Question

Tax

An article by Paul Krugman published in the New York Times on March 15th, 2000 argued against George W. Bush’s reduction in gasoline taxes as a method for offsetting the spike in gasoline prices at the time (article attached). Analyze the article from what you have learned in class. What may a reduction in gasoline prices affect the demand for gasoline; and consequently affect the price? How elastic is the short-run Supply Curve and the Demand Curve? Who reaps the benefits if gasoline taxes are reduced or eliminated? How would this action affect the price of gasoline in the short run? Explain in words and graphically.

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Teachers of economics cherish bad policies. For example, if New York ever ends rent control, we will lose a prime example of what happens when you try to defy the law of supply and demand. And so we should always be thankful when an important politician makes a really bad policy proposal.

Last week George W. Bush graciously obliged, by advocating a reduction in gasoline taxes to offset the current spike in prices. This proposal is a perfect illustration of why we need economic analysis to figure out the true ''incidence'' of taxes: the people who really pay for a tax increase, or benefit from a tax cut, are often not those who ostensibly fork over the cash. In this case, cutting gasoline taxes would do little if anything to reduce the price motorists pay at the pump. It would, however, provide a windfall both to U.S. oil refiners and to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Let's start with why the oil cartel should love this proposal. Put yourself in the position of an OPEC minister: What sets the limits to how high you want to push oil prices? The answer is that you are afraid that too high a price will lead people to use less gasoline, heating oil and so on, cutting into your exports. Suppose, however, that you can count on the U.S. government to reduce gasoline taxes whenever the price of crude oil rises. Then Americans are less likely to reduce their oil consumption if you conspire to drive prices up -- which makes such a conspiracy a considerably more attractive proposition.

Anyway, in the short run -- and what we have right now is a short-run gasoline shortage -

- cutting gas taxes probably won't even temporarily reduce prices at the pump. The quantity of oil available for U.S. consumption over the near future is pretty much a fixed number: the inventories on hand plus the supplies already en route from the Middle East. Even if OPEC increases its output next month, supplies are likely to be limited for a couple more months. The rising price of gasoline to consumers is in effect the market's way of rationing that limited supply of oil.

Now suppose that we were to cut gasoline taxes. If the price of gas at the pump were to fall, motorists would buy more gas. But there isn't any more gas, so the price at the pump, inclusive of the lowered tax, would quickly be bid right back up to the pre-tax-cut level.

And that means that any cut in taxes would show up not in a lower price at the pump, but in a higher price paid to distributors. In other words, the benefits of the tax cut would flow not to consumers but to other parties, mainly the domestic oil refining industry. (As the textbooks will tell you, reducing the tax rate on an inelastically supplied good benefits the sellers, not the buyers.)

A cynic might suggest that that is the point. But I'd rather think that Mr. Bush isn't deliberately trying to throw his friends in the oil industry a few extra billions; I prefer to believe that the candidate, or whichever adviser decided to make gasoline taxes an issue, was playing a political rather than a financial game.

There still remains the argument that the only good tax is a dead tax. This leads us into the whole question of whether those huge federal surplus projections are realistic (they aren't), whether the budget is loaded with fat (it isn't), and so on. But anyway, the gasoline tax is dedicated revenue, used for maintaining and improving the nation's highways. This is one case in which a tax cut would lead directly to cutbacks in a necessary and popular government service.

You could say that I am making too much of a mere political gambit. Gasoline prices have increased more than 50 cents per gallon over the past year; Mr. Bush only proposes rolling back 1993's 4.3-cent tax increase.

But the gas tax proposal is nonetheless revealing. Mr. Bush numbers some of the world's leading experts on tax incidence among his advisers. I cannot believe that they think cutting gasoline taxes is a good economic policy in the face of an OPEC power play. So this suggests a certain degree of cynical political opportunism. (I'm shocked, shocked!) And it also illustrates the candidate's attachment to a sort of knee-jerk conservatism, according to which tax cuts are the answer to every problem.

As a citizen, then, I deplore this proposal. As a college lecturer, however, I am delighted.

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Teachers of economics cherish bad policies. For example, if New York ever ends rent control, we will lose a prime example of what happens when you try to defy the law of supply and demand. And so we should always be thankful when an important politician makes a really bad policy proposal.

Last week George W. Bush graciously obliged, by advocating a reduction in gasoline taxes to offset the current spike in prices. This proposal is a perfect illustration of why we need economic analysis to figure out the true ''incidence'' of taxes: the people who really pay for a tax increase, or benefit from a tax cut, are often not those who ostensibly fork over the cash. In this case, cutting gasoline taxes would do little if anything to reduce the price motorists pay at the pump. It would, however, provide a windfall both to U.S. oil refiners and to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Let's start with why the oil cartel should love this proposal. Put yourself in the position of an OPEC minister: What sets the limits to how high you want to push oil prices? The answer is that you are afraid that too high a price will lead people to use less gasoline, heating oil and so on, cutting into your exports. Suppose, however, that you can count on the U.S. government to reduce gasoline taxes whenever the price of crude oil rises. Then Americans are less likely to reduce their oil consumption if you conspire to drive prices up -- which makes such a conspiracy a considerably more attractive proposition.

Anyway, in the short run -- and what we have right now is a short-run gasoline shortage -

- cutting gas taxes probably won't even temporarily reduce prices at the pump. The quantity of oil available for U.S. consumption over the near future is pretty much a fixed number: the inventories on hand plus the supplies already en route from the Middle East. Even if OPEC increases its output next month, supplies are likely to be limited for a couple more months. The rising price of gasoline to consumers is in effect the market's way of rationing that limited supply of oil.

Now suppose that we were to cut gasoline taxes. If the price of gas at the pump were to fall, motorists would buy more gas. But there isn't any more gas, so the price at the pump, inclusive of the lowered tax, would quickly be bid right back up to the pre-tax-cut level.

And that means that any cut in taxes would show up not in a lower price at the pump, but in a higher price paid to distributors. In other words, the benefits of the tax cut would flow not to consumers but to other parties, mainly the domestic oil refining industry. (As the textbooks will tell you, reducing the tax rate on an inelastically supplied good benefits the sellers, not the buyers.)

A cynic might suggest that that is the point. But I'd rather think that Mr. Bush isn't deliberately trying to throw his friends in the oil industry a few extra billions; I prefer to believe that the candidate, or whichever adviser decided to make gasoline taxes an issue, was playing a political rather than a financial game.

There still remains the argument that the only good tax is a dead tax. This leads us into the whole question of whether those huge federal surplus projections are realistic (they aren't), whether the budget is loaded with fat (it isn't), and so on. But anyway, the gasoline tax is dedicated revenue, used for maintaining and improving the nation's highways. This is one case in which a tax cut would lead directly to cutbacks in a necessary and popular government service.

You could say that I am making too much of a mere political gambit. Gasoline prices have increased more than 50 cents per gallon over the past year; Mr. Bush only proposes rolling back 1993's 4.3-cent tax increase.

But the gas tax proposal is nonetheless revealing. Mr. Bush numbers some of the world's leading experts on tax incidence among his advisers. I cannot believe that they think cutting gasoline taxes is a good economic policy in the face of an OPEC power play. So this suggests a certain degree of cynical political opportunism. (I'm shocked, shocked!) And it also illustrates the candidate's attachment to a sort of knee-jerk conservatism, according to which tax cuts are the answer to every problem.

As a citizen, then, I deplore this proposal. As a college lecturer, however, I am delighted.

Answer 1

A reduction in gasoline prices will thend to increase demand, however slightly in the short-run, because gasoline demand has a positive, though low, demad elasticity in the short-run. When prices fall demand goes up. However, this increased demand can not be met, because short-run supply is fixed at the present short-run equilibrium levels, thus it will have to be reduced gain by a rise in prices to present short-run equilibrium levels. A perfectly inelastic short-run supply curve does not shift in response to a change in tax, and demand curve has not reason to shift, therefore, price stay at equilibrium levels.

Short-run demand curves are usually very inelastic, however, in this case the short-run supply curve is told to be nearly perfectly ineastic, or vertical.

Relative incidence of a per unit tax depends on relative elasticities of demand and supply. When demand is more elastic than suppy and, consumer respond more (are more sensitive) to price change than suppliers, a higer tax incidence is borne by suppliers. Conversely when tax is cut, suppliers benefit. For a perfectly inelastic supply curve (vertical) all the tax cut benefit will go to suppliers and prices will not change, since there is no shift of a demand or supply curve: there is no reason for demand curve to shift (demand curve shifts in response to reasons other than price), short-run supply curve cannot shift because it is vertical (perfectly inelastic).

As as aside from Krugman's argument: If it is politically easier to roll-back taxes than to impose them again, then, with a more elastic long-run supply curve of gasoline, consumer could get some of the benefit of tax-cut in the long run. However, long-run demand is also more elastic, so the relative benfit will depend on relative long-run elasticities of demand and supply. Besides, gasoline taxes in the US are relatively low compared to other rich countries, and do not constitute a large share of Federal government's revenue (about 1% when Krugman wrote, as compared to over 15% of UK government revenue). They usually directly pay for road repair and manintenance. So, cutting gasoline tax would have impacted that, and needs to be considered.