Question A:
A windfall tax on the profits of large oil companies – with the revenue rebated to households – would provide an efficient means to protect the average US household from rising energy costs.
Responses
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
Question B:
Temporary suspension of state and federal gas taxes would lead to a meaningful and immediate reduction in consumer prices at the pump.
Responses
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
Question A Participant Responses
| Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Bio/Vote History |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
But should be motivated not as windfall but punitive tax for all of their misbehavior on climate and clawing back of fossilfuel subsidies
|
||||
 Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I want energy companies to invest right now. I also want consumers to reduce energy consumption. This idea discourages both
|
||||
 Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Abhijit Banerjee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Markus Brunnermeier |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Efficiency requires that rebates not be proportional to current gas purchases.
|
||||
 Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Rebated how? A windfall profits tax that was credibly one-time and did not discourage development of future supplies?
|
||||
 Liran Einav |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Amy Finkelstein |
MIT | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
depends on structure of windfall tax....will it tax production thereby affecting US output and (potentially) prices?
|
||||
 Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Not so sure about the efficiency
|
||||
 Oliver Hart |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Arbitrary taxes are bad and a windfall tax is arbitrary. Better to help poor households directly
|
||||
 Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Hilary Hoynes |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Upper income people need no rebate. It is hard to efficiently target the rebates for lower income people.
|
||||
 Steven Kaplan |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
It will partially offset the income impact but other fuels will not be covered.
|
||||
 Maurice Obstfeld |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Especially in view of climate goals.
|
||||
 Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Larry Samuelson |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The rebate would help households, but is a piecemeal policy. A comprehensive tax reform and coherent energy policy would be more efficient.
|
||||
 José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
We've been down this road before, and it was not a great ride.
|
||||
 Carl Shapiro |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Robert Shimer |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
It would reduce energy costs now, but anticipation of future taxes reduces the incentive to invest in stable supply
|
||||
 James Stock |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
Question B Participant Responses
| Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Bio/Vote History |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Yes, but that does not mean that it's a good policy. We should double down on renewable energy, not subsidize fossil fuels more
|
||||
|
Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
It will lower prices, but would be bad policy given underfunding of transportation infrastructure and environmental concerns.
|
||||
|
Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I don't know how large these taxes are, so I don't know meaningful this would be. I'd guess that consumers would see only 1/2 the tax cut.
|
||||
|
Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Abhijit Banerjee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Markus Brunnermeier |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
It is better to rebate the tax revenue via lump-sum transfers (favoring less well off households)
|
||||
|
Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
A bad policy, given climate damage, even if the answer is yes. Also, research suggests that market power slows retail gas price decreases.
-see background information here |
||||
|
Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
But lowering gas prices . is a bad idea when climate change requires high prices to reduce consumption.
|
||||
|
Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
When demand is more elastic than supply, producers bear most of the cost of the tax. So how elastic is demand?
|
||||
|
Liran Einav |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Dumb idea, but it would probably be passed on.
|
||||
|
Amy Finkelstein |
MIT | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
demand for gasoline in short run is very inelastic
|
||||
|
Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Fuel prices rise like a rocket and fall like a feather, according to longstanding research.
|
||||
|
Oliver Hart |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
But I don't think it's a good idea. CO2 emissions call for higher not lower taxes. Again better to help poor households directly.
|
||||
|
Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Hilary Hoynes |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Prices SHOULD go down but if refining capacity is scarce then it may not be possible to satisfy the resulting increase in demand.
|
||||
|
Steven Kaplan |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
That does not mean this is a good idea! Higher permanent price of carbon is going to be needed to deal with climate risk.
|
||||
|
Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
But it could *decrease* the price elasticity of demand facing oil producers, inducing them to increase their price-cost markups.
-see background information here |
||||
|
Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Many studies have found retail gas prices adjust upward quickly and downward slowly -- could limit rapid household benefits from a tax cut
|
||||
|
Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Yes as a matter of economics, but not a good idea as a matter of policy.
|
||||
|
Maurice Obstfeld |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
But depends how big a reduction you assess to be "meaningful." "Meaningful" is not a meaningful economic concept.
|
||||
|
Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Recent research shows that incidence for consumption tax decreases doesn't pass through to consumers nearly as much/fast as tax increases.
|
||||
|
Larry Samuelson |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Prices would fall, but suspending such taxes is not a sensible long-run policy, which should emphasize other energy sources.
|
||||
|
José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Meaningful, certainly not; immediate, probably not.
|
||||
|
Carl Shapiro |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Robert Shimer |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
James Stock |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
immediate = 1-2 weeks, meaningful = complete pass-through; but a bad idea for climate, budget, distortionary, road maintenance reasons.
|
||||
|
Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
A terrible idea whether or not prices fall a bit in the short run.
|
||||
|
Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
