the multiplier is 1/(MPC+MPI) which in this case is 1/0.1 = 10 the net effect on GDP is 10 billion * 10 = 100 billion. this is under the assumption that government spending has not reduced by 10billion to cover the reduced revenue. If this occured the net change would be zero.
Since MPC+MPS=1 Then MPS=1-0.5=0.5 Tax Multiplier= -(MPC/MPS)=-0.5/0.5= -1
3
1.33The answer is 1.33
100
you could do it two ways .If you have the MPC could divide it
the multiplier is 1/(MPC+MPI) which in this case is 1/0.1 = 10 the net effect on GDP is 10 billion * 10 = 100 billion. this is under the assumption that government spending has not reduced by 10billion to cover the reduced revenue. If this occured the net change would be zero.
If the full multiplier for G (i.e. ignoring crowding out effects) is = change in G/Multiplier Then the tax multiplier is = change in T x marginal propensity to consume/multiplier since the mpc is between 0 and 1 the tax multiplier is less. Intuitively it is not difficult to see why, the change tax enters spending decisions through consumption and consumption is dependant on the mpc. Whereas as G affects spending decisions directly - it is a injection into the economy that does not have to work through some indirect source to have an effect on the economy.
Since MPC+MPS=1 Then MPS=1-0.5=0.5 Tax Multiplier= -(MPC/MPS)=-0.5/0.5= -1
3
1.33The answer is 1.33
3.00
Taxation Multiplier = - (MPC) / (1 - MPS) Where, MPC = marginal propensity to consume, and MPS = marginal propensity to save.
MPS =0.401 mpc = 0.509
K= I/(1-MPC) MPC is a marginal propensity to consume I = investment
100
The formula for this simple tax multiplier. (m[tax]), is: m[tax] = - MPC x 1 ---- MPS = - MPC ---- MPS Where MPC is the marginal propensity to consume and MPS is the marginal propensity to save. This formula is almost identical to that for the simple expenditures multiplier. The only difference is the inclusion of the negative marginal propensity to consume (- MPC). If, for example, the MPC is 0.75 (and the MPS is 0.25), then an autonomous $1 trillion change in taxes results in an opposite change in aggregate production of $3 trillion.