The fundamental problem with orthodox economic analysis of policy issues is the lack of a clear baseline. That is, standard economic arguments revolve around moving the world from its currently impure and benighted “inefficient” equilibrium back to its idyllic efficient state (known technically as Pareto efficiency). Yet, as I have discussed here, we do not and cannot know what that perfectly efficient state looks like – or even how we would know it when we achieved it. In turn, that means that we do not know whether any particular legal change or policy intervention will move us closer to or further away from the efficient state of the world. Indeed, we might already be in that supposedly ideal state, which would mean that any changes would move us into a suboptimal world.
Rebecca Morrow’s The Income Tax as a Market Correction uses the inherent unknowability about what is and is not efficient to offer a profound (and also somewhat cheeky) retort to the many economists who call the income tax inefficient. Professor Morrow is right that having an income tax could be more efficient than not having an income tax – because, again, anything is possible in a world without a known baseline – but she goes further and argues that the income tax in the United States probably is more efficient than the alternative.
I have three small hesitations regarding Professor Morrow’s article that I should confess up front. First, any analysis that plays in the efficiency sandbox is potentially problematic in that doing so can reinforce the idea that efficiency is the “right” way to assess policy. Second, Professor Morrow could, and I believe that she should, have been even stronger in making her argument. Third, she makes a sub-argument in favor of the realization requirement, which I think is very bad policy on other grounds. Regarding my first concern, I can only say that the efficiency trope is so ubiquitous at this point that the marginal damage to the public and scholarly conversations that might be caused by reinforcing it is vanishingly small. On my second concern, I concede that Professor Morrow’s scholarly reserve is most likely more effective than my more contrarian approach might be. (Moreover, I am both an economist and a legal scholar, so I feel more comfortable openly criticizing my colleagues.) Finally, on my third concern, as the Rolling Stones put it, “we can’t always get what we want.” Reasonable minds can differ.
In any event, this is a law review article that I “like lots,” and I hope it will enjoy a wide readership.
In my own writing, most exhaustively in A Tale of Two Formalisms: How Law and Economics Mirrors Originalism and Textualism (with Michael C. Dorf), 106 Cornell L. Rev. 591 (2020), I have emphasized the baseline problem to point out that even if one were to aspire to economic efficiency – of which the famous economist and philosopher Amartya Sen once said: “A society can be Pareto optimal and still perfectly disgusting” – the choice of legal rules that can form a baseline is fully open-ended. That is, we can determine what outcome is Pareto efficient only after we have specified the contours of contract law, securities law, tort law, criminal law, and so on.
But nothing about efficiency analysis can tell us what those contours must be. There is a Pareto efficient outcome from market transactions in a world where human beings cannot own other human beings, but there is also a Pareto efficient outcome in a world where enslavement is legal. Even the smaller questions, such as whether patents should expire in 10 years or 75 – or whether to have patent law at all – are similarly open-ended and inherently impossible to answer using economic analysis (again, because they form the basis for economic analysis). I also discussed this problem in my 2021 jot: “Bringing Law and Policy Back from the Black Hole of Efficiency-Based Analysis: Another Important Step Toward Refocusing on Justice,” (reviewing work by Professors Jeremy Bearer-Friend, Ari Glogower, Ariel Jurow Kleiman & Clinton G. Wallace).
Professor Morrow opens her foray into this debate with a delightfully unexpected personal comment: “I confess. As a tax professor, it has long hurt my feelings that economists label tax as a market distortion. My field is summed up as an impurity on the otherwise pristine complexion of the economist’s pure market.” Quite so, and well said. She and every other legal scholar have long been told that they need to let the orthodox economists tell them what is and is not efficient, and there is no shortage of economists who rail at taxes for being an abomination against Professor Pareto. Her first paragraph alone is loaded with enough trenchant observations to justify the article’s existence, but I will limit myself to one more quotation, which is the last sentence of that paragraph: “After all, could a market exist without government enforcement of market rules, and could a lasting, functioning government exist without tax?“
That rhetorical question is an update of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous line: “I pay my tax bills more readily than any others—for whether the money is well or ill spent I get civilized society for it.” Holmes expands the importance of paying taxes to civilized society itself, but Professor Morrow wisely narrows her gaze to the essential observation that we could not even have an economy without a tax system, because there would be no one to enforce the laws (and in fact no laws to enforce). Anarchy and nihilism are not good for business.
Ah, but why does Professor Morrow put her considerable argumentative skills behind the income tax specifically? After all, Holmes can get his civilized society with a government funded by wealth taxes, sales taxes, or anything else, so long as those taxes fund the government. The economy could then function without the income tax. Why should we prefer the income tax to other methods of financing the government?
Here, Professor Morrow shows her sophisticated understanding of economics and how orthodox economists do their work. Specifically, the standard move among economists is to find a market “imperfection” that a smart economist can correct with the right policy. The most well-known example of this is in environmental economics, where “market failure” results in too much pollution, making it possible to argue that reducing pollution is a move in the right (that is, efficient) direction.
Using that style of argument, Professor Morrow identifies people’s risk aversion as the offending market failure and then explains why the income tax causes people to be willing to take greater risks. Her analysis in Section II, explaining why an income tax “un-distorts” (my word, not hers) the distortion caused by risk aversion, is especially strong. Her bottom line is that the income tax uniquely serves this counter-distortionary role. In short, she is able to make a very standard analytical move (without having to blow up the entire notion of efficiency, which is what I would do) and show that the standard economic case against the income tax is flawed.
This is the kind of deep, clever scholarship that turns the orthodoxy back on itself. It is also very well written. Professor Morrow’s work is an impressive contribution to the literature.
