1 Theoretical Reasoning and Empirical Evidence on Inheritance and Wealth Distribution (on the basis...
-
Upload
cody-williamson -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
2
Transcript of 1 Theoretical Reasoning and Empirical Evidence on Inheritance and Wealth Distribution (on the basis...
1
Oesterreichische National bank
Theoretical Reasoning and Empirical Evidence on Inheritance and Wealth
Distribution (on the basis of LWS data)
by Peter Mooslechner, Martin Schürz, Pirmin Fessler
2
Oesterreichische National bank
Motivation
• Debate in Austria on abolishment of inheritance tax
• Family values
• Aspects of social justice are neglected
3
Oesterreichische National bank
Structure
1. Theoretical reasoning- Problems with definition of inheritance
- Heterogeneity of LWS data- Focus on motives of bequest
2. Empirical evidence- Cross country comparison between heirs and
non-heirs- Education levels of heirs and non-heirs
3. Conclusions for data improvements
4
Oesterreichische National bank
Problems with definition
• Focus on material inheritances
• Focus on individuals
• Complex relationship between gifts and bequests
5
Oesterreichische National bank
How can LWS data contribute?
INH1-INH3 YRINH1-YRINH3 INH4
INHERITANCE BEQUEST RECEIVED ($)
YEAR INHERITANCE BEQUEST RECEIVED
REMAINING INHERITANCE BEQUEST RECEIVED ($)
Austria X X -Canada - - -Cyprus X X XFinland (98) X X -Finland (94) X X -Germany X X -Italy - - -Norway X X -Sweden - - -United Kingdom X/F X -USA (PSID) X X -USA (SCF) X X X
LWS Variable
X = variable available in data set, - = variable not available in data set, F = flag variable available in data set
6
Oesterreichische National bank
Heterogeneity in the reported data.
General Information item values reference year unit of collection
Austria inheritance value of all inh.>10;>5;<5 years (refers to last inh. received) Household
Cyprus inheritance value of each inh. year of each inh. Received Primary Economic Unit
Finlandinheritance/inheritance in advance/gifts of cash
value of each inh. (over 15000 marks) all inh. received between 1994-1998 Household
Germany inheritance/gift/lottery winningvalue of each inh. (over 2500 Euro) all inh. received 2002 Household
Norway inheritance/private gift value of each inh. all inh. received 2002 Household (derived from person-level)
United Kingdom inheritance/gift value of each inh. all inh. received 2000 Household (derived from person-level)
USA (SCF) inheritance/gift value of each inh. year of each inh. received Primary Economic Unit
USA (PSID) inheritance/gift value of each inh.
all inh. received in the "last 5 years" (in fact only dates from 1999-2001and estates in progress) Family unit
7
Oesterreichische National bank
Motives of bequest
self interest altruism
unplanned bequestmotive
bequest motives
retrospectivebequest
care motive
paternalisticbequests
capitalistbequest
strategicbequest
self interest altruism
unplanned bequestmotive
bequest motives
self interest altruism
unplanned bequestmotive
bequest motives
retrospectivebequest
care motive
paternalisticbequests
capitalistbequest
strategicbequest
retrospectivebequest
care motive
paternalisticbequests
capitalistbequest
strategicbequest
8
Oesterreichische National bankAnalytical shortcomings concerning motives
• The available data mix between gifts and inheritance in the LWS does not allow analysing motives.
• Motives for bequests vary over time and are influenced by behaviour itself.
• Motives are related to family values and social
norms and influenced by the institutions in different countries.
9
Oesterreichische National bank
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
decile 1 decile 2 decile 3 decile 4 decile 5 decile 6 decile 7 decile 8 decile 9 decile 10
-€ 15,356 € 3,224 € 7,428 € 12,476 € 18,460 € 26,864 € 37,601 € 52,813 € 80,746 € 307,181
0%
200%
400%
600%
800%
1000%
1200%
Percentage of heir-households
Proportion of the Average Money Value of the heritage to Average Total FinancialAssets
Money Value of Inheritances of households ordered by Net Wealth deciles
Means of Net Wealth
Austria
10
Oesterreichische National bank
Wealth Distribution and Inheritance
• To conclude that the elimination of intergenerational transfers would lead to more inequality has shortcomings:
– Would the wealthy elderly instead consume their wealth then there should be an equalizing effect on wealth distribution
– Definition of wealth remains mainly data driven
– Poorer people rather spend the money while the rich accumulate it
– Inheritances have to be seen in context with other wealth transfers (investment in human capital, gifts, social capital, prestige, power, inheritances)
11
Oesterreichische National bank
Cross country comparison between heirs and non-heirs
Country
definition heirs (heir household)
Percentage of Heir H. % of Heir H.: 38% % of Heir H.: 41% % of Heir H.: 18% % of Heir H.: 2%
Mean heirs/Mean non-heirs
Median heirs/Median non-heirs
Mean heirs/Mean non-heirs
Median heirs/Median non-heirs
Mean heirs/Mean non-heirs
Median heirs/Median non-heirs
Mean heirs/Mean non-heirs
Median heirs/Median non-heirs
Total Financial Assets 2.01 2.01 2.15 1.68 2.16 2.92 2.15 naTotal Debt 1.37 na 1.25 48.00 1.39 na 2.90 naWage na na 1.39 1.99 1.51 2.24 1.42 1.75Number of Persons 1.01 1.00 1.14 1.33 1.21 1.00 1.10 1.00Age of Household-head 1.09 1.15 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.94 0.96*5,94573 mk = 1 €.
Country
definition heirs (heir household)
Percentage of Heir H. % of Heir H.: 3% % of Heir H.: 4% % of Heir H.: 18% % of Heir H.: 5%
Mean heirs/Mean non-heirs
Median heirs/Median non-heirs
Mean heirs/Mean non-heirs
Median heirs/Median non-heirs
Mean heirs/Mean non-heirs
Median heirs/Median non-heirs
Mean heirs/Mean non-heirs
Median heirs/Median non-heirs
Total Financial Assets 1.62 2.51 2.00 3.56 2.62 7.10 1.64 8.33Total Debt 1.35 1.92 1.56 26.82 1.56 2.01 1.77 6.50Wage 1.41 1.48 1.67 3.00 1.22 1.13 1.34 1.35Number of Persons 1.21 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00Age of Household-head 0.98 1.02 0.93 0.93 1.12 1.18 0.96 1.04
inherited some amount (no exact dates)
inherited some amount (dates from 1940 to 2003)
inherited (received large gift) some amount > 15000 marks* from 1994 to1998
inherited (received large gift, lottery winnings) some amount >2500 Euros in 2001
Austria Cyprus Finland Germany
inherited some amount in 2002
inherited some amount in 2000
inherited some amount (dates from 1940 to 2000)
inherited (received gift) some amount (dates from 1999 to 2001; +estate in process)
Norway United Kingdom USA (SCF) USA (PSID)
12
Oesterreichische National bank
Education levels of heirs vs. non-heirs• Level of education: indicator for parental
• Education levels are very heterogeneous in LWS
• Rudimentary classification according to ISCED 1997
<33 (Upper) Secondary Education
>3
non-heirs 15.00% 75.60% 9.40%heirs 11.20% 71.30% 17.50%
non-heirs 40.90% 35.70% 23.40%heirs 24.00% 38.20% 37.90%non-heirs 17.50% 61.60% 21.00%heirs 12.50% 56.70% 30.60%non-heirs 19.10% 50.80% 27.90%heirs 11.10% 47.60% 41.10%non-heirs 9.80% 39.20% 51.00%heirs 3.50% 27.20% 69.10%non-heirs 9.00% 38.70% 48.00%
heirs 1.80% 22.20% 73.30%
HIGHEST EDUCATION LEVEL (ISCED 0-6)
Austria
Finland
Germany
Norway (some unspecified)
USA (SCF)USA (PSID) (some unspecified)
13
Oesterreichische National bank
Why cross country differences?
• Differences in the freedom to select beneficiaries: family centered pattern of Germany versus the individual-centered pattern of the US.
• Differences in welfare regimes will create different needs for family transfers.
• Differences in gifts and inheritance taxes may affect actual behaviour and may also be a reason that respondents are unwilling to respond in survey interviews.
• Differences in wealth distribution: As rich people make most of the wealth transfers countries with a high wealth concentration should have a higher share of wealth transfers.
14
Oesterreichische National bank
How to improve cross country comparison?
• Comparable money values of inheritances.
• Wealth transfers from whom to whom?
• A sharp distinction between inheritances and other transfers like lottery winnings or gifts from non-family members.
• At least some information on the parents of the household head or spouse beyond the age/not living information.
• A comparison of inheritances over time (at best panel data) would allow to further investigate possible changes in the importance of different transmission channels.
15
Oesterreichische National bank
Information on parents?Ohlsson (2005) stated that, „the most useful information for
understanding transfers received is data on whether the individual‘s/the spouses‘s parents are deceased and, if so, when at
what ages they died.“
at least one person one generation ago not alive*
all persons one generation ago not alive*
Cyprus heirs 68.8% 11.3%non-heirs 72.0% 14.8%
Germany heirs 57.6% 5.5%non-heirs 61.5% 9.4%
US-SCF heirs 84.4% 21.5%non-heirs 67.6% 11.0%
*father and/or mother of household head and/or spouse
donors and recipients
16
Oesterreichische National bank
Conclusions
• This paper argues for caution in several ways. Theoretical reasoning has not only to refer to but also to conceptualize the complexity of social reality.
• Despite that bequests and gifts have to be analyzed separately we argued for a broader understanding of inheritance (“inheritance of inequality”).
•A sharp distinction between inheritances and other transfers like lottery winnings or gifts from non-family members is necessary.
•As inter vivos transfers are more likely to be intentional they are more likely to be informative about wealth transfer motives.
• Substantial differences of opinion remain on the long-term effect of bequests on wealth distribution. We showed on the basis of LWS data that the situation of the heirs is significantly better than the one of the non-heirs.
17
Oesterreichische National bank
Annex
Inheritance in Austria
18
Oesterreichische National bank
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Compulsory education at most Apprenticeship, vocational/technicalschool
Academic secondary school, higher-leveltechnical and vocational school
Fachhochschule, university
Percentage of heir-householdsPercentage of heir-households (total population)
Heritages ordered by Education of Household head
37,7 %
-6,7 %-3,3 %
+3,0 %
+15,3 %
19
Oesterreichische National bank
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
up to EUR 749,-- EUR 750,-- to EUR 1349,-- EUR 1.350,-- to EUR 2.249,-- EUR 2.250,-- to EUR 2.999,-- EUR 3.000,-- or more
Percentage of heir-householdsPercentage of heir-households (total population)
Heritages ordered by Net Income
37,7 %
-10,6 %
-6,4 % -3,9 %
+4,8 %
+11,8 %
20
Oesterreichische National bank
Self-employed 60.1% 39.9% +4.9%
Entrepreneur 61.8% 38.2% +3.2%
Employee 63.5% 36.5% +1.5%
Public servant 58.9% 41.1% +6.1%
Farmer 71.0% 29.0% -6.0%
Worker 74.7% 25.3% -9.7%65.0% 35.0% +0.0%
up to EUR 749,-- 72.9% 27.1% -10.6%
EUR 750,-- to EUR 1349,-- 68.7% 31.3% -6.4%
EUR 1.350,-- to EUR 2.249,-- 66.2% 33.8% -3.9%
EUR 2.250,-- to EUR 2.999,-- 57.5% 42.5% +4.8%
EUR 3.000,-- or more 50.5% 49.5% +11.8%62.3% 37.7% +0.0%
*Deviation to the Total-Population-Proportion of Heir-Households in percent-points
Occupation
Working Population
Net Income
Total Population
Socioeconomic Characteristicsnon-heir households
heir households Deviation*
21
Oesterreichische National bank
Net Wealth <= Median 72.0% 28.0% -9.7%
Net Wealth > Median 61.3% 38.7% +1.0%
Net Wealth > doubled Median 51.5% 48.5% +10.8%
Net Wealth > 5-times Median 37.2% 62.8% +25.1%62.3% 37.7% +0.0%
Detached/semi-detached house 53.2% 46.8% +9.1%
Owner-occupied apartment 61.9% 38.1% +0.4%
Cooperative apartment 70.3% 29.7% -8.0%
Rental apartment 71.4% 28.6% -9.1%
Subsidized apartment 75.4% 24.6% -13.1%
Company housing 62.7% 37.3% -0.4%62.3% 37.7% +0.0%
Compulsory education at most 69.0% 31.0% -6.7%Apprenticeship, vocational/technical
school 65.6% 34.4% -3.3%Academic secondary school, higher-level
technical and vocational school 59.3% 40.7% +3.0%
Fachhochschule, university 47.0% 53.0% +15.3%62.3% 37.7% +0.0%
*Deviation to the Total-Population-Proportion of Heir-Households in percent-points
Education
Total Population
Net Wealth
Total Population
domestic circumstances
Total Population
Socioeconomic Characteristicsnon-heir households
heir households Deviation*
22
Oesterreichische National bank
52%
42%
30%
23%
20%
9%11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
18 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 - 79 80+
Did anybody support you financially the first time you founded a household of your own?
Percentage of supported Households
Age of Household head