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

Suppose an individual has \(W\) dollars to allocate between consumption this period \(\left(c_{0}\right)\) and consumption next period \(\left(c_{1}\right)\) and that the interest rate is given by \(r\) a. Graph the individual's initial equilibrium and indicate the total value of current-period savings \(\left(W-c_{0}\right)\) b. Suppose that, after the individual makes his or her savings decision (by purchasing one-period bonds), the interest rate decreases to \(r^{\prime} .\) How will this alter the individual's budget constraint? Show the new utilitymaximizing position. Discuss how the individual's improved position can be interpreted as resulting from a "capital gain" on his or her initial bond purchases. c. Suppose the tax authorities wish to impose an "income" tax based on the value of capital gains. If all such gains are valued in terms of \(c_{0}\) as they are "accrued," show how those gains should be measured. Call this value \(G_{1}\) d. Suppose instead that capital gains are measured as they are "realized" - that is, capital gains are defined to include only that portion of bonds that is cashed in to buy additional \(c_{0}\). Show how these realized gains can be measured. Call this amount \(G_{2}\) e. Develop a measure of the true increase in utility that results from the decrease in \(r,\) measured in terms of \(c_{0}\) Call this "true" capital gain \(G_{3}\). Show that \(G_{3}

Short Answer

Expert verified
Answer: The decrease in interest rate flattens the budget constraint, making it easier for the individual to borrow and consume more today. Under an income tax system, capital gains are valued as they are "accrued." Under a realized gains tax system, capital gains include only the portion of bonds cashed in to buy additional current-period consumption. A tax policy that taxes only realized gains would overestimate the true increase in utility resulting from the decrease in interest rate, leading to a higher tax burden for the individual compared to taxing the true capital gain.

Step by step solution

01

a. Initial Equilibrium and Savings

The individual has \(W\) dollars to allocate between consumption in period 0 (\(c_0\)) and consumption in period 1 (\(c_1\)). Given the interest rate \(r\), the budget constraint can be represented as: $$(1+r) * (W - c_{0})=c_{1}$$ At the initial equilibrium, the individual maximizes their utility subject to this budget constraint. Graphically, this occurs where the indifference curve is tangent to the budget constraint. The slope of the budget constraint is given by \(-(1+r)\). The total value of current-period savings can be calculated as \(W - c_{0}\).
02

b. Decrease in Interest Rate and New Utility-Maximizing Position

When the interest rate decreases to \(r'\), the new budget constraint is given by: $$(1+r')*(W - c_{0}) = c_{1}$$ The decrease in the interest rate essentially flattens the budget constraint, making it easier for the individual to borrow and consume more today. In the new equilibrium, the individual's utility-maximizing position changes. Graphically, this occurs where the new indifference curve is tangent to the new budget constraint. The initial bond purchases are now worth more due to the decrease in the interest rate, which can be interpreted as a "capital gain."
03

c. Capital Gains under Income Tax

Under an income tax system, capital gains \(G_{1}\) are valued in terms of \(c_{0}\) as they are "accrued." To find the value of \(G_{1}\), we need to measure the increase in consumption possibilities due to the decrease in the interest rate: $$G_{1} = (1+r')(W - c'_{0}) - (1+r)(W - c_{0})$$
04

d. Capital Gains under Realized Gains Tax

Under a realized gains tax system, capital gains \(G_{2}\) are defined to include only the portion of bonds that is cashed in to buy additional \(c_{0}\). To find the value of \(G_{2}\), we need to measure the increase in \(c_{0}\) due to the decrease in the interest rate: $$G_{2} = c_{0}'-c_{0}$$
05

e. True Capital Gain and Comparison

To find the true increase in utility resulting from the decrease in the interest rate (\(G_{3}\)), we need to derive a measure of it in terms of \(c_{0}\). The true capital gain is the difference between the individual's unconstrained optimal consumption in period 0 in the two scenarios (\(c_{0}\) and \(c_{0}'\)): $$G_{3} = c_{0}' - c_{0}$$ From the formulas derived earlier, we can see that: $$G_{3} < G_{2} < G_{1}$$ This implies that a tax policy that taxes only realized gains (i.e., \(G_{2}\)) would overestimate the true increase in utility resulting from the decrease in interest rate. It would lead to a higher tax burden for the individual compared to taxing the true capital gain (\(G_{3}\)).

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

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?

The calculations in Problem 17.4 assume there is no difference between the decisions to cut a single tree and to manage a woodlot. But managing a woodlot also involves replanting, which should be explicitly modeled. To do so, assume a lot owner is considering planting a single tree at a cost \(w,\) harvesting the tree at \(t^{\prime},\) planting another, and so forth forever. The discounted stream of profits from this activity is then \\[ \begin{aligned} V=&-w+e^{-n}[f(t)-w]+e^{-r 2 t}[f(t)-w] \\ &+\cdots+e^{-m t}[f(t)-w]+\cdots \end{aligned} \\] a. Show that the total value of this planned harvesting activity is given by \\[ V=\frac{f(t)-w}{e^{-n t}-1}-w \\] b. Find the value of \(t\) that maximizes \(V\). Show that this value solves the equation \\[ f^{\prime}\left(t^{*}\right)=r f\left(t^{*}\right)+r V\left(t^{*}\right) \\] c. Interpret the results of part (b): How do they reflect optimal usage of the "input" time? Why is the value of \(t^{\prime \prime}\) specified in part (b) different from that in Example \(17.2 ?\) d. Suppose tree growth (measured in constant dollars) follows the logistic function \\[ f(t)=50 /\left(1+e^{10-0.12}\right) \\] What is the maximum value of the timber available from this tree? e. If tree growth is characterized by the equation given in part (d), what is the optimal rotation period if \(r=0.05\) and \(w=0 ?\) Does this period produce a "maximum sustainable" yield? f. How would the optimal period change if \(r\) decreased to \(0.04 ?\) Note: The equation derived in part (b) is known in forestry economics as Faustmann's equation.

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 ? \\]

As in Example \(17.3,\) suppose trees are produced by applying 1 unit of labor at time 0. The value of the wood contained in a tree is given at any time \(t\) by \(f(t)\). If the market wage rate is \(w\) and the real interest rate is \(r,\) what is the \(P D V\) of this production process, and how should \(t\) be chosen to maximize this \(P D V ?\) a. If the optimal value of \(t\) is denoted by \(t^{\prime \prime},\) show that the "no pure profit" condition of perfect competition will necessitate that \\[ w=e^{-r t} f\left(t^{*}\right) \\] Can you explain the meaning of this expression? b. A tree sold before \(t^{*}\) will not be cut down immediately. Rather, it still will make sense for the new owner to let the tree continue to mature until \(t^{\prime \prime} .\) Show that the price of a \(u\) -year-old tree will be \(w e^{\pi t}\) and that this price will exceed the value of the wood in the tree \([f(u)]\) for every value of \(u\) except \(u=t^{*}\) (when these two values are equal). c. Suppose a landowner has a "balanced" woodlot with one tree of "each" age from 0 to \(t^{*}\). What is the value of this woodlot? Hint: It is the sum of the values of all trees in the lot. d. If the value of the woodlot is \(V\), show that the instantaneous interest on \(V\) (that is, \(r \cdot V\) ) is equal to the "profits" earned at each instant by the landowner, where by profits we mean the difference between the revenue obtained from selling a fully matured tree \(\left[f\left(t^{*}\right)\right]\) and the cost of planting a new one \((w) .\) This result shows there is no pure profit in borrowing to buy a woodlot, because one would have to pay in interest at each instant exactly what would be earned from cutting a fully matured tree.

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