Corporate Income Tax: Stacking the Deck?

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Arthur_Tuxedo
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5637
Joined: 2002-07-23 03:28am
Location: San Francisco, California

Corporate Income Tax: Stacking the Deck?

Post by Arthur_Tuxedo »

New York Times Opinion Piece 1/6/14
January 5, 2014
Abolish the Corporate Income Tax
By LAURENCE J. KOTLIKOFF

BOSTON — JOBS don’t grow out of thin air, especially well-paying ones. They require, among other things, companies that are willing to operate where you live. Just ask the Seattle-based District 751 of the machinists’ union, which was worried that Boeing will build its new 777X airliner someplace far away where it is cheaper to produce. Last month the union offered contract concessions, as its president explained, to ensure “the long-term success” of Boeing in Washington State. And on Friday, Boeing machinists approved a contract with concessions to keep assembly of the plane in the area.

In recent decades, American workers have suffered one body blow after another: the decline in manufacturing, foreign competition, outsourcing, the Great Recession and smart machines that replace people everywhere you look. Amazon and Google are in a horse race to see how many humans they can put out of work with self-guided delivery drones and driverless cars. You wonder who will be left with incomes to buy what these robots deliver.

What can workers do to mitigate their plight? One useful step would be to lobby to eliminate the corporate income tax.

That might sound like a giveaway to the rich. It’s not. The rich, including Boeing’s stockholders, can take their companies and run — and not just from Washington State to, say, North Carolina. To avoid our federal corporate tax, they can, and often do, move their operations and jobs abroad. Apple’s tax return says it all: The company, according to one calculation, paid only 8.2 percent of its worldwide profits in United States corporate income taxes, thanks to piling up most of its profits and locating far too many of its operations overseas.

I, like many economists, suspect that our corporate income tax is economically self-defeating — hurting workers, not capitalists, and collecting precious little revenue to boot.

The United States may well have the highest effective marginal corporate income tax rate of any developed country. Jack Mintz, a public finance economist and director of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, puts the rate close to 35 percent, which is also the statutory rate. Other economists, using different techniques, calculate the marginal rate to be as low as 23 percent. But both figures are miles above zero.

They are also miles above our 13 percent average corporate income tax rate — the ratio of corporate taxes to total corporate profits. The fact that the marginal tax rate, whether 23 percent, 35 percent or somewhere in between, is so much larger than the average rate suggests that a sizable share of corporate profits and production is ending up overseas and untaxed.

Making, rather than just stating, this case requires constructing a large-scale computer simulation model of the United States economy as it interacts over time with other nations’ economies, and then seeing how the model reacts when you change the American corporate income tax. I’ve developed such a model with three colleagues through the Tax Analysis Center, a nonpartisan research group. Our findings make a very strong, worker-based case for corporate tax reform.

In the model, eliminating the United States’ corporate income tax produces rapid and dramatic increases in American investment, output and real wages, making the tax cut self-financing to a significant extent. Somewhat smaller gains arise from revenue-neutral corporate tax base broadening, specifically cutting the corporate tax rate to 9 percent and eliminating all corporate tax loopholes. Both policies generate welfare gains for all generations in the United States, but particularly for young and future workers. Moreover, all Americans can benefit, though by less, if foreign countries also cut their corporate tax rates.

The size of the potential economic and welfare gains are stunningly large and don’t reflect any extreme supply-side (a k a, voodoo economics) assumptions. Fully eliminating the corporate income tax and replacing any loss in revenues with somewhat higher personal income tax rates leads to a huge short-run inflow of capital, raising the United States’ capital stock (machines and buildings) by 23 percent, output by 8 percent and the real wages of unskilled and skilled workers by 12 percent. Lowering the corporate rate tax to 9 percent while also closing loopholes is roughly revenue neutral and also produces very rapid increases in capital (by 17 percent), output (by 6 percent) and real wages (by 8 percent).

Eliminating the corporate tax and raising income tax rates or lowering the corporate tax rate and eliminating its loopholes are not the only options. Elsewhere, I have proposed eliminating the corporate income tax, but making shareholders pay income taxes on their companies’ profits as they accrue. This leaves companies with no tax reason to avoid operating in the United States but ensures that shareholders, not wage earners, make up for any revenue losses through higher personal tax payments.

It’s been a long time since the typical American worker received a raise in her real pay. In fact, average weekly earnings, exclusive of fringe benefits but adjusted for inflation, are 10 percent lower today than they were in 1966. This is America’s nightmare, not its dream. Turning things around requires getting a lot of things right, starting, I’d argue, with corporate tax reform.

Laurence J. Kotlikoff, a professor of economics at Boston University, is the author, with Scott Burns, of “The Clash of Generations: Saving Ourselves, Our Kids, and Our Economy.”
This is an issue that I've thought about for a few months now, and until now, I haven't seen it discussed in the media. The article's main point is that the corporate income tax makes the US poorer because it incentivizes outsourcing. Move jobs and capital overseas and companies avoid the high marginal rate. Eliminate the incentive and those operations will come back, in fact the incentives will work the other way as foreign companies might move operations here to avoid taxes in their own countries.

This is all well and good and I can't find a flaw in the reasoning, but it begs the question: If eliminating corporate taxes is so good for the domestic laborer, why do Democrats never suggest it? If eliminating taxes on big business is such good policy, why don't pro-corporate Republicans propose it?

I have become convinced that the reason is that the largest corporations in America like the fact that we have the world's highest marginal rate. Our current corporate tax system stacks the deck in favor of giant, established businesses that would go out of business or at least take lower profits in a properly functioning capitalist system. Consider this: You own a medium or large (but not giant) company that makes a product far superior to one that General Electric makes. It is superior in every way and cheaper to manufacture, your organization is more nimble and efficient, and your advertising and distribution is more effective. However, because you cannot afford to hire armies of lawyers and accountants to take advantage of every conceivable tax loophole or run your revenues through multiple tax havens, you pay close to the full 35% tax rate, while GE pays roughly 6%. This 29% gap means that you lose, no matter what. You go out of business, and the incumbent stays at the top. Meanwhile, due to lack of competitive pressure, the pace of technological advancement slows, resources are misallocated, there are fewer domestic jobs (which over a long period of time causes permanent loss of skills in that industry, reducing the country's economic output forever), and ultimately both higher inequality and lower overall wealth. The only winners in this situation are the stagnant organizations that can afford to contribute heavily to political campaigns, and who earned that wealth by (many years ago) being exactly the sort of savvy, upstart companies that are now denied the opportunity to compete.

Am I wrong, here? If so, please tell me how. If not, this is something that we should all be talking about, since eliminating corporate income tax is something people on the political left and right could both get behind once educated about the ramifications.
"I'm so fast that last night I turned off the light switch in my hotel room and was in bed before the room was dark." - Muhammad Ali

"Dating is not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be a heart-pounding, stomach-wrenching, gut-churning exercise in pitting your fear of rejection and public humiliation against your desire to find a mate. Enjoy." - Darth Wong
User avatar
Fingolfin_Noldor
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11834
Joined: 2006-05-15 10:36am
Location: At the Helm of the HAB Star Dreadnaught Star Fist

Re: Corporate Income Tax: Stacking the Deck?

Post by Fingolfin_Noldor »

If you really want to tax things fairly, you have to, ahem, introduce federal sales tax on top of state sales tax.

That unfortunately, will be insanely unpalatable. But you will definitely get the tax revenue.
Image
STGOD: Byzantine Empire
Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
User avatar
Civil War Man
NERRRRRDS!!!
Posts: 3790
Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am

Re: Corporate Income Tax: Stacking the Deck?

Post by Civil War Man »

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:If you really want to tax things fairly, you have to, ahem, introduce federal sales tax on top of state sales tax.

That unfortunately, will be insanely unpalatable. But you will definitely get the tax revenue.
Define fairly. Sales taxes are one of the most regressive sales taxes out there if they apply to necessities like food and clothing, since those necessities make up a much larger proportion of your spending the less income you have.
User avatar
PainRack
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7583
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:03am
Location: Singapura

Re: Corporate Income Tax: Stacking the Deck?

Post by PainRack »

Isn't one of the major assumptions here that companies will shift their operations back to the States if tax rates are lower?

I'm sure it would help influence future plans, but given that one of the main reasons for outsourcing overseas are lower labour costs, I wonder how that was modelled...
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: Corporate Income Tax: Stacking the Deck?

Post by Starglider »

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:I have become convinced that the reason is that the largest corporations in America like the fact that we have the world's highest marginal rate. Our current corporate tax system stacks the deck in favor of giant, established businesses that would go out of business or at least take lower profits in a properly functioning capitalist system. Consider this: You own a medium or large (but not giant) company that makes a product far superior to one that General Electric makes. It is superior in every way and cheaper to manufacture, your organization is more nimble and efficient, and your advertising and distribution is more effective. However, because you cannot afford to hire armies of lawyers and accountants to take advantage of every conceivable tax loophole or run your revenues through multiple tax havens, you pay close to the full 35% tax rate, while GE pays roughly 6%. This 29% gap means that you lose, no matter what. You go out of business, and the incumbent stays at the top.
This is essentially correct; corporation tax is highly regressive and a generally poor way to collect revenue, especially as implemented (tax on declared local profits). However differential corporation tax rate does not directly make products from small companies uncompetitive; it is a tax on profits, so it won't directly drive a company out of business (you don't pay the tax if you lose money or break even). What it does do is make it harder for small companies to raise equity investment; reducing the dividends pushes down the share price. A result of that is that small companies are more motivated to take risks and favour capital appreciation rather than dividends to increase shareholder value. As with most economic distortions this is ultimately a bad thing. Since all corporate profits feed directly into individual incomes it really makes no sense to tax them before distribution; once they become capital gains attached to an individual appropriate progressive taxation can be applied (e.g. UK capital gains exemption for small investors).

That said irrational corporation tax is just a small piece of the array of captive-government-leveraging tactics that large companies deploy to try and suppress and destroy smaller competitors.
User avatar
The Guid
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1888
Joined: 2005-04-05 10:22pm
Location: Northamptonshire, UK

Re: Corporate Income Tax: Stacking the Deck?

Post by The Guid »

The problem here is simply that of image. To the untrained eye a corporation tax is a tax on big businesses and a sales tax is a tax on people. Assuming a reasonably functional market (which, to be fair, does not exist in every industry) they tax the same thing; the customer, but that's a very hard point to persuade people of in a national debate.
Self declared winner of The Posedown Thread
EBC - "What? What?" "Tally Ho!" Division
I wrote this:The British Avengers fanfiction

"Yeah, funny how that works - you giving hungry people food they vote for you. You give homeless people shelter they vote for you. You give the unemployed a job they vote for you.

Maybe if the conservative ideology put a roof overhead, food on the table, and employed the downtrodden the poor folk would be all for it, too". - Broomstick
User avatar
bobalot
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1733
Joined: 2008-05-21 06:42am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Corporate Income Tax: Stacking the Deck?

Post by bobalot »

The author makes a couple of strange assumptions:

1) That some of the increased share of profits would end up back with the workers. There is literally no evidence for this.
2) The only factor in off-shoring is the corporate tax rate (which he admits, nobody actually pays the full rate)
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi

"Problem is, while the Germans have had many mea culpas and quite painfully dealt with their history, the South is still hellbent on painting themselves as the real victims. It gives them a special place in the history of assholes" - Covenant

"Over three million died fighting for the emperor, but when the war was over he pretended it was not his responsibility. What kind of man does that?'' - Saburo Sakai

Join SDN on Discord
User avatar
Enigma
is a laughing fool.
Posts: 7777
Joined: 2003-04-30 10:24pm
Location: c nnyhjdyt yr 45

Re: Corporate Income Tax: Stacking the Deck?

Post by Enigma »

Wouldn't it just be best to tax them regardless where they make their money as long as it is an American company? Isn't this what the IRS are trying to do to U.S. citizens regardless where they make their money? If the IRS can do this to citizens, then why not the corporations?

If not, then why not tariff any goods produced in other countries by U.S. corporations like Apple? Sure it would be cheaper to produce over seas but tax the goods coming back to the U.S.. Something like that.
ASVS('97)/SDN('03)

"Whilst human alchemists refer to the combustion triangle, some of their orcish counterparts see it as more of a hexagon: heat, fuel, air, laughter, screaming, fun." Dawn of the Dragons

ASSCRAVATS!
User avatar
Fingolfin_Noldor
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11834
Joined: 2006-05-15 10:36am
Location: At the Helm of the HAB Star Dreadnaught Star Fist

Re: Corporate Income Tax: Stacking the Deck?

Post by Fingolfin_Noldor »

Civil War Man wrote:
Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:If you really want to tax things fairly, you have to, ahem, introduce federal sales tax on top of state sales tax.

That unfortunately, will be insanely unpalatable. But you will definitely get the tax revenue.
Define fairly. Sales taxes are one of the most regressive sales taxes out there if they apply to necessities like food and clothing, since those necessities make up a much larger proportion of your spending the less income you have.
There is a reason why in European countries, sales taxes are not a flat rate. Some food items are not taxed, but some are.

You could always introduce luxury sales tax etc. etc. on the relevant goods, and to tax the relevant raw materials etc.

This of course transfers one layer of abstraction to another. But if you want to make sure nothing gets away without being taxed, yeah, that's the only way. It's a lot easier to tax an exchange of a physical good or service than to tax something based on a huge chunk of accounting.
Image
STGOD: Byzantine Empire
Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: Corporate Income Tax: Stacking the Deck?

Post by Patroklos »

bobalot wrote:The author makes a couple of strange assumptions:

1) That some of the increased share of profits would end up back with the workers. There is literally no evidence for this.
2) The only factor in off-shoring is the corporate tax rate (which he admits, nobody actually pays the full rate)
I don't think his main drive was that profits would be shared with the workers, but rather there would be more workers getting paid do to production returning to the US. This may be dubious in the case of some manufacturing or at the very least delayed as it costs money to move operations and these companies have sunk capital investments in their foreign locations.

Nor did he say the corporate tax rate was the only issue, but when you are talking about a 10-15% chop to your profits there is no denying it is a large part of the calculus.
User avatar
Arthur_Tuxedo
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5637
Joined: 2002-07-23 03:28am
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Corporate Income Tax: Stacking the Deck?

Post by Arthur_Tuxedo »

Starglider wrote:
Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:I have become convinced that the reason is that the largest corporations in America like the fact that we have the world's highest marginal rate. Our current corporate tax system stacks the deck in favor of giant, established businesses that would go out of business or at least take lower profits in a properly functioning capitalist system. Consider this: You own a medium or large (but not giant) company that makes a product far superior to one that General Electric makes. It is superior in every way and cheaper to manufacture, your organization is more nimble and efficient, and your advertising and distribution is more effective. However, because you cannot afford to hire armies of lawyers and accountants to take advantage of every conceivable tax loophole or run your revenues through multiple tax havens, you pay close to the full 35% tax rate, while GE pays roughly 6%. This 29% gap means that you lose, no matter what. You go out of business, and the incumbent stays at the top.
This is essentially correct; corporation tax is highly regressive and a generally poor way to collect revenue, especially as implemented (tax on declared local profits). However differential corporation tax rate does not directly make products from small companies uncompetitive; it is a tax on profits, so it won't directly drive a company out of business (you don't pay the tax if you lose money or break even). What it does do is make it harder for small companies to raise equity investment; reducing the dividends pushes down the share price. A result of that is that small companies are more motivated to take risks and favour capital appreciation rather than dividends to increase shareholder value. As with most economic distortions this is ultimately a bad thing. Since all corporate profits feed directly into individual incomes it really makes no sense to tax them before distribution; once they become capital gains attached to an individual appropriate progressive taxation can be applied (e.g. UK capital gains exemption for small investors).

That said irrational corporation tax is just a small piece of the array of captive-government-leveraging tactics that large companies deploy to try and suppress and destroy smaller competitors.
So I was on the right track, but overstated the case. Good to know.
"I'm so fast that last night I turned off the light switch in my hotel room and was in bed before the room was dark." - Muhammad Ali

"Dating is not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be a heart-pounding, stomach-wrenching, gut-churning exercise in pitting your fear of rejection and public humiliation against your desire to find a mate. Enjoy." - Darth Wong
Post Reply