2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.07.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tax structure and economic growth

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

33
325
3
18

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 455 publications
(379 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
33
325
3
18
Order By: Relevance
“…Li and Sarte (2004) find evidence that the decreases in progressivity associated with the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA-86) in the US lead to small but non-negligible increases in US long-run growth (from 0.12 to 0.34 percentage points). Finally, Lee and Gordon (2005), using panel data for 70 countries cov ering the period 1970-97, find in cross-sectional regressions and fixedeffects regressions that higher corporate tax rates are associated with lower growth rates.…”
Section: Impact On Economic Growthmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Li and Sarte (2004) find evidence that the decreases in progressivity associated with the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA-86) in the US lead to small but non-negligible increases in US long-run growth (from 0.12 to 0.34 percentage points). Finally, Lee and Gordon (2005), using panel data for 70 countries cov ering the period 1970-97, find in cross-sectional regressions and fixedeffects regressions that higher corporate tax rates are associated with lower growth rates.…”
Section: Impact On Economic Growthmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Exogenous growth theory discusses that changes in tax strategy may not have long run growth effect but also generate temporary effects (Ramsey, 1928;Solow, 1956;Lee and Gordon, 2005). On the other side, the proponents of endogenous theory believe that change in tax rate may have long run growth effect and increase economic activity (Romer, 1986;Lucas, 1988;Easterly and Rebelo, 1993).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We show that perpetual youth models with annuities have three forces that modify economic growth relative to the benchmark economy with infinitely-lived agents: (i) impatience (−), (ii) effective risk-free rate (+), and (iii) accidental bequests (−), where (±) denote the positive or negative effect on growth. The first negative effect always dominates the second positive effect, and hence the growth rate unambiguously decreases in perpetual youth models relative to the benchmark case, which is 1 Although our paper is purely theoretical, for empirical evidence on the relation between taxation and growth, see for example Engen and Skinner (1996) and Lee and Gordon (2005).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 74%