July 26, 2007

silhouette3.JPG From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Loser..er...Labor Pays

Glenn Hubbardon corporate taxes ($)

Who bears the corporate tax burden? Some may be tempted with a quick answer, "corporations." But that is clearly wrong. The Econ 101 admonition that people pay taxes -- in this case, suppliers of capital through lower returns, workers through lower wages, and/or consumers through higher prices -- remains true even when the tax is aimed at capital. And the category "owners of corporate capital" (that is, stockholders) is also too narrow. In his celebrated analysis of the corporate tax almost 50 years ago, Arnold Harberger showed, for a closed economy, that a separate tax on corporate capital would reduce returns to all owners of capital, making it a tax on saving (and, in a framework more general than Mr. Harberger's, on investment).

Recent research has cast an eye in a somewhat different direction, showing that the tax may be borne not entirely (or even principally) by owners of capital, but by workers. Globalization plays a role. In an open economy, with mobile capital, a source-based tax like the corporate tax will lead to a capital outflow, reducing investment and productivity and wages. Indeed, Mr. Harberger's updated research on the incidence of the corporate tax concluded that labor bears not just the brunt of the tax, but a burden that may be larger than the tax itself.

In other research assuming that the world-wide capital stock is fixed, William Randolph of the Congressional Budget Office finds that labor bears about 70% of the corporate tax. More generally, the burden on labor is higher to the extent that saving is responsive to after-tax returns and the country has a small effect on world prices of goods.

Most of this research has relied on theoretical models, albeit sometimes with parameters calibrated from actual experience. But direct empirical tests of the effects of openness, corporate taxes and their combination on workers' wages tell a similar story.

A recent paper by Kevin Hassett and Aparna Mathur of the American Enterprise Institute analyzes data across countries and over time, concluding that for countries that are part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a 1% increase in corporate tax rates results in a 0.8% decrease in manufacturing wage rates. (Economic intuition suggests significant negative effects of the corporate tax on manufacturing wages because of the complementarity of capital and labor for skilled workers.)

Wage effects of this size suggest labor bears much of the burden of the corporate tax. In fact, workers collectively would be better off if they voted for higher taxes on labor with corresponding cuts in the corporate tax.


More fuel for the Dreck tax compromise. If we are going to tax income from corporations, we should tax it closer to consumption -after it is paid to shareholders.

Posted by Mindles H. Dreck at July 26, 2007 11:00 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
Comments
Posted by: j on July 26, 2007 3:10 PM

I'm not sure your last sentence follows from the above analysis. Whether the tax is slapped "closer" to consumption may not effect incidence the same way a tax that employers or employees "pay" have the same economic effects. Of course, there could be other issues the fact that its easier for corporations than citizens to exploit loopholes with teams of lawyers etc. but the thrust of the above analysis is that incidence can end up in surprising places and is independent from who mails the government a check.
Of course the corporate tax is worse than a general tax on capital because it excludes capital in the housing sector, but we don't tax much of that anyway.

Posted by: Jody on July 26, 2007 3:24 PM

I personally prefer taking all taxes from consumption...

Posted by: j on July 26, 2007 6:26 PM


Thanks for responding, I've just found this blog and I enjoy it.

You're right there are state/local property taxes and other charges to factor in. Of course, one can deduct these from federal income taxes which encourages state's to rely on the propert tax more.

Posted by: Larry on July 27, 2007 8:46 AM

I agree that it's time for the corporate profits tax to go and the tax preferences for dividends and capital gains to go with it.

But how should retained earnings get handled?

Posted by: wallster on July 27, 2007 9:30 AM

I'd be all for the elimination of double taxation if shareholders give up the limited liability they enjoy from corporate structure as well.

Posted by: B on July 28, 2007 10:07 PM

I have long figured that taxes and regulations benefit large corporations at the expense of ordinary people, based on Mark Twain's description of The Pilots' Monopoly in Chapter 15 of "Life on the Mississippi". I especially recall this excerpt, which explains it all:

"The owners and captains were the only obstruction that lay between the association and absolute power; and at last this one was removed. Incredible as it may seem, the owners and captains deliberately did it themselves. When the pilots' association announced, months beforehand, that on the first day of September, 1861, wages would be advanced to five hundred dollars per month, the owners and captains instantly put freights up a few cents, and explained to the farmers along the river the necessity of it, by calling their attention to the burdensome rate of wages about to be established. It was a rather slender argument, but the farmers did not seem to detect it. It looked reasonable to them that to add five cents freight on a bushel of corn was justifiable under the circumstances, overlooking the fact that this advance on a cargo of forty thousand sacks was a good deal more than necessary to cover the new wages."

Comments are Closed.