Econlib Resources
Subscribe to EconLog
XML (Full articles)RDF (Excerpts) Feedburner (One-click subscriptions) Subscribe by author
Bryan CaplanDavid Henderson Arnold Kling More
FAQ
(Instructions and more options)
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Blogging software: Powered by Movable Type 4.2.1.
Pictures courtesy of the authors. All opinions expressed on EconLog reflect those of the author or individual commenters, and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of the Library of Economics and Liberty (Econlib) website or its owner, Liberty Fund, Inc.
The cuneiform inscription in the Liberty Fund logo is the
earliest-known written appearance of the word
"freedom" (amagi), or "liberty." It
is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.
|
||||||||
If you define "progressive taxation" as "average tax rates rising as income rises" then "graduated" can be misleading. See the optimal income tax literature (e.g. Mirrlees (1971)) which suggests progressive taxation but accomplishes it with declining marginal tax rates as income rises (the progressivity is established via demogrants, negative income tax style).
Of course OIT stuff is not on the table for real tax policy, so "graduated rates" probably won't confuse, but it is technically incorrect.
@GU,
Good point. Do you have a better more-neutral term?
to my understanding, most of the "raw" data comes from CBO reports, as posted on Mankiw's blog.
If you look at cbo, what you find is tht the reason the tax code is "prgressive" is imputed corporate taxes, which fall on owners, who of course are in the large the wealthy.
Question: doesn't this conflict with the idea (posted by Mankiw in a pdf by koltikoff) that corp taxes are just passed onto consumers ?
How about "superlinear"?