Sterling Terrell

smart ideas from books (mostly)

  • Home
  • About
    • My CV
    • Books
    • Series
  • Newsletter
  • Advertising
  • Tools

Corporate Taxes Suffocate Growth

Corporate Taxes Suffocate Growth
The cover story of the June 17, 2008 issue of the Wall Street Journal was, “Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut in Business Tax.” The story indicates that (then) presidential hopeful Barack Obama would consider lowering the corporate tax rate if tax breaks and loopholes were eliminated. It reads,
He stressed the idea was not a broad move toward Sen. McCain’s broader tax-cutting philosophy. While Sen. McCain has argued that tax cuts — particularly on business — spur growth, Sen. Obama dismissed that as flawed economics. “I’ve seen no evidence that … would actually boost the economic growth and productivity.”

No evidence? Really? Maybe I can help.

The historical and current belief is that taxes in America are low, compared to the world in general. America is the model of free markets, low regulation, and economic freedom. Right? This is simply not the case. The United States has high taxes in general and higher corporate taxes in particular.

In the 2008 Index of Economic Freedom, assembled by the Heritage Foundation, personal income taxes and corporate tax rates are compared across the globe — along with many other economic measures. In regard to personal income taxes, the United States ranks 87th out of 156 nations. And in corporate rates, it ranks 125th out of 156. In other words, 86 nations have lower tax rates on personal income than the United States, and 124 nations have lower corporate tax rates.[2]

Venezuela, India, Finland, Haiti, Burma, Canada, Mexico, Egypt, Cambodia, and Russia are among the many nations whose top personal income tax rate is lower than the rate in America.

The only nations who have a higher corporate tax rate than America are Suriname, Pakistan, Togo, Benin, Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Chad, Libya, and Vietnam. No information was available for The Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, North Korea, Montenegro, Serbia, or Sudan. I cannot imagine why.

Lower corporate taxes are associated with economic growth. This can be shown a priori and empirically.

A Priori

Corporate taxes reduce the profits of business owners. This is true because net income is reduced by the tax rate. For example, Firm X, with a $100 investment, earning a 7% return has an income — before taxes — of $7. With a 10% corporate tax rate, net income — after taxes — is $6.30. Firm X now has earned a 6.3% return. In contrast, a corporate tax rate of 40% reduces net income after taxes by $2.80 to $4.20, or a 4.2% after-tax return. This rise in taxes, on the margin, reduces the profit-seeking incentive to take business risks. Why risk starting a biotech company when inflation-protected T-bill’s will give you the same return? Entrepreneurs and venture capitalists less willing to take risk means less innovation and fewer innovative ideas being economically viable. This results in less economic growth. Conversely, higher returns on invested capital encourage investment and savings. All of this leads to more capital savings, more innovation, better technology, and higher wages.

Further, the above example of Firm X is true if the firm does not have the pricing ability to transfer the tax to its customers. If the ability does exist, an increase in the corporate tax rate is really a tax on customers of the firm. In this case, consumers now have less to spend and save and the end result is the same.

Finally, a firm unable to pass on a tax increase or bear the reduced profit will either attempt to cut costs by reducing wages (among other costs) or be forced to go out of business.

The main point is this: by definition, corporations do not pay taxes — people pay taxes. A corporate tax is either a tax on shareholders of the firm, customers of the firm, or employees of the firm. Less corporate tax means more innovation, capital savings, and spending by these groups — also known as economic growth.

Empirically

After theory and logic tell us what is true, empiricism can confirm our result.

Thankfully, Professors Young Lee (Hanyang University) and Rodger Gordon (UC — San Diego) have done the work for us. In a 2005 journal article they concluded,

This paper finds that the corporate tax rate is significantly negatively correlated with economic growth in a cross-section data set of 70 countries during 1970–1997, controlling for many other determinants/covariates of economic growth.

More specifically, they continue, “The estimates suggest that cutting the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points can increase the annual growth rate by around 1.1%.”

Using these figures, Andrew Chamberlain of the Tax Foundation opines, by cutting the U.S.’s combined federal and average state corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to 30 percent we could boost U.S. economic growth by around 1.1 percent per year — enough to double our nation’s wealth every 63 years.

Even better, a cut from the actual corporate tax rate of 35% to a rate of 10% would double our nation’s wealth every 30 years.

Life Savers moved production to Canada. Nabor Industries and Tyco International moved to Bermuda. Halliburton has announced a move to Dubai. In a globalizing economy, is it really a puzzle that firms prefer to operate in lower-taxing, less-regulated environments?

These are examples of what can be seen. As Frédéric Bastiat reminds us, however, it is imperative to also account for what cannot be seen. What would the wealth of our nation be today if the corporate tax rate had always been 10% or less? What creature comforts would have been innovated? What new technologies brought to market? What diseases cured?

Due to a history of high corporate taxes, these answers are not known, and we are worse off because of it.

First published by the Mises Institute.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: PotpourriTagged With: #Economics, #Taxes

Economics 101: The Price of Gas

Economics 101: The Price of Gas

Gas prices are up and oil executives are once again testifying before Congress. Clearly, many politicians, pundits, and consumers lament the rising cost of gas. Before we join them in their chorus, let us take a step back and ask this question: Are gas prices really all that high?

A change in price can be a result of inflation, taxes, changes in supply and demand, or any combination of the three.

First, we need to take into account inflation. The result of the Federal Reserve printing too much money is a loss of purchasing power of the dollar: something that cost $1.00 in 1950 would cost about $8.78 today. As for gas prices, in 1950 the price of gas was approximately 30 cents per gallon. Adjusted for inflation, a gallon of gas today should cost right at $2.64, assuming taxes are the same.

But taxes have not stayed the same. The tax per gallon of gas in 1950 was roughly 1.5% of the price. Today, federal, state, and local taxes account for approximately 20% of gas’s posted price. Taking inflation and the increase in taxes into account (assuming no change in supply or demand) the same gallon of gas that cost 30 cents in 1950 should today cost about $3.13.

Neither have supply or demand remained constant. The world economy is growing. China and India are obvious examples. At the same time, Americans continue to love driving SUVs and trucks. As for supply, we are prohibited (whatever the reasons may be) from using many of the known oil reserves in our own country. Furthermore, due to government regulation, the last oil refinery built in the United States was completed in 1976. In addition, the Middle East is politically unstable which leads to a risk premium on the world’s major source of oil. It is obvious that the demand for oil has grown while supplies have been restricted.

The average price of gas in the United States today is approximately $3.25. The question is, why are gas prices not higher than they are?

Blaming greedy oil companies on the rising price of gas is simply irresponsible. The profit margins of a few selected industries are as follows:

Periodical Publishing 24.9%
Shipping 18.8%
Application Software 22.5%
Tobacco 19%
Water Utilities 10.2%
Major Integrated Oil and Gas 9.5%
Hospitals 1.4%
Drugstores 2.8%

The water utility industry has higher profit margins than major oil and gas firms! Why isn’t every CEO with profit margins above that of the oil companies made to testify before Congress for “price gouging”? Clearly, greedy corporate profits are not the issue.

Again, while just over nine percent of the price of a gallon of gas goes to oil company profits, approximately twenty percent of the price of a gallon of gas is composed of federal, state, and local taxes.

Those who want the government to step in and do something about the high price of gas are either forgetful of recent history or too young to remember the oil crisis of 1979. During that time, restrictions on the price of gasoline led to the inability of some to find gas at all. Price ceilings always lead to shortages. The only thing worse than having to pay “too much” for gas is not being able to find gas at any price.

Let us not be swayed by politicians out for power or by reporters out to create news where none exists. Facts and economic logic should prevail rather than rhetoric.

First published by the Mises Institute.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: PotpourriTagged With: #Economics, #Gas

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 1819
  • 1820
  • 1821

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Notifications of all new posts by email.

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Twitter

Search

Top Posts

  • The Tricky Lily Pad Riddle (You Probably Can't Solve)
    The Tricky Lily Pad Riddle (You Probably Can't Solve)
  • Instabooks 345
    Instabooks 345
  • Keep People Guessing By?
    Keep People Guessing By?
  • How To Ask If She Is A Call Girl
    How To Ask If She Is A Call Girl
  • Instabooks 326
    Instabooks 326
  • The Tragedy Of Gina "Bronco" Bouza (1932-1957)
    The Tragedy Of Gina "Bronco" Bouza (1932-1957)
  • The Simple Joy Of Elevator Buttons
    The Simple Joy Of Elevator Buttons
  • God Gives Job Double Everything, Except This?
    God Gives Job Double Everything, Except This?
  • Can You Solve The Bat And Ball Riddle?
    Can You Solve The Bat And Ball Riddle?
  • Wagon Train Morality
    Wagon Train Morality

Supporting = Loving

Buy Me a Coffee

Recent Posts

  • Where Did I Set My iPhone
  • Cold And Limp And All Of The
  • Random Thoughts – 375
  • King Of Love, By: I Am They
  • The Point Of Learning
  • Instabooks 371
  • A Dopamine Hit Just One
  • Random Thoughts – 374
  • A Leaders Necessary Exposure To Risk
  • The Compulsion To Read
  • Instabooks 370
  • With Tea Looking Out Of That
  • Random Thoughts – 373
  • Stayed Up All Night
  • Missed Internet Mania
  • Tenderloin, San Francisco
  • And That All This Is A Pause
  • Random Thoughts – 372
  • 100 Things That Made My Year – 2022
  • On Selling Popcorn
  • Instabooks 369
  • Solemn Week With My Parents
  • Random Thoughts – 371
  • Handle A Serious Interview
  • Instabooks 368

Copyright © 2023 · Generate Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in