Skip to main content


Tax Prices and Charitable Giving: Projected Changes in Donations Under the 2017 TCJA
Jonathan Meer, Texas A&M University and NBER
Benjamin Priday, Texas A&M University

Meer and Priday estimate the tax price elasticity of charitable giving using newly-available data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. They find that households that always itemize are less sensitive to tax preferences than households that switch itemizing status. The researchers apply these results to the provisions of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, taking into account the marginal propensity to donate from the increase in disposable income expected for most households, and predict significant reductions in charitable giving.

The Employer Penalty, Voluntary Compliance, and the Size Distribution of Firms: Evidence from a Survey of Small Businesses
Casey B. Mulligan, University of Chicago and NBER

A new survey of 745 small businesses shows little change in the size distribution of businesses between 2012 and 2016, except among businesses with 40-74 employees, in a way that is closely related to whether they offer health insurance coverage. Using measures of both size and voluntary regulatory compliance, Mulligan applies these changes to the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate. Between 28,000 and 50,000 businesses nationwide appear to be reducing their number of full-time-equivalent employees to below 50 because of that mandate. This translates to roughly 250,000 positions eliminated from those businesses.


In addition to the conference paper, the research was distributed as NBER Working Paper w24037, which may be a more recent version.

Taxes, Incorporation, and Productivity
Robert J. Barro, Harvard University and NBER
Brian Wheaton, Harvard University

U.S. businesses can be C-corporations or pass-through entities in the forms of S-corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships. C-corporate status conveys benefits from perpetual legal identity, limited liability, potential for public trading of shares, and ability to retain earnings. However, legal changes have enhanced pass-through alternatives, notably through the invention of the S-corporation in 1958, the advent of publicly-traded partnerships in the early 1980s, and the improved legal status of limited liability companies (LLCs) at the end of the 1980s. C-corporate form is typically subject to a tax wedge, which offsets the productivity benefits. Barro and Wheaton use a theoretical framework in which firms' productivities under C-corporate and pass-through form are distributed as bivariate log-normal. The tax wedge determines the fraction of firms that opt for C-corporate status and also determines overall business output (productivity), the share of output generated by C-corporations, and the sensitivity of this share to the tax wedge. This framework underlies the researcher's empirical analysis of C-corporate shares of business economic activity. Long-difference regressions for 1968-2013 show that a higher tax wedge reduces the C-corporate share of net capital stocks, equity (book value), gross assets, and positive net income, as well as the corporate share of gross investment. The C-corporate shares also exhibit downward trends, likely reflecting underlying legal changes. Barro and Wheaton infer from the quantitative findings that the reduction in the tax wedge since 1968 has expanded overall business productivity by about 4%.


In addition to the conference paper, the research was distributed as NBER Working Paper w25508, which may be a more recent version.

Building Emergency Savings Through Employer-Sponsored Rainy-Day Savings Accounts
John Beshears, Harvard University and NBER
James J. Choi, Yale University and NBER
Mark Iwry, The Brookings Institution
David John, AARP Public Policy Institute
David Laibson, Harvard University and NBER
Brigitte C. Madrian, Brigham Young University and NBER

Many Americans live paycheck to paycheck, carry revolving credit balances, and have little liquidity to absorb financial shocks (Angeletos et al. 2001; Kaplan and Violante 2014). One consequence of this financial vulnerability is that many individuals use a portion of their retirement savings during their working years. For every $1 that flows into 401(k)s and similar accounts, between 30¢ and 40¢ leaks out before retirement (Argento, Bryant, and Sabelhaus 2015). Beshears, Choi, Iwry, John, Laibson, and Madrian explore the practical considerations and challenges of helping households accumulate liquid savings that can be deployed when urgent pre-retirement needs arise. They believe that this can be achieved cost effectively by automatically enrolling workers into an employer-sponsored payroll deduction “rainy day” or “emergency” savings account, and present three specific implementation options.

One Medicare for All? The Economics of a Uniform Health Insurance Program
Katherine Baicker, University of Chicago and NBER
Mark Shepard, Harvard University and NBER
Jonathan S. Skinner, Dartmouth College and NBER

There is increasing interest in expanding Medicare coverage to younger populations, but less well understood is whether the current Medicare program is the right foundation on which to build. Traditional Medicare provides a uniform level of coverage to all recipients, and combined with supplemental plans, it is more generous in terms of coverage of new technologies and choice of doctors than nearly all public plans in other developed countries. Baicker, Shepard, and Skinner develop an economic framework to study the tradeoffs between uniformity versus choice among levels of health benefit generosity in public insurance programs. They argue that a uniform system made more sense when Medicare began in 1965, but it may not provide the best foundation going forward for at least three reasons. First, the income distribution was far more equal in 1966; since then as income inequality has risen, it is more difficult to design a uniform program that serves the needs of the top 1% and middle-income people simultaneously. Second, both the scale and cost of medical technology have expanded dramatically. In 1965, most treatment options were limited to surgery, inexpensive drugs, or hospitalization, so the rich could not “buy” more health care even if they wanted. Since that time, medical technology has evolved to create ever more expensive procedures or treatments with uncertain or small health benefits, creating a dilemma when Medicare must decide whether to cover these new innovations for everyone. Finally, the potential inefficiency inherent in tax financing of public health insurance benefits to high-income households implies that they would have been willing to pay for more out-of-pocket, particularly as health costs continue to outpace GDP growth. Baicker, Shepard, and Skinner further contrast on efficiency and equity grounds the structure of Medicare with the benchmark approach in many developed countries: a basic public benefit but one that allows higher-income households to either opt-out or top-up for additional care.



Edith Brashares, Department of the Treasury
David Brazell, Department of the Treasury
Chia Chang, Joint Committee on Taxation
Michael J. Chow, NVCA
James Cilke, Joint Committee on Taxation
Adam Cole, Department of the Treasury
Catherine Crato, Department of the Treasury
Erin E. Ferris, Federal Reserve Board
Joseph Hancuch, Department of the Treasury
Zheli He, University of Pennsylvania
Eda Herzog-Vitto, Department of the Treasury
Bobby Hodges, Internal Revenue Service
Sebastian James, The World Bank
John Kitchen, Congressional Budget Office
Ben Klemens, Department of the Treasury
Junghoon Lee, Congressional Budget Office
Janet Li
Diane Lim, University of Pennsylvania
William A. McBride, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Ellen Merry, Federal Reserve Board
Corbin Miller, U.S. Department of the Treasury
Edward Nannenhorn, Government Accountability Office
Sangjoon Park, Embassy of South Korea
John Ricco, University of Pennsylvania
Julia E. Robertson, Government Accountability Office
Joshua Rubin, Quantitative Economics and Statistics
Richard Rubin, "Wall Street Journal"
Molly Saunders-Scott, Congressional Budget Office
Jason Seligman, Investment Company Institute
Seul Ki. Shin, Penn Wharton Budget Model
Maxim Shvedov, AARP
Kenneth Simonson, The Associated General Contractors of America
Naveen Singhal, Congressional Budget Office
Ellen Steele, Congressional Budget Office
Lori Stuntz, Ernst & Young, LLP
Kathleen Toma, Joint Committee on Taxation
Michael E. Weber, Internal Revenue Service
Elwood White, Government Accountability Office
Jim Williamson, Congressional Budget Office
Lin Xu, Joint Committee on Taxation

More from NBER

In addition to working papers, the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter, the NBER Digest, the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability, and the Bulletin on Health — as well as online conference reports, video lectures, and interviews.

Economics of Digitization Figure 1
  • Article
The NBER Economics of Digitization Project, established in 2010 with support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,...
  • Lecture
Claudia Goldin, the Henry Lee Professor of Economics at Harvard University and a past president of the American...
2020 Methods Lecture Promo Image
  • Lecture
The extent to which individual responses to household surveys are protected from discovery by outside parties depends...