Snippa Spud on the incidence of corporation tax

What this is really showing is that our Professor of Practice in International Political Economy doesn’t understand the economics of which he is a professor:

The IFS is showing its political colouring in reaction to Labour’s corporation tax plans, suggesting that:

All taxes are paid by people and corporation tax is no different. Higher rates can reduce the returns to company owners (shareholders), but there is also evidence that a significant share of the burden is passed to workers in the form of lower wages.

First let me make the obvious comment that has to be said that only economists, living in their own fantasy worlds, could make a comment so obviously factually wrong. That’s because companies are separate legal persons, distinct from people. And as a matter of fact only they can pay the corporation tax a company owes, so this statement comes from imaginations that cannot face legal (and practical) reality. It is a myth that undermines the credibility of economics, but which far too many economists propagate anyway, that companies are just collections of people when in reality they legally exist, are distinct from their owners and do change the actual taxes due, how the income is categorised, the rate at which taxes are paid, where they are paid, when they are paid, who pays tax as a consequence, and that they also disguise who those who should pay tax might be, sometimes deliberately. The economists’ myth is dangerous in that case because it ignores reality and means that much of what they say on this subject is deeply flawed, as is the case with this IFS statement on Labour.

Second, if companies thought their workers paid their corporation tax for them there is little doubt they would give up tax avoidance overnight. They don’t.

Third, if corporation tax was paid by workers we should have seen a significant impact on real wages that should have increased as a result in recent years. We clearly have not.

So, fourth, the IFS is then relying, I suspect, on a study by Mike Devereux at Oxford University that claimed that this link with wages was found. But I think that study is flawed. It only looked at corporation tax increases, and that is a false sample base: if the relationship is true the hypothesis should also have been tested for cuts, of which there were many more. Then as I recall the study was not corrected fir the fact that most corporation tax increases arise during periods of economic stress in a country and unsurprisingly at these times wages tend to fall. So a correlation was found, but I am certain causation was not established. What was found were two consequences of economic downturns. They are not related.

The IFS still trots this stuff out though, maybe because it is so costly linked to Oxford. It should be more questioning, and stop using absurd assumptions, like the fact companies do not really exist, that have no relationship to the real world. It likes to think it is credible. It isn’t when it says things like this whilst ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that the people who might know – those who run companies – very clearly think shareholders bear the burden of corporation tax. They are very largely right in the main, one major exception being noted, which is that in the case of monopolies like water the customers undoubtedly do pay the company’s tax.

He’s really just not got it.

Firstly, yes, of course, all taxes are paid out of the wallet of some live human being. There’s only us here to pay taxes. Inheritance tax reduces the amount that people inherit. Employers’ NI, as even Ritchie agrees, reduces wages paid. In a closed economy shareholders pay corporation tax in the form of collecting lower profits. In an open economy corporation tax will mean less investment in said economy. Average wages are determined by average productivity, less investment means lower productivity and thus lower wages.

Note that the shareholders in the company being taxed pay some of the burden – something we can derive from Adam Smith’s only mention of “invisible hand” in Wealth of Nations in fact. Some people just will invest only at home just because they prefer to do so. But it is all workers in the economy, not just those in the company paying the tax, who bear the other part of the incidence. And the smaller the economy relative to the global one, the more mobile capital is, the more that it will be the workers not the capitalists.

Mike Deveraux’s work was an attempt to quantify this, not an attempt to make this basic case. Deveraux’s quantification could well be wrong. I think his initial estimate of more than 100% was myself (by the way, it’s Tony Atkinson and Joe Stiglitz who showed that incidence can be greater than 100%). His second and lower one of around 50% might be about right though.

But again, it’s not the theory that Deveraux is advancing, it’s the quantification.

The basic idea dates from Ernst Seligman back in the 1890s. Harberger updated it in 1962.

The truly annoying thing is that Spud did get it once. But now that it’s convenient for him not to get it he doesn’t.

Absolutely everyone other than Ritchie agrees that some of the incidence of the corporation tax will be on labour in an open economy. Even the TJN for the Lord’s sake. Here’s what they themselves use as evidence:

The idea that the corporate tax could fall on workers stems partly from the idea that in an open economy, the corporate tax will scare away investment, thus hurting workers. But this does not hold up in the evidence, particularly in larger economies. See, for instance,
Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, U.S. Congressional Budget Office, 2012, p16, which works on the basis that 75 percent of the burden of the corporate tax falls on capital.
Also see Corporate Tax Incidence: Review of General Equilibrium Estimates and Analysis, U.S. CBO, May 2012, Jennifer C. Gravelle, highlighting models that either find “capital bears the majority of the corporate tax burden” or that “even in an open economy, capital could bear virtually the entire tax burden and that the open-economy assumption is not sufficient to shift the burden of the corporate tax from capital to labor.”
Gravelle, Jane G. and Kent A. Smetters. 2006. “Does the Open Economy Assumption Really Mean That Labor Bears the Burden of a Capital Income Tax.” Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy vol. 6:1.
Also see In search of corporate tax incidence, Kimberley A. Clausing, Tax Law Review, 2012 (“there is simply no clear and persuasive evidence of a link between corporate taxation and wages.”)
See also How the TPC distributes the corporate income tax, Urban Institute and Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Sept 13, 2012, which finds that 80 percent of the burden falls on capital.
The U.S. Treasury uses a rate of 82 percent: see Distributing the Corporate Income Tax: Revised U.S. Treasury Methodology, May 17, 2012. Higher corporate cash piles in recent years presumably will shift the burder still further away from workers.
See also Sharing the Burden: Empirical Evidence on Corporate Tax Incidence, Nadja Dwenger, Pia Rattenhuber, Viktor Steiner, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance, Working Paper 2011 – 14 October 2011, which finds empirically that labour bears 19-29 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax. In small countries and tax havens, tax rates will have more impact on wages, but even then — and this applies to large as well as small countries — these effects, such as they are, will disproportionately impact the skilled, highly remunerated professions such as accountancy and law firms, meaning that tax cuts will tend to increase inequality.

All of that being arguments over the split in incidence, not that there is a split in the first place.

Bad Snippa.

26 comments on “Snippa Spud on the incidence of corporation tax

  1. He has admitted before that workers/shareholders pay corporation tax.

    Did I previously say here that socialists don’t have principles. they just have opinions?

  2. Forget the economics of it, that moron worked in public accounting for most of his “professional” life… If he wasn’t able to figure out tax incidence on by his own little self, I’m quite sure his business owning clients would have figured it out for him.

    Twat.

  3. With things like this I like playing with some actual numbers to get an initial grasp on the underlying concepts.

    Let’s say an entity has an income of £100m
    Let’s say it’s supplies and overheads are £33m and it’s staff are paid £33m, leaving anoth £33m left over at this point.

    Those employees will pay between 20% and 40% income tax – call it 33% – so £11m of that 100m goes to the Treasury as income tax.
    Those employees will pay 12% National Insurance, so that’s another £4m going to the Treasury.

    Those employees have £18m left after income tax and national insurance. They don’t put that in a pile and burn it, they spend it. Almost everything has VAT on it, so call it 15% going on VAT/Excise/etc. So that’s another £2.7m gone to the Treasury.

    What about that £33m the company had left over? Out of that there’s employer’s national insurance. That’s another 13%, so another £4.3m going to the Treasury.

    Before the company gets to calculate a profit there’s £22m of the £100m gone to the Treasury, and that’s without working out how much of the Supplies and Overheads is paid as tax. Let’s say 15% of Supplies & Overheads is 15%, so that’s another £5m. After all that money paid out from that £100m income the company has £29.7m. Corporation tax takes £6m of that, leaving £23.75m post-tax profit.

    Again, that’s not put in a pile and burned, it goes to real human beings, the shareholders. Who pay income tax on it – another £7.8m to the Treasury – and VAT on what they spend it on – another £2.4m to the Treasury.

    So, out of the £100m income at least £43.2m has gone to the Treasury.

    Yes, all intial stab, back of envelope numbers, but gives an idea of the magnitudes and proportions.

    So, lets look at what happens if CorpTax is raised. After all the pre-tax outgoings they had £29.7m. Put CorpTax up to 30% so £8.8m goes to the treasury instead of £6m, leaving £20.9 to go to shareholders. They pay 33% income tax and 15% VAT/Etc on that, giving the Treasury £9m, for a total of £17.8m instead of £16.2m before. So for a 10-point increase in CorpTax rates you get a 1% increase in tax take. EVIL CORPORATE TAX AVOIDERS!!!!! WHERE’S OUR **MOAR** **TAX*** GONE????

  4. All taxes are paid by people and corporation tax is no different. Higher rates can reduce the returns to company owners (shareholders), but there is also evidence that a significant share of the burden is passed to workers in the form of lower wages.
    First let me make the obvious comment that has to be said that only economists, living in their own fantasy worlds, could make a comment so obviously factually wrong. That’s because companies are separate legal persons, distinct from people. And as a matter of fact only they can pay the corporation tax a company owes, so this statement comes from imaginations that cannot face legal (and practical) reality. It is a myth that undermines the credibility of economics, but which far too many economists propagate anyway, that companies are just collections of people when in reality they legally exist, are distinct from their owners and do change the actual taxes due, how the income is categorised, the rate at which taxes are paid, where they are paid, when they are paid, who pays tax as a consequence

    Christ Almighty.

    Within sixty words, or four sentences.

  5. Can’t you just imagine a company saying “damn, I can’t afford that holiday to the Bahamas this year because of all that corp tax I have to pay”?

  6. Corporations are really aliens and their money disappears into another dimension, just like all the money on deposit in offshore tax havens. The lizardpeople use it to roll around on.

  7. If Murphy is only speaking to companies about the Fair Tax Mark, it would explain why the Fair Tax Mark hasn’t taken off.

    Imagine some executive looking out his office window to the street below and asking an underling, “Who is that man, and why is he talking to the front door of our building?”

  8. I can’t make my mind up whether the prof actually believes what he said there about incidence or was deliberately trying to bamboozle the audience.

  9. “Employers’ NI, as even Ritchie agrees, reduces wages paid.”

    Employers’ pension contributions also reduce wages paid, but they do have the benefit of deferring tax on it, to be paid when the individual collect his/her pension.

  10. If it is companies that pay tax, then surely the companies which avoid tax will be spunking their ill-gotten gains on coke, booze and hookers? I have yet to see any plc down Mrs Bang’s House for the Very Naughty…..

  11. Wasn’t it Richard Murphy recently who wrote a blog post “Who really pays Trump’s import tariffs?”.

    It was as I recall really rather good; a reall masterclass on tax incidence that I would recommend to students everywhere

  12. But doesn’t he also accuse corporations of avoiding taxes by paying their staff bonuses which also seems to avoid mentioning that the bonus income will be taxed under PAYE and likely at a higher rate

  13. Yes, if you take my back-of-envelope numbers from above.

    Change wage bill from £33m to £50m.
    Employees pay £27.75m in income tax, NI, VAT/Excise, up from £17.7m
    Corporation’s employer’s NI is 6.5m up from £4.3m
    Corporation’s profits are £12.7 down from £29.7m
    Corporation tax is £2.5m down from £6m.

    Boo hoo! Evil corporation pays less tax!

    But. Total tax take is £54.5m up, yes, *UP* from £43m

    If you go to the extreme and pay your staff so much you make zero profit that baby-eating satanic spawn of Satan ends up generating about £65m of payments to the Treasury.

  14. “Corporations are really aliens”

    We don’t have to invoke aliens. Since corporations are owned by people and have to provide returns to their owners the only logical conclusion in Ritchieland is that corporations are slaves. Extending his logic, it is easily apparent that what we need is to free the slaves so they can pay more in corporate tax.

  15. That clip shows that spud is clearly a very angry and unbalanced little man. What, I wonder, makes him so angry? Whatever it is, it isn’t tax ‘justice’: that’s evidently merely a proxy.

  16. @adrian

    He’s used that one before. It’s beyond stupid.

    It’s self-defeating too. Love may well exist but love doesn’t get married.

  17. @liberal yank wasnt it the case that in the US the post civil war anti-slavery legislation was used as the argument for corporations being treated as people in law and extend their rights etc.

  18. Martin, my thoughts too – he wants to tax love.

    Given love can bear the economic incidence independently of people, why not make the tax 100%, and lift the burden off all of us. Bring it on, happy days.

  19. BniC

    In the broadest sense of the terms, yes. In other words I’ve seen the idea during the last few years which is most definitely post-Civil War.

    I am not aware of any specific cases from the reconstruction era. It would be interesting to know when the idea originated.

  20. 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the Court granted Constitutional rights for the first time to Corporations and created the concept of corporate personhood. largely based on the fourteenth amendment which was meant to protect freed slaves

  21. After a quick read of the decision it seems that the fourteenth amendment was not addressed in any detail. Virtually everything is devoted to determining that fences had been improperly valued in the assessment. Basically the Railroad’s lawyers tried to raise the point and the court ignored it. Still the idea existed and that is what I wanted to know. Thank you.

    I’d like to offer one quick note on American history. Post-Civil War generally refers to the Reconstruction Era. This ran from 1865-1877. The Gilded Age ran from the late-1870’s until the 1920’s.

    I know, I know. You try making such a short history seem comparable to other nations.

  22. Being separate people, surely these companies qualify for working tax credits, housing benefits, etc. if times are hard?

  23. S’pose the most obvious reason Spud’s talking his usual bollocks is that if corporations were people, it would be against the law to hold shares in one.
    Chattel slavery was made illegal in 1833.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.