On the other hand, lowering corporate taxes also generates a cascade of tax avoidance, since you have higher profits that generate the need for more complex tax avoidance schemes to reduce taxation on that large amount of money.
Tax evasion breaks this system. Profit is taken out of the system and stores offshore, where it doesn't create any value.
Tax evasion is bad. Investing is good.
Honestly, the tax holidays royally piss me off especially coming from a party that "embraces law and order" - it's essentially like pardoning a bunch of robbers - except the actual robbers stole far less money.
Obviously there are ways to break that, like tax evasion, but hopefully there are other ways to deal with that.
This is not the case, and in the event such an opportunity is available, companies would pursue it regardless of the tax environment, because making some money net of tax is better than no money whatsoever.
What such a policy would actually do is incentivize a massive mis-allocation of capital while simultaneously resulting in lower tax revenues. I fail to see how this makes anyone better off.
At 100% tax rate I would expect that pattern to be magnified. As a board member, I'd use my success to hire or partner with anybody I had the slightest positive feeling for, until there is just enough money left over that I don't have the biggest target painted on my forehead.
Looking at behavior in the extreme case is only valid if behavior scales smoothly up to that limit.
It sounds like if taxes are high, I invest and play for time, waiting for some administration to offer me a tax break so I can take money out. Is a targeted tax break then also a chance to extract profit?
I don’t know if this scales all the way up when all the big co’s move their HQ’s offshore. Perhaps we need diff positions for diff business sizes.
If you pay for an expense with pre-tax income (i.e., in December, assuming a calendar tax year), that reduces your tax liability on your profits for the year, for an effective discount of X% on that expense (where X is your effective tax rate).
If you buy that same expense with post-tax income (i.e., in January of Year 2), you don't get the effective discount, and you won't know until the end of Year 2 if it will reduce your Year 2 taxes. Also, you have to wait a year to get any tax benefit out of the expense.
The cost of waiting just a few weeks can be huge. This is why many companies (or corporate departments) choose to blow the remainders of their budgets rushing through projects at year end rather than just taking the time to do things properly after the holidays.
The forced spending by the end of a fiscal tax year is often offset by delivery or implementation contracts to mitigate the damage of having to time the purchase for tax purchases.
But the point is that a business with a higher tax rate has a greater incentive to spend money, and to spend more of it.
And as a practical matter, history has demonstrated that businesses actually invest less during periods of low tax than they do during periods of high tax, even though they have more cash to spend. It's counterintuitive but multiple major tax cuts have borne this trend out.
Certainly considered in isolation this investment sounds attractive. In conjunction with the benefits of paychecks and dividends being spent elsewhere in the economy it’s less certain.
Changing personal income tax rates has a lagging effect on economic spending, because they're spread out over time so that effect ends up being very small on a monthly or bimonthly basis (i.e., the periods over which a person generally receives a paycheck). Generally, consumers don't even notice the change until the file the taxes for the year.
Businesses have had low taxes since the Reagan administration, albeit brief periods of higher taxes during the Clinton and Obama administrations. Notably, business investment was at its highest levels during those periods of high taxes, and the economy grew at its highest rates since the post-WWII reconstruction era. During the periods of low taxes, US businesses actually accelerated off-shoring labor to foreign facilities, and the decline of Detroit and the Rust Belt can be directly correlated with the Reagan tax cuts.
A better option would be to remove corporate incomes taxes entirely. Only tax the outflow instead, which would be simpler to implement and easier to deal with at all levels.
And the lower the incentive to make new investments.
And the higher the incentive to engage in socially wasteful tax-avoidance accounting.
The difference being that the former is low risk and can grow the business, while the other has a good chance of triggering penalties that wipe out the savings and could even result in jail time for one or more executives.
Consider that the historically highest rates of tax fraud are during the current administration, despite historically low levels of tax on corporate income.
I'm just imagining the 1950s cottage industry in compensating executives with a company car, personal assistant outside of work, etc before the IRS caught up?
And all the present day shenanigans with Amazon/Apple etc hiding profits in Ireland?
The present day shenanigans were Apple and Amazon (note: Apple takes historical credit for being the first tech company to implement this structure) hiding profits in Ireland through the double dutch or similar structures. However, the EU has already attempted to crack down on the use of that structure and deemed it illegal. Companies that currently use the structure may be grandfathered in as a result of EU court decisions but no new companies can get implement the structure. Apple especially has been hoarding money overseas and not doing anything with it. In contrast, companies with higher tax rates have been very active about spending their overseas money rather than bringing it back to the US, precisely to avoid paying the higher taxes that repatriation would incur.
Yes, it's counterintutive. But it's how the world actually works.
You're shifting the goalposts. First you were claiming that taxes don't generally spur avoidant behavior. Now you're claiming they do[1], and we want that.
Which is itself dubious. I'm pretty sure "we" don't want people to unilaterally exempt themselves from taxes by relabeling consumption as a business expense. (In the extreme case, imagine you can just pass on every desired purchase as a "wish list" to your employer and they buy it for you, "as a business expense" leaving you with no taxable income. Obviously the IRS has to crack down on that, and no one would call that "things working as intended".)
And we definitely don't want real resources going to gaming of the tax code, which is socially wasteful.
[1] and in the next paragraph, the tack of "but it's cool, they're gonna crack down on that later".
We're talking about different types of avoidance. I'm talking about real business spending, i.e., on facilities, equipment, employees, etc., as a means of tax avoidance. High taxes encourage this type of spending because (a) businesses that are growing are going to do this anyway and (b) they effectively get a discount for this anyway if they're making enough money to actually pay taxes.
But most people are referring to tax avoidance strategies like IP shifting, off-shoring, etc. I'm saying, that based on my professional experience as a tax advisor for a decade, that these activities are not motivated by high tax rates, and indeed were highest during periods of lower tax rates. (In the examples I mentioned above in the earlier comment, the companies weren't engaging in tax avoidance strategies, they were making business investments. The difference is that tax avoidance is entirely or primarily motivated by avoiding taxes and is pursued despite the lack of an actual business need; business investment may be motivated in part by avoiding taxes but is primarily driven by actual business needs and will not be pursued absent a business case for the spending.)
Which is itself dubious. I'm pretty sure "we" don't want people to unilaterally exempt themselves from taxes by relabeling consumption as a business expense
I don't understand where you're going with this. You brought up examples that are considered legitimate business expenses by the tax code, and have been for decades. Hell, they're the basis for all the in-office perks tech companies gave their employees pre-COVID. If you have an issue with whether they should be deductible on moral grounds, that's a separate discussion.
And again, my argument is based on how my clients, and US businesses in general, have actually responded to tax cuts and tax increases, and not to how they were theoretically expected to behave by people who aren't actually running successful businesses.
Can't speak for all companies, but higher tax rates generally means more money invested in tax avoidance. If for example, your tax rate was 95% of your income it would be rational for you to put a lot more effort into finding ways to avoid those taxes than if the taxes were 1%.
>...The difference being that the former is low risk and can grow the business,
Low risk? Investing in your business can grow the business or it can be money that could have just as well be thrown away. Lots of businesses have failed because they did bad investments, tried to over-expand, etc.
>...while the other has a good chance of triggering penalties that wipe out the savings and could even result in jail time for one or more executives.
There are no penalties or jail time associated with tax-avoidance - you probably mean tax evasion which is a crime.
>...Consider that the historically highest rates of tax fraud are during the current administration, despite historically low levels of tax on corporate income.
How much tax fraud is there with corporations? According to the IRS:
>...The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has identified small business and sole proprietorship employees as the largest contributors to the tax gap between what Americans owe in federal taxes and what the federal government receives. Small business and sole proprietorship employees contribute to the tax gap because there are few ways for the government to know about skimming or non-reporting of income without mounting more significant investigations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasion_in_the_United_Stat...
Another source says:
>... Even though corporate misdeeds grab a lot of press, corporate underreporting accounts for only $67 billion of the tax gap, or 14.8 percent.
https://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-in...
It's funny because I'm a tax consultant for a living, and that's simply not been my experience. Businesses want to avoid paying taxes when possible, but it's generally not worth their effort to play tax games. A business doesn't pay taxes unless it's making profits, and it would have to be making sufficient profits that the millions they'd spend on consultants and maintaining tax avoidance strategies every year exceeds the actual tax liability by a material amount. For most businesses, that's not worth it.
Tax rates don't drive business decisions. The only time they matter is when a business is choosing between multiple otherwise equal or similar options and tax issues are the primary differentiators.
There are no penalties or jail time associated with tax-avoidance - you probably mean tax evasion which is a crime.
There are penalties associated with numerous tax avoidance strategies if the tax authority disagrees with your position; it's not necessary for the position to rise to the level of tax evasion. But on that note, there have been a number of tax avoidance strategies that were legal for years but deemed to be tax evasion after the fact, resulting in hefty fines and criminal sentences for those involved.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has identified small business and sole proprietorship employees as the largest contributors to the tax gap between what Americans owe in federal taxes and what the federal government receives.
No citation was provided for that statement in wikipedia. Additionally, that statement conflicts with what the IRS has actually said about the tax collection gap being approximately $500 billion. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/the-tax-gap. Based on Propublica reporting, at least $100 billion of that $500 billion is wealthy individuals like the Sackler family.
Even though corporate misdeeds grab a lot of press, corporate underreporting accounts for only $67 billion of the tax gap, or 14.8 percent.
True, but I wasn't saying that corporate tax evasion is higher than other types of tax evasion. I was comparing corporate tax evasion now to corporate tax evasion in other times. Measured against itself it's at historically high rates.
Your original claim was "Actually, history bears out that higher tax rates result in corporations re-investing more of their profits in the company and less in tax-avoidance accounting."
To claim that as tax rates go up, companies are less concerned about the amount of tax they pay is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence.
>...Tax rates don't drive business decisions.
I agree. If there are investment opportunities companies will make them.
>...I was comparing corporate tax evasion now to corporate tax evasion in other times. Measured against itself it's at historically high rates.
Where are the numbers for recent years? Your source says the tax gap and compliance has stayed pretty much the same since they started trying to estimate it:
>...The latest estimates for tax years 2011, 2012 and 2013 show the nation's tax compliance rate is substantially unchanged from prior years.
Dividends are thus actually preferred by most investors, and buybacks generally only advantage the biggest investors.
Additionally, corporations don't get special capital gains rates but do get dividends received exemptions for dividends from related company, so in many cases corporate shareholders would prefer dividends over share buybacks.
Buybacks are big not for tax reasons (because in most cases, companies make buybacks out of borrowed funds, not profits), but because they artificially inflate the stock price, which increases the value of the executive compensation packages of the executives that authorized the buyback.
Historical equities compound growth almost entirely comes from constantly reinvesting dividends to buy more shares which compounds to increase future dividends. So as an example, take a company that returns 5% of their share price and an investor pays a 20% tax rate allowing them to reinvest 4% after tax money to buy more shares. After 40 years, they'd have 1.04^40=4.8 times the proportion of the company. If the same company spent all of its money buying back shares, you'd have 1.05^40=7.039 times the company. Now you still have to pay that 20% on gains once you sell so after you'd have (1.05^40-1)*.8+1=5.83 after selling but that is still a 21% benefit for share buybacks in that example.
Also, I wouldn't call that "artificially inflate the stock price". They are reducing the number of outstanding shares thereby increasing the earnings per share which increases the amount that can be returned to each share such as through higher dividends. It is effectively reinvesting the dividends for you back into the company.
With a buyback, you have fewer shares after the buyback. If you "reinvest" in the company you give up all the proceeds you received to buy back the shares that you just sold to the company. But you've paid taxes as a result of the initial buyback so you have less money than you received to reinvest, and now presumably the shares are all more expensive as well. Your position is economically worse off if you reinvest than when you started, because you have the same amount of shares (or fewer) but paid some tax to get there.
With a dividend, you can keep the dividend, or buy more shares of the company or some combination of both. Your economic position is improved either way regardless of the amount of tax you pay.
Not sure who "you" is but the company will have fewer shares outstanding, investors who don't sell will have the same and those investors will also now own a greater % of the company as well as a greater earnings per share.
> If you "reinvest" in the company you give up all the proceeds you received to buy back the shares that you just sold to the company
I am 100% not saying that as that would eliminate the benefit. The benefit is to long term investors who buy, hold and reinvest dividends and reinvesting dividends to buy more stock is key as that is where the historical exponential returns are because it increases your ownership share and future dividends.
That is where my example numbers come in because you can only reinvest to buy more shares and thus your ownership % the dividend amount minus tax amount whereas the company can spend the entirety of a dividend buying shares to remove them from the outstanding market. The difference between those two numbers (1.05 and 1.04 in my example) then compounds and effectively goes towards increasing share prices which do eventually get taxed but they get the benefit of compounding while the owner holds.
Also, while you need quite a few shares, you can estimate and sell the percentage of shares a company is buying back in order to keep the same % ownership thus acting like a dividend so I myself would prefer all companies I invest in to never give out dividends and only do buybacks unless their P/E ratio is truly absurd.
In most cases in the past decades, buybacks were accomplished using loans rather than profits, leaving the companies in worse financial positions. More than half of the companies that engaged in buybacks in the past decades are either bankrupt, declared bankruptcy in 2020, or are underperforming the market. Only a handful of companies that engaged in buybacks are doing okay, and those companies also issued dividends (see for example, Microsoft).
Some people think it is good for the economy, its not objectively true. If a company invests in itself instead of giving out dividends it's making a choice upon the shareholder, which in turn could mean the company invests in something less efficient than the shareholder could find.
> n the other hand, lowering corporate taxes also generates a cascade of tax avoidance
Unless corporate taxes are 0, and you save all of this issues plus get to fire a lot of corporate layers.
Not at all clear to me this is the case.
Reinvestment in a corporation is only naturally incentivized when that strategy appears to give the biggest RoI and not all money uninvested from markets, companies etc. will necessarily be reinvested in another venture.
If a firm eyeballs a project that is likely to have a good return, they will pursue it regardless of the corporation tax rate at present. Meaning that whether the corporate tax is high, low, or nonexistent, it's better to make money than not make money.
Given this, if a firm cannot see any good opportunities to pursue, incentivizing mass investment in zero or negative return projects, while coincidentally incentivizing lower government revenue is unlikely be a net good for society. That seems to me to be a encouraging massive destruction of wealth and also encourage enormous mis-allocation of capital.
See: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V
Our current policy is to paper over bank liquidity or other problems by printing money. Big institutions and the mega-rich are hoarding massive quantities of cash. The economy as a whole would be better off if billionaires were doing stuff with their money rather than hoarding shares.
"Hoarding" is nonsense.
The effect is almost identical.
Most of the corporate cash isn’t in equity funds, it in US Treasury debt. Apple holds >$50B of treasury securities, for example.
The low inflation monetary policy has some benefits, but combined with our ass-backwards tax system also makes for strong disincentive to do anything with excess cash.
All BigCorp Ireland LTD has is a brokerage account full of ISIN codes.
How are those tbills delivering value to the shareholders?
And they pay interest to the holder...
The point is, the money isn't keeping out of the economy. It's loaned to the government who spends it.