect labor supply.

As most intro econ texts including the best one explain, higher wages have two effects on workers. They have an incentive to work more, because an extra hour gets them more stuff. But they're also more affluent, which lets them consume more — and one of the things they might choose to consume is more leisure, i.e., they might choose to work less.

ADVERTISEMENT

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

New York Times Opinion highlights a range of perspectives and voices. This work is made possible with the support of subscribers. Please consider supporting The Times with this special offer.

Historically, in fact, higher wages have generally led to reduced working hours. Wages have increased enormously over the past century and a half, but the workweek has gotten a lot shorter:

Wages up, hours down.Our World in Data

So if tax cuts for the rich are like a wage hike, they could lead to less rather than more effort.

But wait: the top tax rate is a marginal rate, not an average rate. Individuals making, say, $600,000 a year pay 37 percent on the last dollar they earn, but most of their income is taxed at substantially lower rates — and those rates won't be affected if President Biden succeeds in raising the top rate back to 39.6 percent. So you might think that raising or lowering the top rate is not, in fact, much like changing affluent Americans' wages.

ADVERTISEMENT

But here's the thing: most of the earned income accruing to people in the top tax bracket is, in fact, taxed at the top rate. (Capital gains etc. are a different story.) Why? Because the distribution of income at the top is itself very unequal: there are huge disparities even within the economic elite. According to estimates by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, almost half the income of the top 1 percent accrues to the top 0.1 percent, a category that begins at around three times as high a threshold.

Now, high incomes closely follow a Pareto distribution, indeed to an eerie extent. Here's a plot of high incomes versus the percentage of taxpayers with incomes above that level, both expressed in natural logs:

A weirdly exact relationship.Piketty and Saez

In such a distribution, the top .05 percent is to the top 0.5 percent what the top 0.1 percent is to the top 1 percent, so what is true of the distribution of income within the 1 percent is also true of the distribution within the roughly 0.5 percent of Americans subject to the top tax rate. This means that, as I said, most of the income accruing to that group is taxed at the top rate. And this in turn means that cutting that top rate is more like an across-the-board wage rise for the elite than you might think — and wage rises don't tend to increase work effort.

ADVERTISEMENT

Or to put it a bit differently, while tax cuts for the rich may offer an incentive to work harder, they're also a big giveaway that encourages the elite to work less.

Of course, the fact that tax cuts at the top are a big giveaway is precisely the reason that belief in the immense economic importance of low taxes is such an unkillable zombie. As Upton Sinclair famously said, it's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

Feedback If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at krugman-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

On Tech: How Big Tech won the pandemic

A year ago even the tech giants were anxious. Now they have so much money it's awkward.

How Big Tech won the pandemic

Erik Carter

In the early months of the pandemic in the United States, businesses were closing or were thrown into chaos. Millions of people shut their wallets as they were shut in. I wrote in On Tech at that time that it wasn't obvious that America's biggest technology companies would continue to thrive as they had for the last decade or so.

The Big Tech bosses sounded uneasy, too. After all, America's five tech titans didn't do so hot in the Great Recession nearly 15 years earlier. Maybe they'd suffer this time around, too.

Hahahahaha. Yeah … They were fine. Really, really fine.

In the last year, the five tech superpowers — Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft and Facebook — had combined revenue of more than $1.2 trillion, as I wrote for The Times on Thursday. It was a strange and amazing year for Big Tech. I can't believe it, but some of the companies are growing faster and are more profitable than they have been in years.

The pandemic has made the tech giants and their bosses unfathomably rich. (Even more unfathomably rich than they were before.) Apple has so much extra cash that it's spending an additional $90 billion to buy its own stock, nearly the equivalent of Kenya's gross domestic product. Of the 10 richest people in the world, eight made their fortunes from tech companies. The man at the top, Amazon's Jeff Bezos, alone is worth more than one-and-a-half Goldman Sachs.

ADVERTISEMENT

I have seen a lot of bananas financial numbers, including from these five tech giants. But I promise you that Big Tech's numbers are now so wild that I am running out of non-curse words to explain them.

How did this happen? I'll give you two explanations. First, the pandemic created a peculiar economy that benefited some people and industries, including in technology, even as it battered others. In the last year of crisis, people and businesses had even greater demand for what the tech giants were selling.

That might seem obvious now, but it wasn't necessarily a year ago. Americans' love of home shopping became a safety necessity for some people. Families bought iPads and Macs as work and school went virtual. Any business that still had money to spend on marketing spent it on Google, Facebook or Amazon. Companies might have cut back in other areas, but they definitely bought software from Microsoft and Amazon.

Second, the tech giants used the pandemic as a moment to get stronger. In some cases, that meant cutting costs where it matters less, like on travel, entertainment and marketing. Google said it was saving more than $1 billion a year on those types of expenses.

ADVERTISEMENT

On the flip side, the tech giants spent big in areas that extend their advantage. Amazon spent $50 billion in the last year on big-ticket purchases like warehouses and cloud computing hubs. That's more than double what Exxon Mobil spends to dig oil and gas out of the ground each year. Again, bananas.

As the economies in the United States and some other parts of the world come back to life in 2021, the tech giants are lean, mean and ready to make even more money. The questions that I have now: Are America's tech powers invincible? And are they winning at everyone else's expense?

The first is impossible to answer, but it sure feels that way. And I put that second question to Thomas Philippon, a professor of finance at New York University, who studies the growing power of dominant companies.

Philippon told me that the pandemic and the digital adaptations it forced did help smaller businesses. Restaurants, for example, had to quickly adapt to sell web orders and do deliveries, and many of those investments will help them in the long run, too.

ADVERTISEMENT

But he also believes that the pandemic probably widened the gap between the big and rich companies, including the tech giants, and everyone else. "Definitely there is a sense that it's a recession that happened to be good for companies that were already doing well," he said.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

Before we go …

  • Big Tech's success is awkward, though: The European Union accused Apple of breaking the law by using control of its iPhone app store to stifle competition, my colleague Adam Satariano wrote. This is one of approximately four billion antitrust lawsuits or investigations involving the tech superpowers.
  • Is this the office or "The Office"? Google, the company that has set trends for office work and employee perks, is now trying to reimagine the post-pandemic workplace. Dai Wakabayashi and Cayce Clifford detail Google's plans, which include robots that inflate temporary, cellophane balloon walls and camp-themed outdoor work spaces.
  • Read this to feel totally uncool: Invented out of the blue by people on TikTok, the term "cheugy" is a new and not-quite-definable shorthand for things that are a bit generic, trying too hard or out of date. Instagram's once dominant aesthetic is peak cheugy. Lasagna is apparently cheugy, too? Just read Taylor Lorenz's explanation of all this.

Hugs to this

Prancer found a home! The Chihuahua that a pet adoption volunteer had described as a "rage machine" and a "vessel for a traumatized Victorian child" now lives with a woman in Connecticut, Ariel Davis.

The photos of Prancer enjoying the flowers almost make him seem huggable. And of course, Prancer has his own Instagram account.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018