Taxes on Households=Transfer Payments?

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

各位大大，看曼昆的经济学宏观部分第26章有些不明白，问个问题。

书里在推导national saving是由public saving和private saving两部分组成的时候，用了这样一个推导，原文：

Let T denote the amount that the government collects from households in taxes minus the amount it pays back to households in the form of transfer payments(such as Social Security and welfare). We can then write national saving in either of two ways:

S=Y-C-G(Y denote GDP, C denote consumption and G denote government purchase, in this model we assume there is no importing or exporting so we don't need to include the Net Export in GDP)

or

S=(Y-T-C)+(T-G)

These equations are the same because the two Ts in the second equation cancel each other, but each reveals a different way of thinking about national saving. 原文引用到此为止，那么我的问题是：

按照作者的说法， taxes on households在数量上 等于 transfer payments了吗？亦即ZF征收的税全都用于福利？这说不通啊。。。就算这个模型是不算进出口，封闭的经济模型。
第二个问题来了。

这个问题也是书里特别留了一段加以区分，或者说澄清的，就是在讲government policy怎么影响interest rate和the amount of loanable fund的时候，为什么government发行ZF债券来向民众融资借钱的时候，影响的是loanable fund的supply而不是demand，就是说，为什么ZF借钱不会增加社会对loanable fund的demand，反而减少了loanable fund的supply呢？而households借钱则是增加了demand，对supply没影响? 书里说的只是对loanable fund的理解不一样导致这种不同，可是我想，同一个模型，做同一种分析，可以这么变换期中一个变量的内涵吗？我目前只能用这种逻辑理解：ZF添补赤字的时候是用household的saving来填补，即private saving？

求大大帮我解惑。

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏0 回帖

关键词：Households household payments transfer Payment 经济学 government national payments

didn't u quote "Let T denote the amount that the government collects from households in taxes minus the amount it pays back to households in the form of transfer payments"?

so T= taxes on household - transferred payment = net taxes >0

T-G = public/governmental savings, which is governmental income - governmental expenditure,
Y-T-C = private savings, which is income - net taxes - consumption.

the author indicates nowhere that T=0, and the formulas totally dont need T=0 to hold valid.

isuck 发表于 2013-3-9 00:34
didn't u quote "Let T denote the amount that the government collects from households in taxes minus  ...

卧槽，我傻逼了，谢谢大大！！

isuck 发表于 2013-3-9 00:34
didn't u quote "Let T denote the amount that the government collects from households in taxes minus  ...

大大，这一章我还有一个问题，现在太晚了，改天我再请教你哈，谢谢！

isuck 发表于 2013-3-9 00:34
didn't u quote "Let T denote the amount that the government collects from households in taxes minus  ...

大大，我第二个问题已经补充了，请你看看。

hmm, guess we are reading different versions of Mankiw's.
But I believe he made some assumptions which u may have missed.

First of all, in a close economy, Mankiw assumed that GDP or total output is fixed by factors. In another words, think it as Y is determined by physical capital P and labor L, and under this situation, he assumes that either P or L or both is being used or applied saturated, which means u've already been using 100% of P or L or both, so Y is totally fixed at the maximum and cannot change.
Secondly, he assumes the government doesn't increase taxes T, therefore, the household consumption C=C(Y-T), as a function of Y and T is also fixed, therefore, private saving PS=Y-C-T is unchanged too.

Now look at the equation:
Y-C-T+ T-G =I, if the government applies an expansionary fiscal policy, which means G increases and they need to issue more sovereign bonds to borrow, then investment I has to decrease.
If u think of the left side of the equation as the sum of private savings and public savings, or "the source of loanable funds", then since PS=Y-C-T is fixed, and T is fixed, the increase of G decreases the total amount on left side of equation, which is reducing the supply of loanable funds.

suppose now some households want to borrow some money. what would they borrow for? there are only 3 ways to put money into: consumption, saving and investment. But remember now we have the constraint that Y,T are fixed, hence C and PS are also fixed, therefore the money can only go to investment I, which means u increase the right side of the equation, that's increasing the demand. it's easy to see that u don't borrow to save in bank, but the everyday experience of borrowing to consume may be in your way here. just remember C is determined by Y and T.
also by households borrowing, Mankiw may actually mean business borrowing, because the concept of firm is actually totally omitted in this model, and ultimately firms are owned by households anyways, so u don't need to think about firms here.

if u change the equation to:
Y-C-T = I + G-T, then that's what u said that the government is borrowing from the households to fund its running, namely, to finance its expenditure or deficit, and this borrowing, given that private savings,Y-C-T,is fixed, would crowd out I, since now government uses bigger proportion of private savings.
pretty much these are just different interpretations of the same paradigm.

isuck 发表于 2013-3-10 03:48
hmm, guess we are reading different versions of Mankiw's.
But I believe he made some assumptions wh ...

给我点时间消化。。。我看的是international edition(6 edition)，你呢？

luffyyao 发表于 2013-3-11 22:34
给我点时间消化。。。我看的是international edition(6 edition)，你呢？

7th edition,
http://www.amazon.com/Macroecono ... ankiw/dp/1429218878

isuck 发表于 2013-3-12 01:06
7th edition,
http://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-N-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/1429218878

已经出到七版了。。。没想到每一版的内容相差这么多。。。

luffyyao 发表于 2013-3-13 14:46
已经出到七版了。。。没想到每一版的内容相差这么多。。。

估计内容还是差别不是很大吧，但是international edition编排可能不一样