minimum wage and tax evasion: theory and evidence mirco tonin university of southampton warsaw, 29...
Post on 16-Jan-2016
229 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Minimum Wage and Tax Evasion:
Theory and Evidence
Mirco Tonin
University of Southampton
Warsaw, 29 November 2007
Objective of the paper: study the interaction between minimum wage and underreporting of earnings by employed labour
• build a formal model• test some of the implications
Basic idea: minimum wage is a lower bound for declared earnings in the formal sector
Plan of presentation:
• Some evidence on underreporting
• Review of related literature
• Model
• Empirical evidence
Relevance of underreporting (I)
“Envelope wages" above the officially declared minimum "exists in practically all of the Central and Eastern European countries" (European Commission, 2004.)
In Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union “disproportionately high shares of workers cluster on declared wages at or just above the minimum wage, with evidence of additional undeclared incomes above the minimum” (World Bank, 2005.)
OECD (2004) estimates a 30% shortfall in social security contributions due to undeclared incomes in Hungary, Mexico, and South Korea and 20% in Italy, Poland, Spain and Turkey.
Relevance of underreporting (II)
“Did you know that more than half of the people nominally employed at the minimum wage earn more, and the only reason for such a declaration is to evade taxes and social security contributions?”
Related literature
Minimum Wage: impact on employment (Card and Krueger, 1995; Neumark and Wascher, 2006), job composition (Acemoglu, 2001), fringe benefits (Simon and Kaestner, 2004), training (Booth et al., 2004), prices (Lemos, 2006), working hours (Stewart and Swaffield, 2006), profits (Draca et al., 2006);
Tax Evasion / Informal Economy: models with a separate informal sector (Fugazza and Jacques, 2003; Boeri and Garibaldi, 2005), models with partial compliance (Cowell, 1985; Kolm and Nielsen, 2005);
Empirical literature (microdata): surveys (Lemieux et al., 1994), comparison of income and participation data from different sources (Fiorio and D’Amuri, 2005), comparison of income and consumption data (Pissarides and Weber, 1989; Gorodnichenko and Sabirianova, 2006; Feldman and Slemrod, forthcoming);
Model
• Competitive labour market
• Free entry of firms
• Risk neutral firms
• Firms act as withholding agent
• No capital
• Production = labour input
• y : worker’s productivity
• w : worker’s gross wage / labour cost
• t : proportional tax rate (PIT and SSC)
• Objective functions:
Firms:
Workers:
… but there is Tax Evasion!
• x : declared income
• ỹ : detected income
• γ : probability of auditing
• θ : 1 + fine on evaded taxes
Equilibrium with No Tax Evasion
Enforcement of taxation (I)
y
x y-x
ỹ ỹ fine base
Enforcement of taxation (II)
f : expected fine in case of auditing
if ỹ distributed uniformly over [0,y]:
Equilibrium without minimum wage (I)
Declared income is chosen to maximize total income net of expected payment to fiscal authorities
Equilibrium without minimum wage (II)
where:
Equilibrium without minimum wage (III)
Free entry Zero profit condition
Equilibrium with a minimum wage
Declared income is given by the solution to
unaffectedout of formal labour market
y
Example
α =33% Minimum Wage=80
High Productivity Worker: y = 150 => x* = 100
Intermediate Productivity Worker: y = 100 => x* = 66
Low Productivity Worker: y = 30 => x* = 20
Effects on distribution of declared earnings
x0
affected unaffected
Effects on incomes of an increase in MW
• Workers operating already underground
• Workers declaring before the minimum wage increase between the old and new minimum wage
• Workers declaring already more than the new minimum wage
An empirical test: Hungary 2000-2001
2001: MW increased from 25500 HUF (98 EUR) to 40000 HUF (156 EUR)
Wage dynamics in Hungary 1992-2005
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
20
25
30
35
40
45
Real MW - CPI - 1992=100 (lhs) Real Average Wage - CPI - 1992=100 (lhs)
Kaitz Index - % (rhs)
Institutional context (I)
Minimum Wage: relates to gross monthly earnings net of overtime pay, shift pay and bonuses; legally binding; covers all employment contracts
1998-2002: set unilaterally by government
Taxation: tax wedge on low wage earners around 46% in 2000-2001, marginal rate around 56%
Institutional context (II)
Informal economy:
• 56% of households are aware of the practice of employers declaring to the tax authority the minimum wage, while paying additional wage unofficially, taking place in their neighbourhood
• Informal Economy around 25% of official GDP in the period 1999-2003 (Schneider, 2005)
• Size of Undeclared work around 18% of GDP in 1998 (Renooy et al. 2005)
Effects on the labour market
“Despite the brutal price shock the immediate effect did not seem dramatic” Kertesi and Köllő (2003)
1.High levels of compliance with minimum wage regulation; minor spillover
2. Jobloss risk of minimum wage workers:
Male, 25 years old, 5 years tenure: QQ outflow to unemployment rates:
• Treatment (90-110% MW 2001) : 0.243%
• Control (110-125% MW 2001) : 0.119%
3. Outflows from unemployment
Job finding probability of low-wage unemployed relative to unskilled as a whole dropped by 7-8% in 2001
2000
y: 250 €
x: 98 €
Net I (reported): 78 €
Net I (true): 250-70 = 180 €
2001
y: 250 €
x: 156 €
Net I (reported): 120 €
Net I (true): 250-107 = 143 €
2000/2001
ΔNet I
-reported = + 42 €
-true = - 37 €
2000 2001
Monthly Minimum Wage 25,500 Ft 40,000 Ft
98 € 156 €Net Take Home Pay 20,273 Ft 30,800 Ft
78 € 120 €Labour Cost 38,580 Ft 58,300 Ft
148 € 227 €Total Fiscal Payments 18,308 Ft 27,500 Ft
70 € 107 €
Tax Wedge on Minimum Wage
Empirical strategy
Minimum wage hike in 2001: shock to “underreporting technology” for affected group
Difference-in-Difference Approach:
Treatment group: households affected by MW hike
Control group: “similar” but unaffected households
where ci,t : food consumption for household i at time t
Estimated equation:
The dataset – the sample
Household Budget Survey:
• 10000 households interviewed every year
• One-third of the sample is rotated every year
• 2Y panel: around 3500 households for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001
Main variables
Food consumption: distinction between food bought in the market and food produced at home
Income: distinction between income including or not home production
Month dummies: month of diary keeping in two consecutive years
Geographical dummies: 20 counties + type of settlement
Employee characteristics: number of HH members employed in:
• Sector (60 branches)
• Hierarchical position (10 categories)
• Type of employer (4 categories)
Definitions of treatment
“Actual Treatment”
• defined on characteristics in 2000 and 2001
• can also account for “intensity of treatment”
“Potential Treatment”
• defined only on the basis of characteristics in 2000
• perform a “placebo test” using 1999-2000 panel
“Actual Treatment” - Treatment at individual level
C C
All employees for the whole 2001
150% (200%) MW 200190% MW 2001
Wage 2000
Wage 2001
Public SectorPrivate Sector
150% (200%) MW 2001
Wage 2000
Wage 2001
T
90% MW 2000
110% MW 2001
90% MW 2001 110% MW 2001
022
950
4000
080
000
1000
00Y
ear
2001
0 22950 40000 80000 150000Year 2000
Dashed lines indicate 90% of the MW in 2000, 90%, 110%, 150%, 200% of the minimum wage in 2001Only households with constant family structure; HH with positive net income below 200000 in both years.For 2000 earnings bounded at 200000 (3 outliers)
(Red: treated; Black: control)
Earnings from main activity
TREATi: number of HH members treated ( i.e. belonging to T )
Regression run on all households:
• where at least one member belongs to T or C
• with constant family structure
• with positive net income below 200,000 HUF in both years
“Actual Treatment” - Treatment at household level
Descriptive Statistics
T 150 200
Total net income HH EUR 290 € 337 € 345 €Expenditures on food EUR 77 € 85 € 86 €
27% 25% 25%
Total net income HH EUR 363 € 401 € 410 €
Expenditures on food EUR 93 € 106 € 107 €
26% 26% 26%
EUR 68 € 59 € 61 €
(% HUF) 23% 17% 17%
EUR 15 € 19 € 20 €
(% HUF) 20% 22% 23%
2000
Increase in expenditures on food:
Expenditures on food as % of net income:
Increase in HH total net income:
Expenditures on food as % of net income:
2001
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000 300000
HUF
T
C:150
2000
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000 300000
HUF
T
C:150
2001
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000 300000
HUF
T
C:200
2000
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000 300000
HUF
T
C:200
2001
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:150
2000
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:150
2001
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:200
2000
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:200
2001
With (lhs) and without (rhs) home production
T - treatment group; C:200 - control group using 200% MW as upper bound; C:150 - control group using 150% MW as upper bound;
Kernel density estimation (epanechnikov); HH with positive net income below 200000 HUF in both years;
Household Total Net Income: Kernel Density Estimation
Results (I)
Dependent variable:
Reference group: MW2000<Wage 2000<2* MW2001 MW2000<Wage 2000<1.5* MW2001
-1385 -1292
(0.034) (0.081)
R-Squared 0.31 0.34
Additional Controls:
-1766 -1794
(0.018) (0.039)
R-Squared 0.39 0.42
Additional Controls:
Treatment -1595 -1671
(0.040) (0.062)
R-Squared 0.41 0.45
Additional Controls:
Number of HH 808 571
HH treated 149 149
Food, not own production; monthly
Treatment
Year and Month dummies, Employee characteristics for 2001, Geographical dummies.
Year and Month dummies, Employee characteristics for 2001.
Year and Month dummies.
Treatment
Fixed Effect estimation - Robust p values in brackets
-1500 HUF ≈ -5.8 EUR Reminder: ΔNet I (true)= - 37 €
Results (II)
Dependent variable:
Reference group:-1165 -1471 -1126 -1372(0.078) (0.022) (0.129) (0.061)
- 0.05 - 0.05
(0.009) (0.033)
0.02 0.02
(0.059) (0.129)
R-Squared 0.31 0.32 0.35 0.35
Additional Controls:
-1579 -1745 -1647 -1761(0.036) (0.019) (0.057) (0.041)
- 0.04 - 0.04
(0.019) (0.083)
0.02 0.02
(0.225) (0.250)
R-Squared 0.39 0.39 0.42 0.43
Additional Controls:
-1473 -1573 -1578 -1624(0.061) (0.042) (0.079) (0.068)
- 0.05 - 0.05
(0.016) (0.032)
0.01 0.02
(0.384) (0.382)
R-Squared 0.42 0.42 0.45 0.45
Additional Controls:
Number of HH
HH treated
Tot HH Income - excl. Home Production
Food, not own production; monthlyMW2000<Wage 2000<2* MW2001 MW2000<Wage 2000<1.5* MW2001
Treatment
Year and Month dummies.
Treatment
Tot HH Income - excl. Home Production
Tot HH Income - excl. Home Production*(t-1)
- -
Year and Month dummies, Employee characteristics for 2001.
Treatment
Tot HH Income - excl. Home Production
-Tot HH Income - excl. Home Production*(t-1)
-
Year and Month dummies, Employee characteristics for 2001, Geographical dummies.
808 571
Tot HH Income - excl. Home Production*(t-1)
- -
149 149
Fixed Effect estimation - Robust p values in brackets
Continuous Treatment - Definition
40,000 HUFWage 2000
d
: ∑j dij
• Private employees in 2001
• Wage in 2000: [90% MW 2000 – 100% MW 2001]
• Wage in 2001: [90% MW 2001 – 100% MW 2001]
Continuous Treatment – Results (I)
Dependent variable:
Reference group: MW2000<Wage 2000<2* MW2001 MW2000<Wage 2000<1.5* MW2001
-0.09 -0.08(0.154) (0.240)
R-Squared 0.31 0.34
Additional Controls:
-0.14 -0.15(0.073) (0.069)
R-Squared 0.38 0.42
Additional Controls:
-0.14 -0.14(0.068) (0.099)
R-Squared 0.41 0.45
Additional Controls:
Number of HH 808 571
HH treated 153 153
Food, not own production; monthly
Treatment
Year and Month dummies, Employee characteristics for 2001, Geographical dummies.
Year and Month dummies, Employee characteristics for 2001.
Treatment
Year and Month dummies.
Treatment
Fixed Effect estimation - Robust p values in brackets
Continuous Treatment - Results (II)
Dependent variable:
Reference group:-0.07 -0.11 -0.07 -0.10(0.276) (0.086) (0.339) (0.153)
- 0.05 - 0.05
(0.009) (0.032)
0.02 0.02
(0.049) (0.115)
R-Squared 0.31 0.32 0.34 0.35
Additional Controls:
-0.12 -0.14 -0.14 -0.16(0.120) (0.059) (0.093) (0.057)
- 0.04 - 0.04
(0.017) (0.074)
0.02 0.02
(0.189) (0.222)
R-Squared 0.39 0.39 0.42 0.43
Additional Controls:
-0.13 -0.15 -0.14 -0.15(0.098) (0.054) (0.122) (0.081)
- 0.05 - 0.05
(0.014) (0.028)
0.01 0.02
(0.365) (0.366)
R-Squared 0.41 0.42 0.45 0.45
Additional Controls:
Number of HH
HH treated
Tot HH Income - excl. Home Production
Food, not own production; monthlyMW2000<Wage 2000<2* MW2001 MW2000<Wage 2000<1.5* MW2001
Treatment
Tot HH Income - excl. Home Production
Year and Month dummies.
Treatment
Tot HH Income - excl. Home Production * t
- -
Tot HH Income - excl. Home Production
Year and Month dummies, Employee characteristics for 2001.
Treatment
Tot HH Income - excl. Home Production * t
- -
Year and Month dummies, Employee characteristics for 2001, Geographical dummies.
808 571
Tot HH Income - excl. Home Production * t
- -
153 153
Fixed Effect estimation - Robust p values in brackets
Private Sector
Public Sector
MW 2000 MW 2001 150% (200%) MW 2001
T
Sector 2000
Wage 2000
C
“Potential Treatment” - Treatment at individual level
All employees for whole period (24M) :
025
500
8000
015
0000
2000
00
Year
199
9
0 25500 80000 150000 200000
Year 2000a
025
500
8000
015
0000
2000
00
Year
200
1
0 25500 80000 150000 200000
Year 2000b
The dash lines indicate MW in 2000, MW in 2001, 150% and 200% of MW in 2001
Only employees employed for whole period (24 months) in HH with constant family structure. HH with positive net income below 200000 in both years.
(Red: treated; Black: control)
Earnings from main activity
“Potential Treatment” - Treatment at household level
TREATi: number of HH members treated ( i.e. belonging to T )
Regression run on all households:
• where at least one member belongs to T or C
• with constant family structure
• with positive net income below 200,000 HUF in both years
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:200
1999
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:150
1999
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:200
2000 - 99/000
.00
00
2
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:150
2000 - 99/00
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:200
2000 - 00/01
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:150
2000 - 00/01
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:200
2001
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:150
2001
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:200
1999
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:150
1999
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:200
2000 - 99/00
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:150
2000 - 99/00
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:200
2000 - 00/01
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:150
2000 - 00/01
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:200
2001
0.0
00
02
De
ns
ity
0 100000 200000
HUF
T
C:150
2001
With (lhs) and without (rhs) home production
T - treatment group; C:200 - control group using 200% MW as upper bound; C:150 - control group using 150% MW as upper bound;
Kernel density estimation (epanechnikov); HH with positive net income below 200000 HUF in both years;
Household Total Net Income: Kernel Density Estimation
Results (I)
Dependent variable:
99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01
Reference group:-743 -1287 -624 -1029
(0.255) (0.046) (0.373) (0.161)
R-Squared 0.22 0.30 0.21 0.30
Additional Controls:
212 -1942 554 -1843(0.772) (0.019) (0.500) (0.047)
R-Squared 0.30 0.38 0.30 0.41
Additional Controls:
156 -1717 602 -1608(0.837) (0.041) (0.491) (0.092)
R-Squared 0.32 0.41 0.34 0.45
Additional Controls:
Number of HH 848 782 609 564
HH treated 197 195 197 195
Food, not own production; monthly
MW2000<Wage 2000<2* MW2001 MW2000<Wage 2000<1.5* MW2001
Treatment
Year and Month dummies, Employee characteristics for 2000.
Treatment
Year and Month dummies.
Treatment
Year and Month dummies, Employee characteristics for 2000, Geographical dummies.
Fixed Effect estimation - Robust p values in brackets
Results (II)
Dependent variable:
99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01
Reference group:-510 -1538 -494 -1218
(0.413) (0.019) (0.465) (0.103)
0.08 0.05 0.06 0.04
(0.000) (0.010) (0.005) (0.076)
R-Squared 0.24 0.31 0.23 0.31
Additional Controls:
529 -2178 747 -1936(0.456) (0.010) (0.352) (0.038)
0.08 0.05 0.06 0.03
(0.000) (0.018) (0.011) (0.208)
R-Squared 0.32 0.39 0.32 0.42
Additional Controls:
468 -1951 794 -1690(0.521) (0.023) (0.351) (0.079)
0.08 0.05 0.06 0.02
(0.000) (0.026) (0.010) (0.362)
R-Squared 0.35 0.42 0.35 0.45
Additional Controls:
Number of HH 848 782 609 564
HH treated 197 195 197 195
Year and Month dummies.
Treatment
Tot HH Income - excl. Home Production
Food, not own production; monthly
MW2000<Wage 2000<2* MW2001 MW2000<Wage 2000<1.5* MW2001
Treatment
Tot HH Income - excl. Home Production
Year and Month dummies, Employee characteristics for 2000.
Treatment
Tot HH Income - excl. Home Production
Year and Month dummies, Employee characteristics for 2000, Geographical dummies.
Fixed Effect estimation - Robust p values in brackets
Robustness checks
• Other controls: income change & income level, own production of food
• Other types of consumption
• “Placebo test”: replication assuming that a minimum wage in 2000 equivalent to 50,000 HUF (instead of 25,500), increasing in 2001 to 64,500 HUF (instead of 50,000)
• “Hand-to-mouth” households
Other (theoretical) results
• The interaction of minimum wage and underreporting transforms a nominally neutral tax system into a regressive one
• When underreporting is high fiscal revenues increase with the minimum wage
• Under some conditions, the size of the spike at minimum wage level and the size of the informal economy are positively correlated
Link between informal economy and size of the spike (I)
Kaitz index and minimum wage spike
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
minimum wage/ average wage 2002
Sp
ike
2002
Source: Eurostat, except France - Kaitz Index: own calculations
LV
HU
LTRO
EE
PL
CZ UK
USSK ES
BG
PT SI NL
IE
FR
Link between informal economy and size of the spike (II)
Informal Economy and minimum wage spike
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Informal economy (% of official GDP) 2001/02
Sp
ike
2002
US UK NL IE
CZ
ESSK
PT SI
PL BG
EE
ROLT
HU
FR
LV
Sources: informal economy: Schneider (2005); spike: Eurostat
Link between informal economy and size of the spike (III)
Thank you for your attention!
h
Extension – Working Time
yx y-x
τ
h-τ
top related