Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

This problem focuses on the interaction of the corporate profits tax with firms' investment decisions. a. Suppose (contrary to fact) that profits were defined for tax purposes as what we have called pure economic profits. How would a tax on such profits affect investment decisions? b. In fact, profits are defined for tax purposes as \\[ \pi^{\prime}=p q-w l-\text { depreciation } \\] where depreciation is determined by governmental and industry guidelines that seek to allocate a machine's costs over its "useful" lifetime. If depreciation were equal to actual physical deterioration and if a firm were in longrun competitive equilibrium, how would a tax on \(\pi^{\prime}\) affect the firm's choice of capital inputs? c. Given the conditions of part (b), describe how capital usage would be affected by adoption of "accelerated depreciation" policies, which specify depreciation rates in excess of physical deterioration early in a machine's life but much lower depreciation rates as the machine ages. d. Under the conditions of part (c), how might a decrease in the corporate profits tax affect capital usage?

Short Answer

Expert verified
Answer: A tax on pure economic profit serves as a fixed cost to the firm, reducing its overall profitability. However, as long as the firm is making a positive pure economic profit after the taxes, it will have the financial capacity to invest. As a result, a tax on pure economic profit might not directly affect a firm's investment decisions but could affect the overall profitability and funds available for reinvestment.

Step by step solution

01

Pure economic profit is the difference between the total revenue a firm receives and its opportunity costs. It represents the profit a firm has after considering all the direct and indirect costs, including normal profit. #Step 2: Explain the tax on pure economic profit and its impact on investment decisions#

If profits were defined for tax purposes as pure economic profits, a tax on such profits would act as a fixed cost to the firm and reduces its overall profitability. However, as long as the firm is making a positive pure economic profit after the taxes, it will have the financial capacity to invest. As a result, a tax on pure economic profit might not directly affect a firm's investment decisions but could affect the overall profitability and funds available for reinvestment. #b. Effect of tax on actual profit considering depreciation# #Step 1: Define the given equation for profits#
02

Profits are given by the equation: \\[\pi^{\prime}=p q-w l-\text { depreciation } \\]Here, \\(\pi^{\prime}\\) is the profit, \\(p\\) is the price of output, \\(q\\) is the quantity of output, \\(w\\) is the wage rate, \\(l\\) is the labor input, and depreciation refers to the loss in value of the capital over time. #Step 2: Analyze the effect of a tax on actual profit with depreciation on capital inputs#

If depreciation were equal to actual physical deterioration and the firm were in long-run competitive equilibrium, a tax on \\(\pi^{\prime}\\) would not affect the firm's choice of capital inputs. This is because, in a long-run competitive equilibrium, the firm's profits are already reduced to zero, leaving no additional funds to invest in capital. #c. Effect of adopting accelerated depreciation policies# #Step 1: Describe accelerated depreciation policies#
03

Accelerated depreciation policies specify depreciation rates in excess of physical deterioration early in a machine's life but much lower depreciation rates as the machine ages. It means that the value of the capital will decrease more rapidly during the early years of use and would allow the firm to report lower taxable profits during this period. #Step 2: Analyze the effect of accelerated depreciation policies on capital usage#

Given the conditions of part (b), adopting accelerated depreciation policies would lead to a higher depreciation rate early in the machine's life and result in lower taxable profits. This could provide an incentive for firms to invest in newer capital assets, as they can have higher depreciation rates and hence, lower taxable profits in the beginning. Hence, it could result in an increase in capital usage. #d. Effect of a decrease in the corporate profits tax on capital usage# #Step 1: Analyze the impact of a decrease in the corporate profits tax#
04

Under the conditions of part (c), a decrease in the corporate profits tax would mean that the tax burden on firms is reduced. This could potentially lead to increased profitability for firms and more funds available for investment. #Step 2: Determine the effect on capital usage#

With additional funds available due to the decrease in corporate profits tax, firms might be more likely to invest in capital assets, increasing capital usage. However, the adoption of accelerated depreciation policies might still be in place, providing an incentive for firms to invest in new capital assets with higher depreciation rates early in their life, as it would help in reducing taxable profits. Overall, a decrease in corporate profits tax under the conditions of part (c) could lead to an increase in capital usage.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Assume that an individual expects to work for 40 years and then retire with a life expectancy of an additional 20 years. Suppose also that the individual's earnings increase at a rate of 3 percent per year and that the interest rate is also 3 percent (the overall price level is constant in this problem). What (constant) fraction of income must the individual save in each working year to be able to finance a level of retirement income equal to 60 percent of earnings in the year just prior to retirement?

An individual has a fixed wealth ( \(W\) ) to allocate between consumption in two periods \(\left(c_{1} \text { and } c_{2}\right) .\) The individual's utility function is given by \\[ U\left(c_{1}, c_{2}\right) \\] and the budget constraint is \\[ W=c_{1}+\frac{c_{2}}{1+r} \\] where \(r\) is the one-period interest rate. a. Show that, in order to maximize utility given this budget constraint, the individual should choose \(c_{1}\) and \(c_{2}\) such that the \(M R S\left(\text { of } c_{1} \text { for } c_{2}\right)\) is equal to \(1+r\) b. Show that \(\partial c_{2} / \partial r \geq 0\) but that the sign of \(\partial c_{1} / \partial r\) is ambiguous. If \(\partial c_{1} / \partial r\) is negative, what can you conclude about the price elasticity of demand for \(c_{2} ?\) c. How would your conclusions from part (b) be amended if the individual received income in each period ( \(y_{1}\) and \(y_{2}\) ) such that the budget constraint is given by \\[ y_{1}-c_{1}+\frac{y_{2}-c_{2}}{1+r}=0 ? \\]

The notion that people might be "shortsighted" was formalized by David Laibson in "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting" (Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1997, pp. \(443-77\) ). In this paper the author hypothesizes that individuals maximize an intertemporal utility function of the form \\[ \text { utility }=U\left(c_{t}\right)+\beta \sum_{\tau=1}^{\tau=T} \delta^{\tau} U\left(c_{t+\tau}\right) \\] where \(0<\beta<1\) and \(0<\delta<1 .\) The particular time pattern of these discount factors leads to the possibility of shortsightedness. a. Laibson suggests hypothetical values of \(\beta=0.6\) and \(\delta=0.99 .\) Show that, for these values, the factors by which future consumption is discounted follow a general hyperbolic pattern. That is, show that the factors decrease significantly for period \(t+1\) and then follow a steady geometric rate of decrease for subsequent periods. b. Describe intuitively why this pattern of discount rates might lead to shortsighted behavior. c. More formally, calculate the MRS between \(c_{t+1}\) and \(c_{t+2}\) at time \(t .\) Compare this to the \(M R S\) between \(c_{l+1}\) and \(c_{l+2}\) at time \(t+1 .\) Explain why, with a constant real interest rate, this would imply "dynamically inconsistent" choices over time. Specifically, how would the relationship between optimal \(c_{t+1}\) and \(c_{t+2}\) differ from these two perspectives? d. Laibson explains that the pattern described in part (c) will lead "early selves" to find ways to constrain "future selves" and so achieve full utility maximization. Explain why such constraints are necessary. e. Describe a few of the ways in which people seck to constrain their future choices in the real world.

Many results from the theory of finance are framed in terms of the expected gross rate of return \(E\left(R_{i}\right)=E\left(x_{i}\right) / p_{i}\) on a risky asset. In this problem you are asked to derive a few of these results. a. Use Equation 17.37 to show that \(E\left(R_{i}\right)-R_{f}=\) \\[ -R_{f} \operatorname{Cov}\left(m, R_{i}\right) \\] b. In mathematical statistics the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality states that for any two random variables \(x\) and \(y,|\operatorname{Cov}(x, y)| \leq \sigma_{x} \sigma_{y}\) Use this result to show that \\[ \left|E\left(R_{i}\right)-R_{j}\right| \leq R_{j} \sigma_{m} \sigma_{k} \\] c. Sharpe ratio bound. In finance, the "Sharpe ratio" is defined as the excess expected return of a risky asset over the risk-free rate divided by the standard deviation of the return on that risky asset. That is, Sharpe ratio \(=\left[E\left(R_{4}\right)-R_{f}\right] / \sigma_{R_{i}} .\) Use the results of part (b) to show that the upper bound for the Sharpe ratio is \(\sigma_{m} / E(m) .\) (Note: The ratio of the standard deviation of a random variable to its mean is termed the "coefficient of variation," or \(C V\). This part shows that the upper bound of the Sharpe ratio is given by the \(C V\) of the stochastic discount rate. d. Approximating the \(C V\) of \(m\). The stochastic discount factor, \(m,\) is random because consumption growth is random. Sometimes it is convenient to assume that consumption growth follows a "lognormal" distribution-that is, the logarithm of consumption growth follows a Normal distribution. Let the standard deviation of the logarithm consumption growth be given by \(\sigma_{\ln \Delta c}\) Given these assumptions, it can be shown that \(C V(m)=\sqrt{e^{r^{2}} \tan \alpha}-1 .\) Use this result to show that an approximation to the value of this radical can be expressed as \(C V(m) \cong \gamma \sigma_{\ln \Delta c}\) e. Equity premium paradox. Search the Internet for historical data on the average Sharpe ratio for a broad stock market index over the past 50 years. Use this result together with the rough estimate that \(\sigma_{\ln 3 e} \approx .01\) to show that parts (c) and (d) of this problem imply a very high value for individual's relative risk aversion parameter \(\gamma\). That is, the relatively high historical Sharpe ratio for stocks can only be justified by our theory if people are much more risk averse than is usually assumed. This is termed the "equity premium paradox." What do you make of it?

A high-pressure life insurance salesman was heard to make the following argument: "At your age a \(\$ 100,000\) whole life policy is a much better buy than a similar term policy. Under a whole life policy you'll have to pay \(\$ 2,000\) per year for the first 4 years but nothing more for the rest of your life. A term policy will cost you \(\$ 400\) per year, essentially forever. If you live 35 years, you'll pay only \(\$ 8,000\) for the whole life policy, but \(\$ 14,000(=\$ 400 \cdot 35)\) for the term policy. Surely, the whole life is a better deal"" Assuming the salesman's life expectancy assumption is correct, how would you evaluate this argument? Specifically, calculate the present discounted value of the premium costs of the two policies assuming the interest rate is 10 percent.

See all solutions

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free