This is Gryphon here. I hope everyone has enjoyed their Thanksgiving and respective time being thankful and stuff. I know I most certainly have. As most of you know, my college life is consuming most of my time, but I decided that this assignment could serve the dual purpose of being a blog post and a research paper on corporate taxes.( With a title like that, I realize no one will actually read the post. Don't worry about it. It just makes me feel good to post something. :D )
p.s: remember the Prof gave me some really strange parameters. So remember most of the stuff is mine, but there are places where I was forced to insert the "required content". See if you can guess which part wasn't mine. :P
Corporate Taxes: A Study That Shows Sometimes Less Really Is More
Imagine a college student. He had worked
exhaustively for the past four years in order to graduate. The courses and
challenges of college had been difficult, but the individual endeavored onward,
investing immense amounts of time and money into the final goal of achieving a
degree. Finally, the student, passing hurdle after hurdle, graduates. The
person then sets to searching for a job which will not only pay the bills but
also employ the degree he laboriously earned, but opportunities dry up and any
openings seem to disappear quickly. As the unemployed graduate grows more
desperate, he finally finds a low-level job outside his field, but it at least
pays for his expenses. Now as his
college loans start accumulating interest, the bewildered student wonders just
where the good jobs he had been preparing for went to.
This is just an example of a common problem
pervasive throughout America today. The economy and job market have stagnated to
the point where one of every two college graduates are unemployed “Chew”. Debt continues to grow upwards while
the job market shrinks, and businesses do not have the means to continue steady
expansion. This weak economy is the result of the economic recession, and, while
there are many factors and variables involved in the study of the recession
economy, a facet particularly pertinent to the business community and job
seekers is the issue of corporate taxes. While the effect of taxation is itself
a large complex issue, we can gain a greater understanding of the whole by
studying one of the parts. The part that I will focus on is the negative effect
of the current USA corporate tax rate on firms and corporations, and why it
should be lowered.
First, before we analyze this toll, it would
be profitable to define exactly what I mean by corporate taxes. Corporate taxes
are “A levy placed on the profit of a firm, with different rates used for
different levels of profits. Corporate taxes are taxes against profits earned
by businesses during a given taxable period; “(“ (Investopedia)”) In approximation,
it is a tax placed on the earnings of businesses. By knowing what exactly
corporate taxes are, we can now properly weigh it’s effects, and why it should
be lowered.
Now, in a time when the deficit is at an all
time high, people having less money to spend, and jobs scarce, many people
might wonder at the logic of lowering the tax rate for businesses, but the fact
is this is the right time to cut the rate. As of 2012, the United States of
America achieved an effective corporate
tax rate of 34.6%,the highest rate in the G7 (the economic planning council)
and the the fourth highest rate in the
world. While other industrialized nations have intitated corporate tax cuts for
their countries, America continues to have a rate double that of the national
average and well above that of other industrialized nations. (Institute) This has several effects on businesses. Most
important is that it destroys the competitive viability of America. Firms and corporations with the means
naturally seek lower tax havens, taking their jobs with them.The Examiner
magazine said this, “In an expose on March 27th by CBS's 60
Minutes, hundreds of companies, and over $1.1 trillion dollars, are now being
kept overseas providing nothing to the US economy due to stringent tax laws and
regulations which make it difficult to invest, create new jobs, and find
profitability if incorporated in America.” (Kenneth Schortgen Jr)
Likewise, the jobs that could be given to
American families should be reason enough for alleviating the tax burden. Yet,
there are those that purport that these statistics are false or
misleading. Democracy in America, a
popular political blog, has stated “Members of the business community, for
their part, have long maintained that America's corporate rate, nominally the
highest in the world, should be lowered. But that 35 percent rate is more
theory than practice. Studies indicate that after tax breaks, the effective
corporate tax rate is in fact closer to 25 percent, and one analysis found that
nearly 300 major companies paid an average rate of just 18.5 percent between
2008 and 2010.” (R.M.) When reading this,
it is important to note that it is true that some of these corporations do pay
less than the effective rate, but there is a fallacy apparent in the logic. The
article doesn’t go deep enough into the problem. Where did the companies get
these tax breaks? They received them by relocating and off-shoring to areas
with a more profitable tax rate, which the corporations had to do to avoid the
excessive corporate tax in the first place. An example of this would be the
tech giant Apple, who built factories in Ireland, routs internet traffic
through Luxembourg, and then banks the profits in the Netherlands. All these
operations create jobs for these nations, and the reason for this overly complicated
trek is that each of these countries has tax laws vastly lower than America’s. In
addition, while a select few firms can offshore, other companies cannot afford
these loopholes, and the largest percent of taxes fall upon them hardest. (Prante) It is much like the
family business or local firm that provides an infrastructure for an area.
These small based businesses simply do not have the contacts or resources to
relocate to these tax havens, and they must then compete with businesses that
have. This presents the dual problems of a foreign based corporate system and
also an imbalanced domestic market. An easy solution to both these problems is
to lower the tax rate to a value where it is more attractive and profitable to
keep their operations in the US. It would
Similarly, a common charge brought up against
the idea of reducing the rate is that the government cannot afford to lose the
revenue. These detractors claim that tax cuts do not actually spur on growth,
and thereby the government would lose a source of income for no reason. The
problem in this is those opposed to the tax cuts make two incorrect
assumptions. One, tax cuts do in fact spurs growth. There are numerous
historical examples of this very thing occurring. In 1981, the USA had an
unemployment rate of 7.5% and corporate tax rate of 46%. After the corporate
tax was cut down to 35% by the Reagan Administration, the national unemployment
rate fell to 5.0%. These statistics show an enormous growth in employment. Knowing
that tax cuts of this kind can spur growth actually solves the second
misconception. With the increased growth spurred by the tax cuts, government
would actually bring in more income than at higher rates, because it would be
getting slightly less from an economic base that is constantly growing,
resulting in more income overall. This idea is illustrated handily by an
economic model called the Laffer Curve. Created by the economic advisor Arthur
Laffer, the Laffer Curve shows a relationship between tax rate and tax revenue.
According to the Cato institute, “The Laffer curve illustrates the idea that
above a certain tax rate, cuts to the rate cause the tax base to expand
sufficiently for revenues to increase. The U.S. corporate tax rate is above
that rate, and thus in a strong Laffer zone.” (Edwards) The Laffer Curve is also handily shown true
in real world examples. In 1985, Ireland had a corporate tax rate of 50%, but
their overall corporate tax revenue was only 1% of their Gross Domestic
Product. Over the next nineteen years the Irish government underwent a series
of reforms that lowered the rate down to 12%, and coincidentally the corporate
revenue skyrocketed to 3.6% .This is an increase of roughly 300%. What we see in these examples is basically the
ideal Laffer Curve effect. Although, with this diagram in mind, it is important
to note that not all tax cuts have this dramatic of an effect. In order to be
most effective, corporate tax reductions must be employed in proper areas and are
only one piece of an economic plan. But, as these examples and models show, the
use of tax cuts is a powerful positive economic stimulus.
With all these facts, statistics, and
arguments, it all boils down to one simple question. What does it matter?
Perhaps economics and politics do have some meaning, but is it truly worth
wasting time thinking about it? The answer is yes. We could ask that same
question to our College graduate locked in a spiral of debt. Perhaps one of the
companies that were forced to offshore might have had a job for him. Maybe he
could have found employment with a local business, except that businesses are
not hiring because they have to deal with an unfair tax system and ambiguous
competition. If you could ask this individual or countless other unemployed
people, I think they would tell you anything affecting business is of the
utmost importance to them.
On the other hand, one could even expand the
observation further. What about the family and relationships of this graduated
individual? The only job he can find is one that only just fulfills his needs.
It definitely doesn’t leave any left over to stop his college debt from
accumulating interest. The stress of his situation taints many varied areas of
his life, from his self-image to his relationships. He would feel stuck in this
cycle. Alternatively, it might be imagined that the graduate could move to get
one of the few jobs out there. While this scenario is much better than being
unemployed, it also strains any relationships he might have had, and it removes
any developed structure for the newly employed to lean upon. These symptoms of extended
unemployment and desperate employment cause not only economic disturbance but
also psychological tension.
Understanding all the evidence presented
hitherto, one can see the damage done by the inefficient and detrimental corporate
tax system. Jobs, profits, revenues, economic security, and growth, all these
items are endangered for everyone by an economic policy that discourages internal
and external competition. Hopefully, the American policy will soon swing to
support a stronger pro-business stance, because it would be a senseless shame
if the American people continued under the misconception that corporate tax
cuts are the problem, when in fact they are part of the solution.
Works Cited
Chew, Kristina. 1 in 2 College Graduates
Unemployed or Underemployed. Ed. inc. Care2.com. 22 April 2012. Web. 23
November 2012.
Edwards, Chris. Coporate tax laffer curve.
November 2007. Cato Institute. Web. 23 November 2012.
Institute, Cato. New Estimates of Effective
Corporate tax Rates on Business Investment. na February 2011. Cato
Institute. Web. 23 November 2012.
Investopedia. Corporate Tax. n.a. ValueClick,
Inc. Web. 23 November 2012.
Kenneth Schortgen Jr. US corporate tax rates the
primary cause for companies moving overseas. 11 March 2011. Clarity
Digital Group LLC d/b/a Examiner.com. Web. 23 November 2012.
Prante, Drs. Robert Carroll and Gerald Ernst &
Young LLP. Long-run macroeconomic impact of increasing tax rates on high
income taxpayers in 2013. na July 2012. Ernst & Young. Web. 23
November 2012.
R.M. The trouble with tax reform. 4 Febuary
2011. The Economist. Web. 23 November 2012.
WOW!! You must have done a lot of resech for that one a couple of points were a little hard to understand but good artical I am a bit surprised that the Laffer Curve didn't show the Growth maximizing point at 0% any thought on why that would be ?
ReplyDeleteWell, the idea is for revenue growth not industry growth. While business would grow the most at 0%, the amount of money that the government would be bringing in would not. This solves the problem where people say that we need higher taxes to pay for programs. The fact is that the government can increase it's revenue by expanding the tax base.
ReplyDeleteP.S: thank you for the comment.
ReplyDelete