🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
Economics
3
answers
1
watching
2,774
views

8. Understanding marginal and average tax rates

Consider the economy of Citronia, where citizens consume only oranges. Assume that oranges cost $1 each, and each person can buy at most 5,000 oranges. The government has devised the following tax plans:

Plan A Plan B
Consumption of up to 1,000 oranges is taxed at 20%. Consumption of up to 2,000 oranges is taxed at 30%.
Consumption higher than 1,000 oranges is taxed at 80%. Consumption higher than 2,000 oranges is taxed at 10%.

Derive the marginal and average tax rates under each tax plan at the consumption levels of 500 oranges, 1,500 oranges, and 2,500 oranges, respectively. Fill in the following table with your results.

  Plan A   Plan B  
Consumption Level Marginal Tax Rate Average Tax Rate Marginal Tax Rate Average Tax Rate
500 oranges        
1,500 oranges        
2,500 oranges        

Watch
3
answers
1
watching
2,774
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Joshua Stredder
Joshua StredderLv10
28 Sep 2019
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics
2nd Edition, 2017
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172364
Principles of Macroeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172388
Principles of Microeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172340

Related questions

46. In a proportional income tax system,

marginal tax rates increase as the level of taxable income increases.

marginal tax rates are the same regardless of the level of taxable income.

everyone pays the same dollar amount in taxes.

marginal tax rates decline as the level of taxable income declines.

47 A tax system that applies a lower marginal tax rate at higher levels of income is

backward.

regressive.

progressive.

proportional.

48 The average tax rate can be calculated by which of the following formulas?

The change in taxes due divided by the change in taxable income

The change in taxable income divided by the change in taxes due

Total taxable income divided by total taxes due

Total taxes due divided by total taxable income

49 Under a progressive income tax system, the marginal income tax rate paid by taxpayers

declines as their incomes increase

. is unrelated to their incomes.

rises as their incomes increase.

is unchanged as their incomes increase.

50 The tax base is the minimum amount of tax revenue that government must collect each year.

the maximum amount of tax revenue that government must collect each year.

the sum of all incomes earned in the United States.

the value of all goods, services, incomes, or wealth subject to taxation.

51 A capital gain is defined as the tax paid when one sells an asset.

the tax rate one pays when one moves into a higher tax bracket.

an unanticipated increase in income.

the positive difference between the sale price and the purchase price of an asset.

52 Corporate profits are

taxed twiceonce by the corporate tax system, and again by personal tax system when they are paid to stockholders as dividends.

taxed only when a stockholder sells his or her shares of stock.

taxed at too low a rate.

taxed three timesonce by the corporate tax system, again by the personal tax system, and again as capital gains.

53 Social Security taxes are regressive because

they apply only to rich people.

they are not applied to income beyond a certain amount.

they are applied to welfare recipients.

they are applied to retired people only.

54 The largest share of federal government tax receipts is derived from

excise taxes.

individual income taxes.

corporate income taxes.

social insurance contributions.

55 Local government expenditures depend on which taxes?

Social Security taxes

Local property, sales, and excise taxes

Capital gains taxes

Revenues from licenses and permits

56 When the purchase price of an asset is less than its sale price, then there is a

budget deficit.

corporate income tax.

capital gain.

capital loss.

57 The earnings that a corporation saves for investment in other productive activities are

transfers in kind. c

apital gains.

tax incidence.

retained earnings.

58 Tax incidence refers to

determining who sends the taxes into the government.

the distribution of tax burdens among groups, or who really pays a tax.

the tendency of some people to avoid paying taxes at all.

determining the marginal tax rate applied to any increase in income.

59 Social Security taxes are paid by

neither employers nor employees

both employers and employees.

employers only.

employees only.

 
After reading the article, post substantive comments on the economic impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.
 
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE TRUMP TAX CUTS
April 25, 2018
The Economic Impact of the Trump Tax Cuts
By Hilary Schmidt, International Banker
 
On December 22, US President Donald Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The legislation is one of the most radical changes to fiscal policy the United States has undertaken in decades, with sweeping amendments implemented across the entire breadth of the tax code. Indeed, in his State of the Union Address, Trump called it the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history. As such, its impact is likely to be felt throughout the economy for quite some time to come.
 
It is arguably the cut in a corporate tax that forms the centrepiece of this new legislation, with the rate being cut from 35 to 21 per cent. That puts the new rate broadly in line with the worldwide average, which as measured by the Tax Foundation across 202 jurisdictions currently stands at 22.96 per cent or 29.41 per cent when weighted by gross domestic product (GDP). Corporations will also stop having to pay corporate tax on any income earned from foreign operations, while such money that is brought back home will be taxed between 8 and 15.5 per cent, significantly lower than the 35-per cent tax they are currently paying.
 
Republicans believe such substantial cuts will spur a massive influx of business investment that will eventually lead to higher average wages for Americans. For example, Texas Congressman Mike Conaway stated, It's in all of our best interest to have these tax cuts for corporations so that they will have more money to invest in their business and pay their workers. But much of the research conducted thus far suggests otherwise; the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, for instance, recently concluded that workers would receive a maximum of only a quarter of the benefits from tax cuts; and even then, it is most likely to be the higher earners that would be the biggest beneficiaries.
 
Another piece of evidence to which analysts are pointing is data from S&P Dow Jones Indices, which shows that non-financial companies in the S&P 500 are already flush with cash at the moment, having between them an estimated $1.63 trillion. And despite this vast sum of cash, an investment boom has not transpired. Indeed, some top companies have made it explicitly clear that any tax relief they receive from the reforms will be primarily used to increase dividends and buy back stock to boost share prices. Amgen CEO Robert Bradway, for example, said We've been actively returning capital in the form of growing dividend and buyback, and expect us to continue that. And in terms of what businesses planned to do with any profit returned from abroad, a Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey of more than 300 CEOs found that paying down debt and stock buybacks were by far and away from the biggest priorities for businesses.
 
The other major pillar of the reform is the cuts that have been enacted for individual income earners, with middle-class taxpayers earning between $19,050 and $77,400 per year receiving a cut in tax from 15 to 12 per cent. Higher-bracket earners, meanwhile, will see their tax rates go from 25 to 22 percent (for incomes between $77,400 and $165,000); 33 to 24 percent ($165,000 to $315,000); and 39.6 to 35 percent ($400,000 to $600,000). And as far as analysis from the Tax Center is concerned, after-tax income will increase by an average of 2.2 per cent across all groups. However, all of this changes after a few years, due to official budget rules that limit the cost of the bill to $1.5 trillion in total which therefore means that to make the corporate tax cuts permanent, the individual tax relief will expire by 2025. As such, a tax increase will likely result by 2027, which, according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, will impact 53 per cent of Americans.
 
Whether the overall impact will be a net positive or negative for the US economy remains to be seen at this stage, therefore. While most analysis produced to date agrees that economic growth will receive a boost in the short-term, the predictions that have so far come in have been decidedly more mixed and less sure for longer time horizons. The non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation of the US Congress expects the gross domestic product to be 0.8 per cent higher on average each year during the next 10 years than baseline forecasts, thanks mainly to an expected increase in labour supply and business investment. According to the independent non-profit research organisation the Tax Foundation, meanwhile, the plan will primarily reduce marginal tax rates and the cost of capital. In turn, this will lead to a 1.7-per cent rise in GDP over the long-term, a 1.5-per cent increase in wages and a further 339,000 full-time equivalent jobs. This year, moreover, will see GDP growth being posted at 2.45 per cent, compared to baseline growth of 2.01 per cent.
 
But most analysts see the economic benefits tapering off much sooner than the 10 years asserted by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Goldman Sachs, for example, believes the tax cuts will only slightly boost growth in the short-term before fading quickly. Alec Phillips and Blake Taylor, analysts on Goldman's US economic-analysis team, stated in December that the bank's estimate of the growth effects of the legislation in 2018 and 2019 would be 0.3 per cent per year, before dropping off. Indeed, Phillips and Taylor warn that the legislation may end up damaging the economy in the long run: We note that the effect in 2020 and beyond looks minimal and could be slightly negative.
 
Some also point to the fact that the cuts will drastically deepen the national debt, with Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimating an additional $1.5 trillion will be added to the $10 trillion already forecast for the next decade. As she explained, Instead of trickling down economic growth, the House plan will unleash a tidal wave of debt that will ultimately slow wage growth and hurt the economy. She seems to have a point the debt today is 77 per cent of GDP, much higher than the 31 per cent in place when the 2001 Bush tax cuts were passed, and the highest it has ever been save for the period just after World War II. What's more, given that interest rates could well rise faster than expected as a result of the likely ballooning of the debt, it may well dampen the expected boost to business-capital expenditure, consumer spending and wage growth.
 
Indeed, the arbiter of monetary policy itself, the Federal Reserve, has indicated that it remains somewhat unsure of the overall impact of the tax cuts. According to the released minutes of the central bank's December meeting, growth will only modestly be boosted, with members of the Fed's board and presidents of its member regional banks saying they expect real GDP growth of just 2.2-2.6 per cent and a median expectation of 2.5 per cent growth for this year. The comparatively tempered projections are reflective of the debate within the Fed over just how much of a boost business investment and consumer spending will receive from the tax cuts.
 
According to the minutes, Many participants judged that the proposed changes in business taxes, if enacted, would likely provide a modest boost to capital spending, although the magnitude of the effects was uncertain. While they are highly likely to have a positive effect on economic growth, the Fed also warned that much of the extra cash that is generated is more likely to be utilised for mergers and acquisitions or debt reduction and stock buybacks. Moreover, the boost to consumer spending may have already occurred in part on the back of realised future tax-cut expectations.
 
Ultimately, it may be too soon to make any firm conclusions about how impactful the tax cuts will eventually be; but given that the US economy is already experiencing strong economic growth, and given that virtually all the signs point to an economy operating at full employment and therefore, at full capacity such sweeping reforms that have been at least partly designed as an economic stimulus could well be dangerous. The impact on inflation and debt may well force the Fed to hike rates more than the three times that back in December it had projected for 2018. Time will tell.

You are working at an investment firm that has many investments in Lithuania. You have been asked to do a simple simulation showing the potential effects of Lithuania building a high-speed rail network, and what will happen if there is worldwide pressure on interest rates. All amounts are in millions of Litas. (The Lita is the Lithuanian currency. For this example use the exchange rate you compute, not the actual exchange rate). Government spending is projected to rise by 50 percent due to construction of the high-speed rail network

This is the status quo scenario

Total Output is equal to 5,000

Government spending is equal to 1,000

Tax revenue is equal to 1,000

Consumption is equal to 250+0.75*(Y-T);

The level of investment is 1,000-50r;

Net Exports are 500-500?,

the world real interest rate is five percent Assume that there are three political parties in Lithuania and each think that building the high speed rail network will have different effects on the economy. They have hired you as a consultant (moonlighting from your investment firm) to do an analysis showing what happens if their beliefs end up being true

a. THE LIBERAL PARTY believes that increasing government spending to build the high speed rail network will increase both G and GDP. That is G, will increase to 1,500 and GDP will increase by 500 too. Compare what happens to the economy (relative to the status quo) if the Liberal party is correct. How do private savings, public savings, national savings, investment, net exports, and the exchange rate change from the status quo?

b. THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY believes that building a high speed rail network will put people to work (thus increasing G), but that it will ultimately be useless (there will be no overall wealth created), so GDP will be unchanged. The conservatives are also concerned that the government taking on new debt will be a bad sign to Lithuania�s creditors, and that borrowing the money for the high-speed rail system will cause the interest rate to rise 20 percent. Under this scenario, how do private savings, public savings, national savings, investment, net exports, and the exchange rate change from the status quo?

c. THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY believes that taking tax money and using it to build a high-speed rail network does nothing more than take money from one group of people (taxpayers) and give it to another group of people (the construction industry) and that there is no productive economic impact. How do private savings, public savings, national savings, Net exports, and the exchange rate change from the status quo?

d. Please compare situations a, b, and c. Who do you think is correct, and why?

e. The Libertarians use a microeconomics explanation about taxation to argue that the economy will be helped most by simply reducing taxes, even if people only save the money that they don�t spend on taxes (C is not affected). They say that this phenomenon is assumed away by most macro-economists. What are they referring to?

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Economics 400,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in