Both economic theory and casual empirical observation of the U.S. economy suggest that spending propensities from temporary tax changes are smaller than those from permanent ones, but neither provides much guidance about the magnitude of this difference. This paper offers new empirical estimates of this difference and finds it to be quite substantial. The analysis is based on an amendment of the standard distributed lag version of the permanent income hypothesis that distinguishes temporary taxes from other income on the grounds that the former are "more transitory." This amendment, which is broadly consistent with rational expectations, leads to a nonlinear consumption function. Though the standard error is unavoidably large, the point estimate suggests that a temporary tax change is treated as a 50-50 blend of a normal income tax change and a pure windfall. Over a 1-year planning horizon, a temporary tax change is estimated to have only a little more than half the impact of a permanent tax change of equal magnitude, and a rebate is estimated to have only about 38 percent of the impact.

Both economic theory and casual empirical observation of the U.S. economy suggest that spending propensities from temporary tax changes are smaller than those from permanent ones, but neither provides much guidance about the magnitude of this difference. This paper offers new empirical estimates of this difference and finds it to be quite substantial. The analysis is based on an amendment of the standard distributed lag version of the permanent income hypothesis that distinguishes temporary taxes from other income on the grounds that the former are "more transitory." This amendment, which is broadly consistent with rational expectations, leads to a nonlinear consumption function. Though the standard error is unavoidably large, the point estimate suggests that a temporary tax change is treated as a 50-50 blend of a normal income tax change and a pure windfall. Over a 1-year planning horizon, a temporary tax change is estimated to have only a little more than half the impact of a permanent tax change of equal magnitude, and a rebate is estimated to have only about 38 percent of the impact.

This paper investigates whether and how the distribution of income affects the fraction of disposable income which is consumed. It is shown that a slight generalization of the permanent income or "life-cycle" model of consumption makes each individual's lifetime marginal propensity to consume a fraction of his lifetime disposable resources unless two taste parameters are equal. In considering what this implies for the aggregate consumption function, the tenuous connection between theoretical constructs and observed facts is stressed. Previous empirical work on the subject is criticized for failing to define properly either "income distribution" or "consumption," and a new test, based on the theory, is outlined. Because of data limitations, a number of compromises with this ideal test must be made, and several alternative models are estimated. On the whole, they suggest that equalizing the distribution of income would either leave aggregate consumption unchanged or diminish it slightly.