TY  - JOUR
AU  - Shapiro,Matthew D.
AU  - Slemrod,Joel
TI  - Consumer Response to the Timing of Income: Evidence from a Change in Tax Withholding
JF  - National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series
VL  - No. 4344
PY  - 1995
Y2  - April 1995
UR  - http://www.nber.org/papers/w4344
L1  - http://www.nber.org/papers/w4344.pdf
N1  - Author contact info:
Matthew D. Shapiro
Department of Economics
University of Michigan
611 Tappan St
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1220
Tel: 734/764-5419
Fax: 734 764-2769
E-Mail: shapiro@umich.edu

Joel Slemrod
University of Michigan Business School
701 Tappan Street
Room R5396
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1234
Tel: 734/936-3914
Fax: 734-615-4323
E-Mail: jslemrod@umich.edu
M2  - featured in NBER digest on 1994-02-01
AB  - In 1992, the income tax withholding tables were adjusted so that withholding was reduced. A typical worker received an extra $28.80 in take-home pay per month in March through December 1992, to be offset by a lower tax refund in 1993. The change in withholding amounted to 0.5 percent of GDP. President Bush, who proposed this change in his State of the Union address, intended that it provide a temporary stimulus to demand. But the policy change involved only the timing of income, so, under the life-cycle/permanent-income model, it would be predicted to have a negligible effect on consumption and aggregate demand. This paper reports consumers' responses to the change in withholding. The results are based on a survey taken shortly after it went into effect. Forty-three percent of consumers report spending the extra take-home pay--substantially more than the zero percent predicted by the standard models, but substantially less than the one hundred percent upon which the policy was predicated. The decision to save the income is not explained by expected income growth. Therefore, while behavior of many households is not fully consistent with the life-cycle/permanent-income model, liquidity constraints do not appear to account for this behavior.
ER  -