Self-control problems affect consumption, saving, and labor supply, with implications for tax policy. We study optimal taxation with the self-control preferences of Gul and Pesendorfer. Krusell et al. showed that with these preferences, savings should be subsidized; under logarithmic utility, they showed that the subsidy should rise with age. We extend their analysis by adding a labor–leisure choice and comparing investment, capital income, consumption, and labor income taxes. When temptation applies to the consumption–leisure bundle, a single investment or capital income subsidy corrects both the consumption and the leisure margins in partial equilibrium, whereas consumption taxes require a matching labor tax adjustment. Non-separability between consumption and leisure does not change this requirement. With inelastic labor, the same subsidy rates implement the commitment allocation in a two-period general equilibrium model. In a logarithmic T-period partial equilibrium model with elastic labor, the same subsidy formulas and age profile hold under an interior menu condition. In a calibrated example with annual periods, implementing the commitment allocation raises welfare by about 7 percent of consumption in the baseline. The gain varies widely across empirically plausible degrees of present bias.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kumru et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: