This paper tests whether the 2003 dividend tax cut—one of the largest reforms ever to a US capital tax rate—stimulated corporate investment and increased labor earnings, using a quasi-experimental design and US corporate tax returns from years 1996–2008. I estimate that the tax cut caused zero change in corporate investment and employee compensation. Economically, the statistical precision challenges leading estimates of the cost-of-capital elasticity of investment, or undermines models in which dividend tax reforms affect the cost of capital. Either way, it may be difficult to implement an alternative dividend tax cut that has substantially larger near-term effects. (JEL C72, C78, C91)

This paper uses US local areas as a laboratory to test for long-term impacts of the Great Recession. In administrative longitudinal data, I estimate that exposure to a 1 percentage point larger 2007–9 local unemployment shock reduced 2015 working-age employment rates by over 0.3 percentage points. Rescaled, this long-term recession impact accounts for over half of the 2007–15 US age-adjusted employment decline. Impacts were larger among older and lower-earning individuals and typically involved a layoff but are present even in a mass-layoffs sample. Disability insurance and out-migration yielded little income replacement. These findings reveal that the Great Recession imposed employment and income losses even after unemployment rates signaled recovery.

We study optimal income taxation in a spatial equilibrium model with heterogeneous locational preferences, labor supply decisions, and competitive housing and labor markets. Expressions characterizing the optimal tax schedule in each community are provided that capture the fiscal externalities associated with migration and the effects of redistribution between households and landlords. Correlation between skill and locational preferences yields optimal transfers to poor areas, while sorting based on comparative advantage can motivate transfers in either direction. A calibration to areas targeted by the US Empowerment Zone program yields sizable optimal spatial transfers that are sensitive to assumed levels of migration responsiveness. (JEL H21, H23, H24, J24, J31, R23)

We construct publicly available statistics on parents’ incomes and students’ earnings outcomes for each college in the United States using deidentified data from tax records. These statistics reveal that the degree of parental income segregation across colleges is very high, similar to that across neighborhoods. Differences in postcollege earnings between children from low- and high-income families are much smaller among students who attend the same college than across colleges. Colleges with the best earnings outcomes predominantly enroll students from high-income families, although a few mid-tier public colleges have both low parent income levels and high student earnings. Linking these income data to SAT and ACT scores, we simulate how changes in the allocation of students to colleges affect segregation and intergenerational mobility. Equalizing application, admission, and matriculation rates across parental income groups conditional on test scores would reduce segregation substantially, primarily by increasing the representation of middle-class students at more selective colleges. However, it would have little effect on the fraction of low-income students at elite private colleges because there are relatively few students from low-income families with sufficiently high SAT/ACT scores. Differences in parental income distributions across colleges could be eliminated by giving low- and middle-income students a sliding-scale preference in the application and admissions process similar to that implicitly given to legacy students at elite private colleges. Assuming that 80% of observational differences in students’ earnings conditional on test scores, race, and parental income are due to colleges’ causal effects—a strong assumption, but one consistent with prior work—such changes could reduce intergenerational income persistence among college students by about 25%. We conclude that changing how students are allocated to colleges could substantially reduce segregation and increase intergenerational mobility, even without changing colleges’ educational programs.

How important is human capital at the top of the U.S. income distribution? A primary source of top income is private “pass-through” business profit, which can include entrepreneurial labor income for tax reasons. This article asks whether top pass-through profit mostly reflects human capital, defined as all inalienable factors embodied in business owners, rather than financial capital. Tax data linking 11 million firms to their owners show that top pass-through profit accrues to working-age owners of closely held mid-market firms in skill-intensive industries. Pass-through profit falls by three-quarters after owner retirement or premature death. Classifying three-quarters of pass-through profit as human capital income, we find that the typical top earner derives most of her income from human capital, not financial capital. Growth in pass-through profit is explained by both rising productivity and a rising share of value added accruing to owners.