In 1990 Congress adopted a new luxury tax on items such as
yachts airplanes furs jewelry and expensive cars. The goal of the tax was to
raise revenue from those who could most easily afford to pay. Because only the
rich could afford to buy such extravagances taxing luxuries seemed a logical
way of taxing the rich.
Yet when the forces of supply and demand took over the
outcome was quite different from what Congress intended. Consider for example
the market for yachts. The demand for yachts is quite elastic. A millionaire
can easily not buy a yacht she can use the money to buy a bigger house take a
European vacation or leave a larger bequest to her heirs. By contrast the
supply of yachts is relatively inelastic at least in the short run. Yacht
factories are not easily converted to alternative uses and workers who build
yachts are not eager to change careers in response to changing market
conditions.
Our analysis makes a clear prediction in this case. With
elastic demand and inelastic supply the
burden of a tax falls largely on the
suppliers. That is a tax on yachts place a burden largely on the firms and
workers who build yachts because they end up getting a lower price for their
product. The workers however are not wealthy. Thus the burden of a luxury tax
falls more on the middle class than on the rich.
The mistaken assumptions about the incidence of the luxury
tax quickly become apparent after the tax went into effect. Suppliers of
luxuries made their congressional representatives well aware of the economic
hardship they experienced and Congress repealed most of the luxury tax in 1993.
Comments
Post a Comment