We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byAliyah Millson
Modified about 1 year ago
TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2008 www.PosterPresentations.com Reframing Generational Accounting John B. Williamson and Anna Rhodes Boston College, Department of Sociology, Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467 USA ABSTRACT OVERVIEW OF GENERATIONAL ACCOUNTING The GA model compares tax burdens by calculating account balances, in present value, for each age cohort assuming the continuation of current tax and transfer policies combined with projections of the population, government wealth, government expenditures, and a discount rate (Auerbach and Kotlikoff 1999). The account balances generated reflect each age cohort’s projected lifetime net tax payment, that is, projected lifetime tax payments less lifetime transfers looking forward from the specified base year. Two different techniques for doing GA have been outlined, the first is used much more extensively than the second. The first involves calculating account balances for each generation forward from a chosen base year (Auerbach, Gokhale, & Kotlikoff 1991). Since these accounts do not include past taxes and transfers, it is not, for example, appropriate to compare the accounts of a cohort at age 20 and a cohort at age 65. The cohorts that can most appropriately be compared are newborns in the base year and as yet unborn future age cohorts as their account balances will all represent projections from birth to death. The second method is used to calculate the accounts forward from the birth year of each cohort so that the accounts of different cohorts can be compared (Auerbach, Gokhale, & Kotlikoff 1994). This method can be used to estimate the size of the change in cohort lifetime net tax payments under different tax policies. Generational accounting has it supporters in the economic community, but it also has its critics, many of whom argue that the GA model, like other economic forecasting models, is based on assumptions which may, in hindsight, prove highly inaccurate (Buchanan 2005; Haveman 1994; Cutler 1993). Some criticisms focus on the assumptions underpinning the model while others focus on the ways in which the model has been applied. We focus on three major criticisms. One is of the set of assumptions linked the life-cycle model used. The GA model assumes that people will “smooth” their consumption over their lifetime based on expectations about their lifetime earnings, but many do not do so (Feist 2003). Another criticism concerns the discount rate and how it is used. In short, the GA model assumes that at any given time, future fiscal policy, future income, and future interest rates are as important to people’s consumption as current fiscal policy, income, and interest rates (Wilcox 1989). Cutler (1993) disagrees, arguing that due to lack of rational foresight many people are unable to accurately assess the consequences of current fiscal policies for future taxes and related benefits. A third criticism is that the GA model does not factor in who would be paying for certain government transfers to old people if not the government. Feist (2003) points out that for certain expenses such as health care it would most likely would be their children. When these family transfers that would take place are factored in, a case can be made that the generational accounts are less out of balance and thus more sustainable than the GA estimates suggest. REFRAMING GENERATIONAL EQUITY To address the evidence that the debt/GDP ratio is increasing in the United States, some policy changes must be made. But what combination of benefit cuts and tax increases should be used? Who will be bear the greatest burden due to those changes? Will the resulting distribution of the tax burden be less fair than today? The changes made will have potentially substantial implications for both inter generational equity and intra generational equity. Conservatives tend to back calls for cuts in social spending programs such as Social Security (Longman 1987; Peterson 1996), while progressives generally argue that such cuts will harm vulnerable segments of the population (Quadagno 1989; Williamson & Watts-Roy 1999). GA address these issues in a way that emphasizes age cohort specific differences in projected tax burdens associated with the increasing debt/GDP ratio in the absence of changes current tax and transfer policies. Projected lifetime imbalances in taxes are understood as demonstrating that these policies are unsustainable and therefore inter generationally inequitable. The reframing of GA that we outline seeks to consider how proposed new policies would affect inter generational equity as well as other forms, particularly intra generational equity. To examine intra generational equity we must recognize that changes to policies such as Social Security have different effects on people based on income level, race, ethnicity, immigration status, and gender, among other factors (Kingson & Williamson 1999). Our reframing of GA would put the emphasis on the need to assess the potential consequences of proposed policy changes on the most vulnerable segments of the population, not just those defined by their age cohort. Some policy reforms may affect intergenerational altruistic assistance, both monetary and otherwise, as family transfers are ignored in current GA models (Haveman 1994). Current GA models include government spending on scientific research, but fail to include even estimates of the benefits of that spending. The same is true with spending on infrastructure improvements, efforts to slow the rate of greenhouse gas emissions, and spending on national parks (Helliwell 1998). The GA models generally focus on the average person in the specified cohort, a practice that potentially provides a less than accurate picture for those who differ substantially from that average as well as neglecting the distributional impacts of proposed new policies on intra generational differences as defined by race, ethnicity, income, age, and often gender (although gender specific models are sometimes estimated. When Kotlikoff and Burns (2004) justify their call for the partial privatization of Social Security in the USA based on the GA model, they ignore the potentially substantial adverse distributional implications of such a policy change. Their version of GA does not fit with the reframed version of GA that we are proposing. Unpredictable bad events can and do happen (wars, plagues, depressions, natural disasters) that make narrowly focused efforts to equalize age-cohort specific burdens, to the neglect of other intra generational burdens, impractical and politically unacceptable. Our proposed reframing of GA represents an effort to deal with the drawbacks of neglecting important intra generational aspects of GA as currently framed. REFERENCES ECONOMIC CRITICISMS CONCLUSION Additional Contact Information An important contribution of the generational accounting model is that it highlights the current and projected future gap between spending on transfer programs such as Social Security and available tax revenues, alerting policy makers to the need to enact legislation to bring the two into closer balance. In theory, generational accounting models are ideologically neutral and of potential use by analysts on both the right and the left, but in practice they are primarily used to bolster calls for cuts in spending including spending on Social Security as part of an effort to reduce deficits and smooth the tax burden across age cohorts. These models fail to adequately factor in the potentially adverse intra generational consequences of Social Security cuts being proposed in the name of reducing the future size of the government debt and the resulting tax burden on future generations. Rather than rejecting generational accounting, our analysis proposes reframing it so as to include inter generational equity along with a much greater focus on intra generational equity. Auerbach, Alan J., Jagadeesh Gokhale, & Laurence J. Kotlikoff. 1991. “Generational Accounts – A Meaningful Alternative to Deficit Accounting.” Working Paper No. 3589, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Auerbach, Alan J., Jagadeesh Gokhale, & Laurence J. Kotlikoff. 1994. “Generational Accounting: A Meaningful Way to Evaluate Fiscal Policy.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(1):73-94. Auerbach, Alan J. & Laurence J. Kotlikoff. 1999. “The Methodology of Generational Accounting.” Pp. 31-41 in Generational Accounting Around the World, edited by Alan J. Auerbach, Laurence J. Cutler, David M. 1993. “Review of Generational Accounting: Knowing Who Pays, and When, for What We Spend.” National Tax Journal 46(1):61-67. Kotlikoff, & Willi Leibfritz. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Buchanan, Neil H. 2005. “Social Security, Generational Justice, and Long-Term Deficits.” Working Paper No. 20, Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers, Newark, NJ. Feist, Karen. 2003. “Generational Accounting as a Tool for Modelling Social Expenditure in Europe.” Futures, 35:49-59. Gokhale, Jagadeesh & Laurence J. Kotlikoff. 2001. “Is War Between the Generations Inevitable?” Policy Report No. 246, National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas, TX. Haveman, Robert. 1994. “Should Generational Accounts Replace Public Budgets and Deficits?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(1):95-111. Helliwell, John F. 1998. “What Will We Be Leaving You?” Pp. 141-147 in Miles Corak (Ed.) Government Finances and Generational Equity, Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada, Minister of Industry. Kingson, Eric R. & John B. Williamson. 1999. “Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea.” Pp. 204-219 in The Generational Equity Debate, edited by John B. Williamson, Diane M. Watts-Roy, & Eric R. Kingson. New York: Columbia University Press. Kotlikoff, Laurence J. 1992. Generational Accounting. New York: The Free Press. Kotlikoff, Laurence J. 2006. “Is the United States Bankrupt? ” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review 88(4):235-249. Kotlikoff, Laurence J. & Scott Burns. 2004. The Coming Generational Storm. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Longman, Phillip. 1987. Born to Pay: The New Politics of Aging in America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Peterson, Peter G. 1996. Will America Grow Up Before It Grows Old? New York: Random House. Quadango, Jill. 1989. “Generational Equity and the Politics of the Welfare State.” Politics and Society 17:353-376. Raffelhüschen, Bernd. 1999. “Generational Accounting in Europe.” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings of the One Hundred Eleventh Annual Meetings of the American Economic Association 89(2): 167-170. Wilcox, David W. 1989. “Social Security Benefits, Consumption Expenditure, and the Life Cycle Hypothesis.” Journal of Political Economy 97(2): 288-304. Williamson, John B. & Diane M. Watts-Roy. 1999. “Framing the Generational Equity Debate.” Pp. 33-37 in The Generational Equity Debate, edited by John B. Williamson, Diane M Watts-Roy, & Eric R. Kingson. New York: Columbia University Press. Williamson, John B. & Diane M. Watts-Roy. 2009. “Aging Boomers, Generational Equity, and Framing the Debate over Social Security.” Pp. 153-169 in Boomer Bust? Economic and Political Issues of the Graying Society, Vol. 1, edited by Robert B. Hudson. Westport, CT: Praeger. INTRODUCTION The concept of “generational accounting” is typically used to support the argument that each generation (defined in terms of age cohorts) should bear the same net lifetime tax burden. Generational accounting is often used both in the United States and internationally to bolster calls for cuts in spending on public pensions and other government social programs. It is argued that these cuts will serve to equalize the burden on each generation. Our analysis begins with an assessment of the pros and cons of the generational accounting model. A benefit is that it has contributed to an increased awareness of the generational implications of government spending policies. However, questions can be raised concerning some of the underlying assumptions (e.g., rational foresight) used in the model. In addition, there are a number of serious omissions such as social class and other forms of intra- generational inequity. The costs are included, but the benefits are excluded when it comes to government spending on programs such as national parks and scientific research because it is not possible to specify the value of their outputs in precise monetary terms. Our proposed reframing of generational accounting takes into consideration a broader range of the burdens and benefits of government spending programs including some with outputs that cannot be monetarily measured. Although it gives up the precision of the current generational accounting model, it fosters needed attention to the broad range of social equity issues that are important for policy makers to consider when making decisions about spending on pubic pensions and other social programs. Generational Accounting (hereafter GA) is a concept and model developed by Laurence Kotlikoff and his colleagues to project how resources (transfers) and tax burdens are distributed across generations, actually age-cohorts (Kotlikoff 1992; 2006; Kotlikoff & Burns 2004; Auerbach, Gokhale, & Kotlikoff 1991). Research on GA can be viewed as a contribution to the broader literature on “generational equity” (Longman 1987; Quadagno 1989; Peterson 1996). The generational equity debate began in the United States in the 1980s as a contest between two interpretative packages: the generation equity frame and the generational interdependence frame (Williamson & Watts-Roy 2009). Proponents of the generational interdependence frame tend to oppose proposals to make large cuts in Social Security due to concern about adverse consequences for economically vulnerable segments of the population. Our study examines the current framing of generational accounting and how the model is used in debates about government fiscal policy. Proponents say it shows that current fiscal policy is unsustainable and therefore inequitable across generations, while critics argue that the model is too narrowly focused on government taxes and transfers while excluding the potential benefits of spending on some social programs with outcomes that cannot be measured in precise monetary terms. The GA model has also been used to analyze projected generational tax burdens in several European countries such as Austria, Finland, Germany, Italy, and Sweden (Raffelhüschen 1999). John B. Williamson, Ph.D. Phone: 00 1 617 552 8530 Email: email@example.com Web: www2.bc.edu/~jbw
Lecture outline Crowding out effect Closed and open economies Ricardian equivalence revisited Debt burden and dead weight loss.
Chapter Fifteen1 A PowerPoint Tutorial to Accompany macroeconomics, 5th ed. N. Gregory Mankiw Mannig J. Simidian ® CHAPTER FIFTEEN Government Debt.
Generational Accounting Workshop Nov. 11, 2014 NTA10, Beijing.
1 America’s National Debt. 2 Important Concepts What’s the difference between deficits and debt? Deficits: The annual imbalance between revenues and spending.
Social Security Policy in Ageing Societies: The Rich and the Poor Ronald Lee Panelist NTA10, Beijing, Nov
Chapter Fifteen1 CHAPTER FIFTEEN Government Debt.
Copyright © 2009 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. Chapter 12 The Government Budget, the Public Debt, and Social Security.
America’s National Debt and Long-Term Outlook An Overview of the Challenge and the Implications for Young People March 2009.
Controversy 8 Should Age or Need Be the Basis for Entitlement? (c) 2011, SAGE Publications, Inc.
Comments on Rudolph G. Penner and Richard W. Johnson, “Health Care Costs, Taxes, and the Retirement Decision” Alan Gustman August 10, 2006.
The fiscal costs of ageing in the euro area: will the young have to pay the bill? Ad van Riet Head of the Fiscal Policies Division European Central Bank.
Inflation, Unemployment, and Stabilization Policies: Long-run Implications of Fiscal Policy AP Economics Mr. Bordelon.
POLITICS, DEFICITS, AND DEBT The social security debate It’s the demography stupid!
Social Welfare Policymaking
IDSP-465 Issues in Gerontology: A Life Course Perspective on Aging IDSP 465/565: Issues in Gerontology Controversy 8: Should Age or Need Be the Basis for.
Chapter 6 Equity and Income Distribution Chapter outline 1.Government and Redistribution 2.Concepts of Equity 3.Equity, Administrative Efficiency, and.
ECONOMICS 3 2/9/2012. Learning Objectives Critically analyze social problems by identifying value perspectives and applying concepts of sociology, political.
Chapter Eighteen Economic Policy. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved Theories of Economic Policy Taxes and spending are the.
TOPIC 4 (supplement) Debt and Deficits (After Exam)
Fiscal Policy (Government Spending) Fiscal Policy and Government Spending.
The financial costs and benefits of alcohol The financial costs and benefits of alcohol Christine Godfrey Department of Health Sciences & Centre for Health.
Population ageing - a demographic trend with multiple consequences!! Prof. Manuela Epure, PhD 16/11/2012 Shaping EU Socio-economic challenges.
Gender Impact Assessment of Taxes and Benefits Susan Himmelweit Open University Women’s Budget Group.
The Role of the Fiscal Policy in Poverty Reduction Youngsun Koh Korea Development Institute.
Chapter Sixteen1 CHAPTER 16 Government Debt and Budget Deficits ® A PowerPoint Tutorial To Accompany MACROECONOMICS, 7th. Edition N. Gregory Mankiw Tutorial.
POSC 2200 – International Political Economy Russell Alan Williams Department of Political Science.
Texas Impact Advocacy Camp Revenue Background January 13, 2009 Dick Lavine
Political Economics Riccardo Puglisi Lecture 6 Content: An Overview of the Pension Systems Distinguish Features Economic and Political Explanation A Simple.
1 Fiscal Policy. The overall federal budget Deficit 2.
The Short Run: Countercyclical Fiscal Policy Fiscal policy In the short run Has demand-side effects on output and employment Countercyclical fiscal policy.
Chapter 2 Thinking Like an Economist Ratna K. Shrestha.
Chapter 13Copyright ©2010 by South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning. All rights reserved ECON Designed by Amy McGuire, B-books, Ltd. McEachern 2010-
20 CHAPTER Social Security PUBLIC SECTOR ECONOMICS: The Role of Government in the American Economy Randall Holcombe.
1 Chapter 18 – Deficit Finance Public Economics. 2 Introduction Besides taxation, the government’s other major revenue source is borrowing. In this lesson,
Fourth Annual Meeting of NTA Project University of California in Berkeley January 2007 CONSTRUCTION OF NATIONAL TRANSFER ACCOUNTS FOR INDIA: METHODS,
The Design of the Tax System Chapter 12. “ In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes. ”... Benjamin Franklin Taxes paid.
The Effects of Different Land Uses in Missouri on Local Fiscal Conditions – Cost of Community Services Project Update – 4/12/02.
Pension Analysis and the PER Richard P. Hinz, Adviser, HDNSP Anita M. Schwarz, Lead Economist, ECSHD April 2007.
CHAPTER 15 Government Debt slide 0 Econ 101: Intermediate Macroeconomic Theory Larry Hu Lecture 9: Government Debt.
CHAPTER 21 Taxes, Social Insurance, and Income Distribution PowerPoint® Slides by Can Erbil © 2004 Worth Publishers, all rights reserved.
Economic Challenges of Bulgaria Lecture at the Military Academy of Sofia, July 17, 2003 by Piritta Sorsa, IMF representative in Bulgaria.
ANALYZING LEISLATION WITH A GENDER PERSPECTIVE Gender Based Analysis Et Al. The Hon. Sarmite D. Bulte, P.C. May 31, 2007.
Chapter 18. Give examples of the processes used by individuals, political parties, interest groups, or the media to affect public policy. Describe.
Deficits and Debt. Deficit A deficit is a shortfall of incoming revenues vs. spending –If revenues exceed spending >Budget Surplus –If revenues equal.
© 2007 Thomson South-Western 11. THE TAX SYSTEM. © 2007 Thomson South-Western U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK The Outstanding Public Debt as of Oct. 12, 2011.
Lecture outline Musgrave’s model of the Ministry of Fiscal Affairs Classical views on public debt management Difference between debt and taxes Alternative.
POLITICS, DEFICITS, AND DEBT Deficits. Laugher Curve When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the pearly gates. To.
© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved Chapter 15 Government Spending and its Financing.
© 2007 Thomson South-Western. “In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.”... Benjamin Franklin Taxes paid in Ben Franklin’s.
FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY OF STATE GOVERNMENT Presentation Prepared for the Appropriations Committee and the Finance, Revenue, and Bonding Committee by the.
© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.