Who Pays the Corporate Income Tax?

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
It depends who you ask. The below link is to an extended blog piece written by Brice Bartlett. A ways through it he comments on four recent economic studies on the question:

The just-published March 2013 issue of The National Tax Journal, the principal academic journal devoted to tax analysis, contains four articles by top scholars who have sought to clarify the incidence of the corporate income tax. Unfortunately, there is no consensus.

The first article, by a Reed College economist, Kimberly Clausing, supports the traditional idea that capital bears all of the corporate tax. She notes that large multinational corporations have a great deal of flexibility in determining where to locate production, incur costs and realize profits.

A company may borrow in one country and take the deduction for interest there, locate actual production facilities and employ workers in another country, and realize profits in a third country by transferring intellectual property such as patents there or by adjusting prices on internal sales among its foreign subsidiaries.

Moreover, Professor Clausing notes, corporate shareholders may live in many different countries, each facing a different tax regime with respect to the taxation of dividends and capital gains.

For these reasons, she argues that it is impossible for workers to bear any significant portion of the corporate tax in the form of lower wages. It all falls on capital. A second article, by Jennifer Gravelle, a Congressional Budget Office economist, agrees with this conclusion.

But a third article, by an Oxford University economist, Li Liu and a Rutgers economist, Rosanne Altshuler, argues in favor of the idea that labor bears most of the burden of the corporate tax.

They take advantage of the fact that different industries bear different tax burdens because of various provisions of the tax law, and also that concentration and competition varies among industries. They empirically examine wages among industries and conclude that labor bears about 60 percent of the corporate tax burden.

That is, a $1 increase in corporate taxes will reduce wages by about 60 cents.

Finally, four Treasury Department economists detail the method the Treasury uses to allocate the corporate tax in distribution tables. They have the advantage of access to actual corporate tax returns and far greater detail on corporate finances than available to private researchers.

The Treasury economists conclude that 82 percent of the corporate tax falls on capital and 18 percent on labor. This is very close to the methodology of the private Tax Policy Center, whose analyses are frequently cited in policy debates. It assumes that 80 percent of the corporate tax is borne by capital and 20 percent by labor.


So four studies with three different answers ranging from 100% capital (x 2), to 60% labor. Who's right? Who knows? But lets not pretend that corporations can and will pass on any increase in costs (like taxes or, say, incresed labor costs at the bottom rung) to workers and consumers. The world doesn't work like they tell you in Econ 101 text books.


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/who-pays-the-corporate-income-tax/
 
There are four groups that can pay the corporate tax:

1) Shareholders
2) Corp execs/board of directors
3) Corp employees
4) Consumers

You are correct to state that they cannot always pass along the tax to the consumer and workers. But ask yourself... will they maximize what they can push to those two groups? For all you 'corps be the evilz' people out there... that should be a simple answer.

If you want to truly tax those who are making the most from the corporations, the corporate tax is not only inefficient, but it is also regressive in most cases.

Get rid of the 'differences' in income types. Tax all income the same. No more cap gains breaks. No more 'qualified' dividends' etc...

That way if the corp pays out dividends or cap gains to shareholders... they pay ordinary income tax on it. If the execs/BOD take out excessive pay... they pay ordinary income tax rates.

Obviously this would work even better if we eliminate the massive deductions/loopholes available.


side note: it is my opinion that the elimination of the corp tax would also reduce the amount of corporate lobbying in DC... (environmental issues/permits etc... would still be lobbied for)
 
This depends on the economics of the particular market.

Lets say that I can produce product x for $1. People will buy product x for $5, but not for $6. I make $4 on every sale of product x.

If the Government then imposes a tax on my product of $1 per, and I people will not buy it for $6... My profit just went down to $3.

If the market will support a price increase to $6, I could possably pass the entire cost of the tax to the consumers.
 
There are four groups that can pay the corporate tax:

1) Shareholders
2) Corp execs/board of directors
3) Corp employees
4) Consumers

You are correct to state that they cannot always pass along the tax to the consumer and workers. But ask yourself... will they maximize what they can push to those two groups? For all you 'corps be the evilz' people out there... that should be a simple answer.

Regarding the question in bold, I'm more interested in "Do they . . . ?" and "Can they . . . ?" and the answers to those questions seem to be "not really" when it comes to coprorate taxation. Well, at least according to most of the most recent studies on the question.


If you want to truly tax those who are making the most from the corporations, the corporate tax is not only inefficient, but it is also regressive in most cases.

Get rid of the 'differences' in income types. Tax all income the same. No more cap gains breaks. No more 'qualified' dividends' etc...

That way if the corp pays out dividends or cap gains to shareholders... they pay ordinary income tax on it. If the execs/BOD take out excessive pay... they pay ordinary income tax rates.

Obviously this would work even better if we eliminate the massive deductions/loopholes available.


side note: it is my opinion that the elimination of the corp tax would also reduce the amount of corporate lobbying in DC... (environmental issues/permits etc... would still be lobbied for)

The bold I just don't understand. How is a tax that studies show falls primarily on capital a regressive tax?

Also, we live in a less than perfect world with a less than perfect tax code and a less than perfect Congress. Treating all income the same isn't going to happen any time soon. That being the case, I'd prefer to not eliminate the corporate tax notwithstanding its limited appeal.


Side note: I almost banned you from this thread just to fuck with you.
 
This depends on the economics of the particular market.

Lets say that I can produce product x for $1. People will buy product x for $5, but not for $6. I make $4 on every sale of product x.

If the Government then imposes a tax on my product of $1 per, and I people will not buy it for $6... My profit just went down to $3.

If the market will support a price increase to $6, I could possably pass the entire cost of the tax to the consumers.


Let's stick with this hypothetical and pretend that you are you and are not a corporation and you are in competition with a corporation that produces quite similar goods. The corporate tax doesn't matter to you so you don't pay it. You produce the product for $1 and sell it for $5. Corporation likewise produces product for $1 and sells it for $5. Let's say govenment now imposes a tax on corporation of $1 per. What does Corporation do? If it increases to $6 no one will buy their product because you sell it for $5. That's why consumers don't generally bear the brunt of corporate taxation.

Also, too, in your scenario if the market supported a price of $6 you would already be charging $6 for it.
 
Regarding the question in bold, I'm more interested in "Do they . . . ?" and "Can they . . . ?" and the answers to those questions seem to be "not really" when it comes to coprorate taxation. Well, at least according to most of the most recent studies on the question.




The bold I just don't understand. How is a tax that studies show falls primarily on capital a regressive tax?

Also, we live in a less than perfect world with a less than perfect tax code and a less than perfect Congress. Treating all income the same isn't going to happen any time soon. That being the case, I'd prefer to not eliminate the corporate tax notwithstanding its limited appeal.


Side note: I almost banned you from this thread just to fuck with you.

then you would have been discussing this with Jarod... in the end fucking yourself
 
Back
Top