Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Barra Roantree, IFS, London - NERI Seminar presentation slides July 2016

270 views

Published on

NERI Seminar Dublin: The Tax & Benefits System from a Lifetime Perspective presentation by Barra Roantree, IFS, London - 13 July, 2016

Published in: Economy & Finance
  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Barra Roantree, IFS, London - NERI Seminar presentation slides July 2016

  1. 1. © Institute for Fiscal Studies A Lifetime Perspective on Taxes, Benefits, Inequality and Redistribution Barra Roantree Nevin Economic Research Institute, Wednesday 13 July 2016
  2. 2. Key function of tax & benefit system is redistribution © Institute for Fiscal Studies Notes: see Figure 9.1 in IFS Green Budget 2013, Chapter 9. Source: Authors’ calculations using the IFS tax and benefit microsimulation model, TAXBEN, to apply the 2013–14 tax and benefit system to uprated data from the 2010 Living Costs and Food Survey. -£800 -£700 -£600 -£500 -£400 -£300 -£200 -£100 £0 £100 £200 Poorest 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Richest All £perweek Income decile group Net transfers from state by income decile: 2013-14 system
  3. 3. 0.1.2.3.4.5 Ginicoefficient Gross income Net income … which significantly reduces income inequality © Institute for Fiscal Studies Notes: see Table 3.1 in ‘Redistribution from a Lifetime Perspective’. Both bars show cross-section
  4. 4. © Institute for Fiscal Studies But individuals’ circumstances vary a lot over time State Average at point in time Ever over 18-waves In a couple 64.4% 87.2% Married 56.0% 80.7% Has child aged 18 or under 28.1% 52.3% Disabled 7.7% 26.8% Unemployed 4.7% 23.9% Source: Table 2.2 from http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7130 Note: Authors’ calculations based on BHPS data. Includes all non-dependants aged 16+. The ‘average across waves’ column includes all waves and is weighted using cross-sectional weights. The ‘ever observed’ columns are calculated for individuals observed in all waves from wave 1 to the destination wave and weighted using longitudinal weights. The final two lines (earnings quintiles) only include individuals who are employed in all relevant waves.
  5. 5. 0200400600 £  per  week  (2012  prices) 20 30 40 50 60 70 Age  Male  Female © Institute for Fiscal Studies … and earnings display a strong age profile Source: Figure 2.2 from http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7130 Note: Authors’ calculations based on pooled data from all 18 waves of the BHPS. Includes all employed non-dependants aged 16–70. Results are weighted using cross-sectional weights. Gross earnings are before taxes and benefits and are uprated to December 2012 prices. Median gross earnings of employees by age & sex
  6. 6. Suggests might want to take lifetime perspective •  May change our assessment of: –  Income inequality & the role of the tax and benefit system –  The progressivity of tax and benefit reforms –  How policy should be designed to redistribute resources •  Most analysis of the tax & benefit system is based solely on cross- sectional information because of data limitations –  Levell, Roantree and Shaw (2015) simulated the lifetimes of the baby- boom cohort (1945-54) in order to address some of these questions –  Used British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) used to model transitions between consecutive years and Living Costs and Food Survey (LCFS) to adjust simulations to match cross-sectional distributions –  Include most personal taxes and benefits, assuming full take-up; exclude benefits of public service spending © Institute for Fiscal Studies
  7. 7. From a lifetime perspective… The tax & benefit system does less to reduce inequality between people © Institute for Fiscal Studies 0.1.2.3.4.5 Ginicoefficient Cross-section Lifetime Gross income Net income 31% fall 15% fall
  8. 8. From a lifetime perspective… … as more of what it does is intrapersonal redistribution © Institute for Fiscal Studies 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 Share of redistribution that is intrapersonal All Richest 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Poorest Lifetimenetincomedecile Notes: see Figure 3.7 in ‘Redistribution from a Lifetime Perspective’
  9. 9. From a lifetime perspective… Tax and benefit reforms have a less dramatic effect on inequality © Institute for Fiscal Studies .2.25.3.35 Ginicoefficient 1980/81 1990/91 2000/01 2010/11 2020/21 Tax system Cross-section Lifetime Notes: see Figure 4.1 in ‘Redistribution from a Lifetime Perspective’
  10. 10. From a lifetime perspective… … and smaller distributional consequences: e.g. 4-year benefit freeze -6.0% -5.0% -4.0% -3.0% -2.0% -1.0% 0.0% Poorest 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Richest All Percentagechangeinnetincome Net income decile Cross-section Lifetime © Institute for Fiscal Studies Notes: see Figure 4.4 in ‘Redistribution from a Lifetime Perspective’
  11. 11. © Institute for Fiscal Studies From a lifetime perspective… Key factor: even the lifetime poor spend majority of lives in work 0.2.4.6.81 Proportionemployed Poorest 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Richest All Cross-section Lifetime Notes: see Figure 2.4 in ‘Redistribution from a Lifetime Perspective’
  12. 12. From a lifetime perspective… Increases to in-work benefits most effective way of redistributing to poor 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% Poorest 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Richest All Percentagechangeinnetincome Net income decile Out-of-work benefits In-work benefits Personal Allowance © Institute for Fiscal Studies Notes: see Figure 5.4 in ‘Redistribution from a Lifetime Perspective’
  13. 13. From a lifetime perspective… … and increases in higher-rate of income tax for redistributing from rich -0.5% -0.4% -0.3% -0.2% -0.1% 0.0% Poorest 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Richest All Percentagechangeinnetincome Net income decile Cross-section Lifetime © Institute for Fiscal Studies Notes: see Figure 5.5 in ‘Redistribution from a Lifetime Perspective’
  14. 14. 0.1.2.3.4 Proportionoflifeineachcross-sectionaldecile Poorest 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Richest Poorest lifetime decile Richest lifetime decile © Institute for Fiscal Studies From a lifetime perspective… … driven by strong persistence earnings at the top Notes: see Figure 2.8 in ‘Redistribution from a Lifetime Perspective’
  15. 15. From a lifetime perspective… Increases in the main rate of VAT are close to neutral -1.4% -1.2% -1.0% -0.8% -0.6% -0.4% -0.2% 0.0% Poorest 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Richest All Percentagechangeinnetincome Net income decile Cross-section Lifetime © Institute for Fiscal Studies Notes: see Figure 5.1 in ‘Redistribution from a Lifetime Perspective’
  16. 16. What implications does this all have for policy? 1.  Policymakers should be clearer about their objectives: trying to alleviate short-run hardship or redistribute lifetime resources? 2.  “Working” and “non-working” families is not a useful distinction 3.  Policymakers looking to reduce inequality or transfer resources to the lifetime poor might favour doing so through in-work benefits 4.  The potential exists to achieve what the existing tax & benefit system does more efficiently © Institute for Fiscal Studies
  17. 17. © Institute for Fiscal Studies A Lifetime Perspective on Taxes, Benefits, Inequality and Redistribution Barra Roantree

×