The Experts below are selected from a list of 1752 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Clemens Fuest - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the role of the corporate income tax as an Automatic Stabilizer
International Tax and Public Finance, 2010Co-Authors: Thiess Buettner, Clemens FuestAbstract:This paper analyses the effectiveness of the corporate income tax as an Automatic Stabilizer. It employs a unique firm-level data set of German manufacturers combining financial statements with firm-specific information about credit market restrictions. The results show that approximately 20 per cent of all firms report both positive taxable income and capital market restrictions. Taking account of the income tax rates and the size differences of the firms, we find that demand stabilization through the corporate income tax amounts to about 8 per cent of an initial shock to gross revenues. This stabilization effect varies over the business cycle and tends to increase during cyclical downturns.
-
Social Protection as an Automatic Stabilizer
2010Co-Authors: Mathias Dolls, Clemens Fuest, Andreas PeichlAbstract:This paper analyzes the effectiveness of social protection systems in Europe and the US to provide (income) insurance against macro level shocks in terms of Automatic Stabilizers. We find that Automatic Stabilizers absorb 38% of a proportional income shock and 47% of an idiosyncratic unemployment shock in Europe, compared to 32% and 34% in the US. There is large heterogeneity within Europe with stabilization being much lower in Eastern and Southern than in Central and Northern Europe. Our results suggest that social transfers, in particular the rather generous systems of unemployment insurance in Europe, play a key role for the stabilization of disposable incomes and explain a large part of the difference in Automatic Stabilizers between Europe and the US.
-
social protection as an Automatic Stabilizer
IZA Policy Papers, 2010Co-Authors: Mathias Dolls, Clemens Fuest, Andreas PeichlAbstract:This paper analyzes the effectiveness of tax transfer systems in Europe and the US to act as Automatic Stabilizers. We find that Automatic Stabilizers absorb 38% of a proportional income shock and 47% of an idiosyncratic unemployment shock in Europe, compared to 32% and 34% in the US. This cushioning of disposable income leads to demand stabilization of up to 30% in Europe and up to 20% in the US. There is large heterogeneity within Europe with stabilization being much lower in Eastern and Southern than in Central and Northern Europe.
-
Automatic Stabilizers and economic crisis us vs europe
National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010Co-Authors: Mathias Dolls, Clemens Fuest, Andreas PeichlAbstract:This paper analyzes the effectiveness of the tax and transfer systems in the European Union and the US to act as an Automatic Stabilizer in the current economic crisis. We find that Automatic Stabilizers absorb 38 per cent of a proportional income shock in the EU, compared to 32 per cent in the US. In the case of an unemployment shock 47 percent of the shock are absorbed in the EU, compared to 34 per cent in the US. This cushioning of disposable income leads to a demand stabilization of up to 30 per cent in the EU and up to 20 per cent in the US. There is large heterogeneity within the EU. Automatic Stabilizers in Eastern and Southern Europe are much lower than in Central and Northern European countries. We also investigate whether countries with weak Automatic Stabilizers have enacted larger fiscal stimulus programs. We find no evidence supporting this view.
-
Wie wirken die automatischen Stabilisatoren in der Wirtschaftskrise? Deutschland im Vergleich zu anderen EU‐Staaten und den USA
Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 2010Co-Authors: Mathias Dolls, Clemens Fuest, Andreas PeichlAbstract:This paper analyzes the effectiveness of the tax and transfer systems in the European Union and the US to act as an Automatic Stabilizer in the current economic crisis. We consider two scenarios: a proportional income shock and a shock on employment which increases the rate of unemployment. We find that Automatic Stabilizers absorb 38 percent of a proportional income shock in the EU, compared to 32 percent in the US. In the case of an unemployment shock 48 percent of the shock is absorbed in the EU, compared to 34 percent in the US. Under the assumption that only credit constrained households adjust current spending on consumption goods to current disposable income, the cushioning of disposable income leads to a demand stabilization of 26 to 35 percent in the EU and 19 percent in the US. There is large heterogeneity within the EU. Automatic Stabilizers in Eastern and Southern Europe are much lower than in Central and Northern European countries. With respect to income stabilization, Germany is above the European average for both scenarios. Demand stabilization in Germany is weaker because the number of liquidity constrained households is below the EU average.
Yoshito Funashima - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Automatic Stabilizers in the Japanese tax system
Journal of Asian Economics, 2015Co-Authors: Yoshito FunashimaAbstract:When studying the role of taxes as an Automatic Stabilizer, excluding the effects of discretionary tax reform is troublesome. A fruitful approach to identifying tax movements over business cycles would be to utilize cyclical information. From this perspective, we exploit wavelets in order to characterize the Automatic response of taxes to output at business cycle frequencies in the postwar Japanese economy. We find the presence of Automatic Stabilizers in the Japanese tax system under the influence of relatively high output volatility but the absence of such Stabilizers during the period of the “Great Moderation” in Japan in the 1980s.
Andreas Peichl - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Social Protection as an Automatic Stabilizer
2010Co-Authors: Mathias Dolls, Clemens Fuest, Andreas PeichlAbstract:This paper analyzes the effectiveness of social protection systems in Europe and the US to provide (income) insurance against macro level shocks in terms of Automatic Stabilizers. We find that Automatic Stabilizers absorb 38% of a proportional income shock and 47% of an idiosyncratic unemployment shock in Europe, compared to 32% and 34% in the US. There is large heterogeneity within Europe with stabilization being much lower in Eastern and Southern than in Central and Northern Europe. Our results suggest that social transfers, in particular the rather generous systems of unemployment insurance in Europe, play a key role for the stabilization of disposable incomes and explain a large part of the difference in Automatic Stabilizers between Europe and the US.
-
social protection as an Automatic Stabilizer
IZA Policy Papers, 2010Co-Authors: Mathias Dolls, Clemens Fuest, Andreas PeichlAbstract:This paper analyzes the effectiveness of tax transfer systems in Europe and the US to act as Automatic Stabilizers. We find that Automatic Stabilizers absorb 38% of a proportional income shock and 47% of an idiosyncratic unemployment shock in Europe, compared to 32% and 34% in the US. This cushioning of disposable income leads to demand stabilization of up to 30% in Europe and up to 20% in the US. There is large heterogeneity within Europe with stabilization being much lower in Eastern and Southern than in Central and Northern Europe.
-
Automatic Stabilizers and economic crisis us vs europe
National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010Co-Authors: Mathias Dolls, Clemens Fuest, Andreas PeichlAbstract:This paper analyzes the effectiveness of the tax and transfer systems in the European Union and the US to act as an Automatic Stabilizer in the current economic crisis. We find that Automatic Stabilizers absorb 38 per cent of a proportional income shock in the EU, compared to 32 per cent in the US. In the case of an unemployment shock 47 percent of the shock are absorbed in the EU, compared to 34 per cent in the US. This cushioning of disposable income leads to a demand stabilization of up to 30 per cent in the EU and up to 20 per cent in the US. There is large heterogeneity within the EU. Automatic Stabilizers in Eastern and Southern Europe are much lower than in Central and Northern European countries. We also investigate whether countries with weak Automatic Stabilizers have enacted larger fiscal stimulus programs. We find no evidence supporting this view.
-
Wie wirken die automatischen Stabilisatoren in der Wirtschaftskrise? Deutschland im Vergleich zu anderen EU‐Staaten und den USA
Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 2010Co-Authors: Mathias Dolls, Clemens Fuest, Andreas PeichlAbstract:This paper analyzes the effectiveness of the tax and transfer systems in the European Union and the US to act as an Automatic Stabilizer in the current economic crisis. We consider two scenarios: a proportional income shock and a shock on employment which increases the rate of unemployment. We find that Automatic Stabilizers absorb 38 percent of a proportional income shock in the EU, compared to 32 percent in the US. In the case of an unemployment shock 48 percent of the shock is absorbed in the EU, compared to 34 percent in the US. Under the assumption that only credit constrained households adjust current spending on consumption goods to current disposable income, the cushioning of disposable income leads to a demand stabilization of 26 to 35 percent in the EU and 19 percent in the US. There is large heterogeneity within the EU. Automatic Stabilizers in Eastern and Southern Europe are much lower than in Central and Northern European countries. With respect to income stabilization, Germany is above the European average for both scenarios. Demand stabilization in Germany is weaker because the number of liquidity constrained households is below the EU average.
Daniel R Feenberg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the significance of federal taxes as Automatic Stabilizers
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2000Co-Authors: Alan J Auerbach, Daniel R FeenbergAbstract:Using the TAXSIM model for the period 1962-95, we consider the federal tax system's impact as an Automatic Stabilizer. Despite the many changes in the tax system, there has been relatively little change in its role as an Automatic Stabilizer. We estimate that individual federal taxes offset perhaps as much as 8 percent of initial shocks to GDP. We also suggest that the progressive income tax may help to stabilize output via its effect on the supply of labor, an additional effect that may even be of similar magnitude to the more traditional path of stabilization through aggregate demand.
Ionescu Gabriela-mariana - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A Proposal for an Automatic Stabilizer in Social Justice
Studies in Business and Economics, 2019Co-Authors: Dinga Emil, Tănăsescu Cristina, Ionescu Gabriela-marianaAbstract:Generally, social justice has two sides which are intercorrelated and inter-dependend: a) constitutive social justice (for example, the so called commutative social justice); b) regulative social justice (for example, the so called distributive social justice). The paper approaches the regulative social justice, more exactly, an Automatic mechanism to get it. To this end, an Automatic Stabilizer to provide distributive social justice, according to the Rawlsian principle of difference. Such an Automatic Stabilizer is grounded on the wealth, more precise, on the share of the wealth which is not invested in order to benefit to the more disadvantaged class of the society. Paper does not test empirically the proposal, such a propose remaining for next intervention in this publication.
-
The Principle of Difference and Automatic Stabilizers in Social Justice
Ovidius University Annals: Economic Sciences Series, 2018Co-Authors: Ionescu Gabriela-marianaAbstract:The paper presents some theoretical arguments regarding the issue of inequalities between individuals, inequalities which inevitably appear in the structure of any society and which can be analyzed on the base of a principle known and widely debated in the literature, the principle of difference and attenuated / solved by implementing Automatic Stabilizers in the area of control of the application of social justice. Thus, from the perspective of the author and the theme of the paper, the concepts of social justice with its two categories of commutative justice and distributive justice, elements of the theory of justice as equity, the Rawlsian concept of the principle of difference, the concept of Automatic Stabilizer in social justice. We consider that the design of an Automatic Stabilizer in the field of social justice and especially in the sphere of social distribution justice brings with it the desirability of avoiding the influence of the political factor in the decision to adjust the mechanism of distribution of the economic product of society.
