Tax Rates and Revenue

A tax rate is the amount of tax people are required to pay per unit of whatever is being taxed.

In Figure 7-6, $40 per room is the tax rate on hotel rooms. A tax rate is the amount of tax levied per unit of whatever is being taxed. Sometimes tax rates are defined in terms of dollar amounts per unit of a good or service; for example, $2.46 per pack of cigarettes sold. In other cases, they are defined as a percentage of the price; for example, the payroll tax is 15.3% of a worker’s earnings up to $117,000.

There’s obviously a relationship between tax rates and revenue. That relationship is not, however, one-for-one. In general, doubling the excise tax rate on a good or service won’t double the amount of revenue collected, because the tax increase will reduce the quantity of the good or service transacted. And the relationship between the level of the tax and the amount of revenue collected may not even be positive: in some cases raising the tax rate actually reduces the amount of revenue the government collects.

We can illustrate these points using our hotel room example. Figure 7-6 showed the revenue the government collects from a $40 tax on hotel rooms. Figure 7-7 shows the revenue the government would collect from two alternative tax rates—a lower tax of only $20 per room and a higher tax of $60 per room.

Panel (a) of Figure 7-7 shows the case of a $20 tax, equal to half the tax rate illustrated in Figure 7-6. At this lower tax rate, 7,500 rooms are rented, generating tax revenue of:

Tax revenue = $20 per room × 7,500 rooms = $150,000

Tax Rates and Revenue In general, doubling the excise tax rate on a good or service won’t double the amount of revenue collected, because the tax increase will reduce the quantity of the good or service bought and sold. And the relationship between the level of the tax and the amount of revenue collected may not even be positive. Panel (a) shows the revenue raised by a tax rate of $20 per room, only half the tax rate in Figure 7-6. The tax revenue raised, equal to the area of the shaded rectangle, is $150,000. That is 75% of $200,000, the revenue raised by a $40 tax rate. Panel (b) shows that the revenue raised by a $60 tax rate is also $150,000. So raising the tax rate from $40 to $60 actually reduces tax revenue.

Recall that the tax revenue collected from a $40 tax rate is $200,000. So the revenue collected from a $20 tax rate, $150,000, is only 75% of the amount collected when the tax rate is twice as high ($150,000/$200,000 × 100 = 75%). To put it another way, a 100% increase in the tax rate from $20 to $40 per room leads to only a one-third, or 33.3%, increase in revenue, from $150,000 to $200,000 (($200,000 – $150,000)/$150,000 × 100 = 33.3%).

Panel (b) depicts what happens if the tax rate is raised from $40 to $60 per room, leading to a fall in the number of rooms rented from 5,000 to 2,500. The revenue collected at a $60 per room tax rate is:

Tax revenue = $60 per room × 2,500 rooms = $150,000

This is also less than the revenue collected by a $40 per room tax. So raising the tax rate from $40 to $60 actually reduces revenue. More precisely, in this case raising the tax rate by 50% (($60 − $40)/$40 × 100 = 50%) lowers the tax revenue by 25% (($150,000 − $200,000)/$200,000 × 100 = −25%). Why did this happen? Because the fall in tax revenue caused by the reduction in the number of rooms rented more than offset the increase in the tax revenue caused by the rise in the tax rate. In other words, setting a tax rate so high that it deters a significant number of transactions will likely lead to a fall in tax revenue.

One way to think about the revenue effect of increasing an excise tax is that the tax increase affects tax revenue in two ways. On one side, the tax increase means that the government raises more revenue for each unit of the good sold, which other things equal would lead to a rise in tax revenue. On the other side, the tax increase reduces the quantity of sales, which other things equal would lead to a fall in tax revenue. The end result depends both on the price elasticities of supply and demand and on the initial level of the tax.

If the price elasticities of both supply and demand are low, the tax increase won’t reduce the quantity of the good sold very much, so tax revenue will definitely rise. If the price elasticities are high, the result is less certain; if they are high enough, the tax reduces the quantity sold so much that tax revenue falls. Also, if the initial tax rate is low, the government doesn’t lose much revenue from the decline in the quantity of the good sold, so the tax increase will definitely increase tax revenue. If the initial tax rate is high, the result is again less certain. Tax revenue is likely to fall or rise very little from a tax increase only in cases where the price elasticities are high and there is already a high tax rate.

The possibility that a higher tax rate can reduce tax revenue, and the corresponding possibility that cutting taxes can increase tax revenue, is a basic principle of taxation that policy makers take into account when setting tax rates. That is, when considering a tax created for the purpose of raising revenue (in contrast to taxes created to discourage undesirable behavior, known as “sin taxes”), a well-informed policy maker won’t impose a tax rate so high that cutting the tax would increase revenue.

In the real world, however, policy makers aren’t always well informed, but they usually aren’t complete fools either. That’s why it’s very hard to find real-world examples in which raising a tax reduced revenue or cutting a tax increased revenue. Nonetheless, the theoretical possibility that a tax reduction increases tax revenue has played an important role in the folklore of American politics. As explained in For Inquiring Minds, an economist who sketched on a napkin the figure of a revenue-increasing income tax reduction had a significant impact on the economic policies adopted in the United States in the 1980s.

!worldview! FOR INQUIRING MINDS: French Tax Rates and L’Arc Laffer

One afternoon in 1974, the American economist Arthur Laffer drew on a napkin a diagram that came to be known as the “Laffer curve.” According to this diagram, raising tax rates initially increases tax revenue, but beyond a certain level a continued rise in tax rates causes tax revenues to fall as people forgo economic activity. Correspondingly, a reduction in tax rates from that threshold results in an increase in economic activity as more people are willing to undertake economic transactions.

Although not a new idea, Laffer’s diagram captured the American political debate at the time. In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan enacted tax cuts with the promise that they would pay for themselves—that is, that the tax cuts would increase economic activity so much that the federal government’s revenue would not fall.

Very few economists now believe that Reagan’s tax cuts actually increased government revenue because, on the whole, American tax rates were simply not high enough to provide a significant deterrent to economic activity. Yet there is a theoretical case that the Laffer curve does exist at high tax rate levels. And the case of the French tax hike appears to present a real-world illustration.

A 1997 change to the French tax law significantly raised taxes on wealthy French citizens. Moreover, unlike in the United States, it is relatively easy for a French person to move to a neighboring country, such as Belgium or Switzerland, with much lower taxes on the wealthy. As a result, according to one estimate, by 2013, 200 to 250 billion euros in assets—around $275 to $350 billion—had been moved out of France by those who had left France to escape the higher tax rates.

The matter exploded in a public fracas between French president, Francois Hollande, and France’s most celebrated actor, Gerard Depardieu, when Hollande announced a 75% tax rate on high earning French to breach a huge government deficit. Hollande was eventually forced to back down, but not before Depardieu had moved just a few miles over the French border into Belgium.