Twitter | Search | |
Wojtek Kopczuk
Economist, I work on tax policy and/or inequality. Editor of J. of Public Economics. Professional skeptic. If vowels are missing, the tweet is in Polish.
1,917
Tweets
276
Following
1,272
Followers
Tweets
Wojtek Kopczuk May 24
Replying to @rrd3564 @MattBruenig
Hydrogen and oxygen in particular, awful stuff
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 24
Though, given its relentless investment at the expense of short term profits, Amazon is arguably an exception to it (not that I think that NC policy makes sense)
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 24
EITC recipients vs Economists - 1:0 (and who says that people don't understand incentives when they matter!)
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 23
Indeed, it is odd that the peaks are different
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 23
This graph shows manipulation of earnings, birth effects they find are very small. Link to the published version:
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 23
It's still at the plateau, you want to be there not below the kink. Once you account for the self employment tax, you'd want to be exactly at the kink but perhaps that's not salient. Also, these are December births so perhaps limits to manipulation?
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 23
The serious point here is that unions wanted to keep their ability to bargain over benefits on top of any general coverage (it's not like taxing cadillac plans would make their employees worse off relative to anybody else)
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 23
In which case, we could call them political parties and subject them to the usual democratic control.
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 23
Seriously though: I will grant you that if you can bargain with national government, you'll ask for different things than you would when you bargain with an individual firm.
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 23
You, , and unions should get a room already.
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 23
Not so fast. More recently, I saw unions gutting the "Cadillac plans" tax... In any case, you can safely assume that employers also didn't get their first best universe
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 23
Paging whose dissertation was on pension risks :)
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 23
Replying to @JashClark @snaidunl
Probate? On pensions, I primarily meant employer bankruptcy risk & job lock. The latter is true for health too (addressed by COBRA, older lit on it). Both create two tier jobs (more or less addressed by ACA on health ins side, but an issue on retirement side) and gaps in coverage
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 23
I'm happy to blame oligopolistic companies for a lot of things. But, it's also modus operandi of labor unions to fight for employer sponsored benefits (and it makes sense for both sides: tax advantage). If it's a single firm, I don't care, but It's awful once enshrined as policy
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 23
Replying to @snaidunl @its_mccarthy
I thought you wouldn't find it controversial - individual insurance/accounts (with mandate or even public option) are better than getting into the mess of employment based coverage
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 23
Replying to @snaidunl
We are still paying for it due to the distortion of employer-sponsored health insurance. The inefficiency of employer provided pensions also took a long time to resolve
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 23
Are we sure that NFL itself does not have a brain injury?
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 23
Women.
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 23
"nonsense" was the comment on the tweet I responded to - how you call it makes no difference to the argument I was making. A discussion on whether you call things human capital or something else is just not interesting
Reply Retweet Like
Wojtek Kopczuk May 23
That's nonsense. Nothing hangs on whether you call it human capital or skills or red herring. Time+money was spent on acquiring education. There's a question if it is paying off in the same way now as it used to, but not about whether it was an investment in future earnings
Reply Retweet Like