Income taxation across countries

The paper provides the most comprehensive cross-country empirical characterisation of effective income tax functions to date, estimating the two-parameter log-linear tax function — pioneered by Feldstein (1969) and applied in structural macroeconomics by Heathcote, Storesletten, and Violante (2017) — for over thirty countries across approximately four decades using harmonized household microdata from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS). The log-linear function fits income tax systems worldwide with median R² of 0.984 (mean 0.976), extending a finding previously known mainly for the United States to essentially all LIS countries. Five main facts emerge. First, income tax progressivity (τ) and average tax level (λ) are positively correlated across countries: Northern European countries with the highest average tax rates — Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Finland — also have the highest progressivity; countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Peru, and the Republic of Korea exhibit effectively flat income taxes (τ near zero or negative) despite progressive statutory codes, because actual enforcement and effective coverage are limited. Second, progressivity increases with economic development: richer countries systematically operate more progressive income tax systems, consistent with greater institutional capacity to enforce income taxation. Third, progressivity differs significantly by family structure: married couples with children face the highest progressivity across countries, single households without children the lowest, reflecting child tax credits, joint filing rules, and other family-based provisions. Fourth, the United States ranks toward the lower end of progressivity among high-income countries, with τ ≈ 0.046 in 2010; Belgium, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Spain are more than twice as progressive as the US. Fifth, transfers account for most redistribution: the combined tax-and-transfer system’s progressivity substantially exceeds that of income taxes alone, indicating that analyses focusing solely on income tax progressivity understate total redistributive effort.

The Geography of job creation and job destruction

This paper asks why unemployment rates differ so persistently across local labor markets, and what role job creation and job destruction play in generating those differences. The authors document a comprehensive set of spatial labor market facts using administrative and survey microdata from Germany, the United States, and the United Kingdom, then build and calibrate a quantitative theoretical framework that accounts for all documented regularities.

Data and scope. For Germany, the authors use administrative data from the German employment office (universe of vacancies and unemployed, 1999–2020) and the IAB social security sample (SIAB, 2% of all workers, 2000–2017) aggregated to 194 commuting zones. For the U.S., they use BLS Local Area Unemployment Statistics (2000–2019) at commuting zones, CPS worker flows at metropolitan areas, and JOLTS vacancy data for the 18 largest MSAs (covering roughly 40% of the U.S. labor force). For the UK, they use Nomis data and Jobcentre Plus vacancy records (2004–2006) for 378 Local Authority Districts.

Xincheng Qiu | Macro Paper Warehouse

Income taxation across countries

The Geography of job creation and job destruction