Author:
Alinaghi Nazila,Creedy John,Gemmell Norman
Abstract
AbstractRecent papers hypothesise that estimates of the elasticity of taxable income (ETI) for individuals may be underestimated where those individuals are taxed separately but are part of a couple. This paper investigates that issue by applying the ‘bunching at tax kinks’ approach to estimate separate ETIs for partnered and single individuals. It shows that there are opportunities for, and constraints on, bunching specific to partnered individuals. Using administrative taxable income data for the New Zealand taxpayer population over the period, 2000 to 2017, taxpayers are matched to their partners using population census data. Results strongly support the hypotheses that ETIs are larger for partnered, than for single, individuals, and where both partners are located in the same income tax bracket. Couples where one (and especially where two) partners are self-employed reveal particularly large elasticities.
Funder
Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, New Zealand
Victoria University of Wellington
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Economics and Econometrics,Finance,Accounting
Reference41 articles.
1. Alinaghi, N., Creedy, J., & Gemmell, N. (2020). Do couples bunch more? Evidence from partnered and single taxpayers. Wellington School of Business and Government Working Papers in Public Finance, No. 02/2020.
2. Alinaghi, N., Creedy, J., & Gemmell, N. (2021). Elasticities of taxable income and adjustment costs: Bunching evidence from New Zealand. Oxford Economic Papers, 73, 1244–1269.
3. Bach, S., Haan, P., & Ochmann, R. (2013). Taxation of married couples in Germany and the UK one-earner couples make the difference. International Journal of Microsimulation, 6, 3–24.
4. Bastani, S., & Selin, H. (2014). Bunching and non-bunching at kink points of the Swedish tax schedule. Journal of Public Economics, 109, 36–49.
5. Bergolo, M., Burdin, G., De Rosa, M., Giaccobasso, M., & Leites, M. (2021). Digging into the channels of bunching: Evidence from the Uruguayan income tax. Economic Journal, 131, 2726–2762.