TaxProf Blog

Editor: Paul L. Caron
Pepperdine University School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Monday, April 15, 2013

Gamage Presents Double-Distortion and the Optimal Tax Mix Today at UC-Berkeley

GamageDavid Gamage (UC-Berkeley) presents On Double-Distortion Arguments, Distribution Policy, and the Optimal Tax Mix at UC-Berkeley today as part of its Economics Department Public Finance Workshop Series:

How should we tax the wealthy? Should non-tax legal rules promote distributional equity, or focus solely on efficiency? An influential position in the law and economics and tax policy literatures concludes that—with some limited exceptions —only a federal tax on labor income should be used for distribution. Variations on this position are sometimes called “double-distortion” arguments.

A double-distortion argument underlies Kaplow and Shavell’s influential claim that non-tax legal rules should be designed solely based on efficiency, leaving all distributional considerations to the tax system. Within the tax literature, double-distortion arguments have led many scholars to conclude that we should only tax either labor income or consumption -- that we should not tax wealth, capital income, or bequests. Following similar logic, with respect to state and local governments, the dominant models of fiscal federalism imply that subnational governments should leave most distributive concerns to the federal government. In these, and a variety of other policy contexts, double distortion models have been used to argue that nearly all distribution policy should be conducted through a federal tax on labor income, such that most other tax instruments and non-tax legal rules should be designed solely to promote efficiency.

This Article begins with the observation that double-distortion models typically assume the existence of a near-perfect labor-income tax. Specifically, most double-distortion models assume that a labor-income tax can accurately measure taxpayers’ ability to earn labor income with only a single limitation: that taxpayers can shift from labor to leisure in order to replace taxed monetary consumption with untaxed leisure consumption and thereby reduce their labor-income-tax liabilities. Very few double-distortion models account for the possibility of taxpayers reducing their labor-income-tax liabilities by engaging in tax avoidance, tax evasion, or other tax-reduction techniques other than by shifting from labor to leisure.

In contrast to the assumption that the possibility of labor-to-leisure distortions is the sole flaw of the labor-income tax, the empirical literature suggests that taxpayers engage in wide variety of diverse techniques for reducing their labor-income-tax liabilities. This appears to especially be true with respect to high-income taxpayers, for whom distributional considerations are particularly relevant. Indeed, there is essentially no evidence that high-income taxpayers significantly reduce their labor effort in response to taxation. In contrast, there is a plethora of evidence documenting that high-income taxpayers engage in a variety of other tax minimization strategies.

This Article analyzes how double-distortion models can be generalized to account for the possibility of tax-reduction techniques other than labor-to-leisure distortions. Under plausible assumptions, this Article argues that generalizing double-distortion models in this fashion yields significantly different policy implications.

Colloquia, Scholarship, Tax | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gamage Presents Double-Distortion and the Optimal Tax Mix Today at UC-Berkeley:


Why does he describe the standard "only tax labor & consumption" argument as a concern only for efficiency and not distribution? That's a rather bizarre and inaccurate way of describing the matter, and I can't imagine that it gets much rhetorical mileage given that he's presenting to economists.

Posted by: Ryan Peterson | Apr 15, 2013 9:52:28 PM

Or perhaps, Ryan, you have misunderstood what my paper is claiming. If so, that may well be my fault, as this paper is still an early-stage work in progress, and I haven't written an abstract yet. The paragraphs posted above are excerpts from the introduction of the current draft of my paper--which I expect to revise considerably before publication.

That said, rather than making uncharitable assumptions, you could have e-mailed me for clarification, as many other scholars have done. My paper is not yet ready for general circulation. But I have shared drafts with those who have expressed interest.


Posted by: David Gamage | Apr 16, 2013 3:21:55 PM

Thanks, David. I always appreciate it when an author is willing to participate in the conversation here.

I look forward to reading your article when it appears online.

Posted by: AMTbuff | Apr 18, 2013 2:01:02 PM