Taxation: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Nick Gardner
imported>Nick Gardner
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:
==Tax structures==
==Tax structures==


==Effects of taxation==
==The effects of taxation==
Every combination of the various forms of taxation has a different effect upon welfare, but they all have certain common features. In the terminology of economic theory, each of them has an ''income effect'', and most of them  have  ''substitution effects''. The income effect is the reduction in the resources available to taxpayers that is brought about by the transfer of resources  to government. It occurs, therefore, without affecting the total of the country's resources.  The substitution effect, on the other hand, may result in a reduction in the country's resources by bringing about a move to less productive activity. An increase in income tax may, for example, induce a skilled worker to reduce his working hours and spend more time on untaxed do-it-yourself activities. The resulting reduction in output would have the indirect effect of reducing national welfare. The substitution effect may alternatively  have  a direct effect of welfare by prompting taxpayers to buy products other than those that they would otherwise prefer. A tax on biscuits, for example, may prompt buyers to switch to an untaxed but less enjoyable product, such as bread. The size of the substitution effect depends upon the extent to which the tax varies with a level of activity (the ''marginal tax rate'') and to the responsiveness of the level of that activity to its price (the ''elasticity'' of supply or demand).  Taxes that have no effect upon supply or demand, such as a land-value tax or a poll tax, have no substitution effect, and activities whose level is relatively insensitive to price (such as purchases of bread) have relatively small substitution effects. Other things being equal the more numerous the persons or activities on which the tax is leveled (ie the larger the ''tax base''), the smaller is likely to be the substitution effect because the lower are the marginal tax rates
Every combination of the various forms of taxation has a different effect upon welfare, but they all have certain common features. In the terminology of economic theory, each of them has an ''income effect'', and most of them  have  ''substitution effects''. The income effect is the reduction in the resources available to taxpayers that is brought about by the transfer of resources  to government. It occurs, therefore, without affecting the total of the country's resources.  The substitution effect, on the other hand, may result in a reduction in the country's resources by bringing about a move to less productive activity. An increase in income tax may, for example, induce a skilled worker to reduce his working hours and spend more time on untaxed do-it-yourself activities. The resulting reduction in output would have the indirect effect of reducing national welfare. The substitution effect may alternatively  have  a direct effect of welfare by prompting taxpayers to buy products other than those that they would otherwise prefer. A tax on biscuits, for example, may prompt buyers to switch to an untaxed but less enjoyable product, such as bread. The size of the substitution effect depends upon the extent to which the tax varies with a level of activity (the ''marginal tax rate'') and to the responsiveness of the level of that activity to its price (the ''elasticity'' of supply or demand).  Taxes that have no effect upon supply or demand, such as a land-value tax or a poll tax, have no substitution effect, and activities whose level is relatively insensitive to price (such as purchases of bread) have relatively small substitution effects. Other things being equal the more numerous the persons or activities on which the tax is leveled (ie the larger the ''tax base''), the smaller is likely to be the substitution effect because the lower are the marginal tax rates


Line 15: Line 15:
The  burden of taxation may not be confined to those who pay the tax, however.  Producers may be able to pass  a part of any tax increase  taxes on to consumers by increasing prices or on to employees by reducing wages, and  employees may be able to pass a part of any income tax increase on to producers by raising wages.  The extent to which such shifting of the tax burden occurs depends upon conditions in the  relevant product and  labour markets.  
The  burden of taxation may not be confined to those who pay the tax, however.  Producers may be able to pass  a part of any tax increase  taxes on to consumers by increasing prices or on to employees by reducing wages, and  employees may be able to pass a part of any income tax increase on to producers by raising wages.  The extent to which such shifting of the tax burden occurs depends upon conditions in the  relevant product and  labour markets.  


==Aggregate effects==
===Aggregate effects===


It is generally accepted that [[endogenous growth theory]] provides a strong presumption that the net effect of taxation is to reduce economic growth as a result, for example, of its negative influence upon innovation and upon the development of human capital.  A survey of the empirical evidence has concluded, however,  that it does not support that aggregate presumption, although it does throw light upon the effects of some tax instruments.<ref name=Myles>Gareth Myles: '' Economic Growth and the Role of Taxation'', OECD 2007[http://people.exeter.ac.uk/gdmyles/papers/pdfs/OECDfin.pdf]</ref>.   
It is generally accepted that [[endogenous growth theory]] provides a strong presumption that the net effect of taxation is to reduce economic growth as a result, for example, of its negative influence upon innovation and upon the development of human capital.  A survey of the empirical evidence has concluded, however,  that it does not support that aggregate presumption, although it does throw light upon the effects of some tax instruments.<ref name=Myles>Gareth Myles: '' Economic Growth and the Role of Taxation'', OECD 2007[http://people.exeter.ac.uk/gdmyles/papers/pdfs/OECDfin.pdf]</ref>.   


==Effects of individual taxes==
===Effects of individual taxes===


===Personal income tax and social security contributions===
====Personal income tax and social security contributions====


Taxes on employment income  and compulsory contributions to social security schemes can affect the supply of labour as a result both of their ''price effect'' - to the extent that they makes  employees try  to compensate for their loss of after-tax earnings - and their ''substitution effect''  - to the extent that they make employees willing to sacrifice their reduced net earnings  in exchange for the  benefits of increased leisure. Empirical evidence tends to indicate that income tax has a negative effect that is larger for females than for males, and that it is greater for both when tax rates are progressive<ref>[http://www.ifs.org.uk/mirrleesreview/reports/labour_supply.pdf Costas Meghir  and David Phillips: ''Labour Supply and Taxes'', Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2008]</ref>. The combined influence of employment income taxation and ''means-tested '' state benefits can also reduce the supply of labour as a result of the operation of the ''unemployment and poverty traps''<ref>[http://www.ifs.org.uk/mirrleesreview/press_docs/rates.pdf Mike Brewer, Emmanuel Saez, and Andrew Shephard: ''Means-testing and Tax rates on Earnings'', Institute of Financial Studies, 2008]</ref>. Taxes on employment income can also affect the demand for labour as a result of the ''tax wedge'' that is driven between  he cost of labour to employers and the net payment received by employees. The magnitude of the effect  upon unemployment depends upon the ''price flexibility'' in the relevant labour market, because it depends upon the extent to which employees are able to pass a tax increase on to their employers <ref>Daveri and  Tabellini:  ''Unemployment and Taxes: Do taxes affect the rate of unemployment?'', Economic Policy Vol. 15 Issue 30, 2000</ref>. There is also evidence that high tax rates for low earners can increase unemployment among  low-skilled employees, especially at relatively high levels of the  minimum wage<ref> ''Financing Social Protection: the Employment Effect'', Chapter 4, OECD Employment Outlook, 2007</ref>.
Taxes on employment income  and compulsory contributions to social security schemes can affect the supply of labour as a result both of their ''price effect'' - to the extent that they makes  employees try  to compensate for their loss of after-tax earnings - and their ''substitution effect''  - to the extent that they make employees willing to sacrifice their reduced net earnings  in exchange for the  benefits of increased leisure. Empirical evidence tends to indicate that income tax has a negative effect that is larger for females than for males, and that it is greater for both when tax rates are progressive<ref>[http://www.ifs.org.uk/mirrleesreview/reports/labour_supply.pdf Costas Meghir  and David Phillips: ''Labour Supply and Taxes'', Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2008]</ref>. The combined influence of employment income taxation and ''means-tested '' state benefits can also reduce the supply of labour as a result of the operation of the ''unemployment and poverty traps''<ref>[http://www.ifs.org.uk/mirrleesreview/press_docs/rates.pdf Mike Brewer, Emmanuel Saez, and Andrew Shephard: ''Means-testing and Tax rates on Earnings'', Institute of Financial Studies, 2008]</ref>. Taxes on employment income can also affect the demand for labour as a result of the ''tax wedge'' that is driven between  he cost of labour to employers and the net payment received by employees. The magnitude of the effect  upon unemployment depends upon the ''price flexibility'' in the relevant labour market, because it depends upon the extent to which employees are able to pass a tax increase on to their employers <ref>Daveri and  Tabellini:  ''Unemployment and Taxes: Do taxes affect the rate of unemployment?'', Economic Policy Vol. 15 Issue 30, 2000</ref>. There is also evidence that high tax rates for low earners can increase unemployment among  low-skilled employees, especially at relatively high levels of the  minimum wage<ref> ''Financing Social Protection: the Employment Effect'', Chapter 4, OECD Employment Outlook, 2007</ref>.
Line 31: Line 31:
<ref name=Asa>[http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2008doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00003502/$FILE/JT03248896.PDF Åsa Johansson, Christopher Heady, Jens Arnold, Bert Brys and Laura Vartia: ''Tax and Economic Growth'', Economics Working Paper  ECO/WKP(2008)28, OECD  2008]</ref>.
<ref name=Asa>[http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2008doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00003502/$FILE/JT03248896.PDF Åsa Johansson, Christopher Heady, Jens Arnold, Bert Brys and Laura Vartia: ''Tax and Economic Growth'', Economics Working Paper  ECO/WKP(2008)28, OECD  2008]</ref>.


===Corporate income tax===
====Corporation tax====
There is no apparent advantage to be gained from adding  a tax on company profit to its taxation as part of personal income taxation - although it  was suggested in the Meade Report that it might be considered to be a payment for the privileges of limited liability<ref>[http://www.ifs.org.uk/docs/meade.pdf, ''The Structure and Reform of Direct Taxation'',  chapter 12, page 227]</ref>.  Corporate taxation may be expected to reduce productivity in several ways. It can alter the relative costs of capital and labour in such a way as to move resources into less productive activities. It imposes compliance costs on firms and administrative costs on governments, thereby diverting  resources away from productive activities.  It  may reduce incentives to invest and  innovate, and it may  impair technology transfer by deterring foreign direct investment<ref>[http://www.ifs.org.uk/mirrleesreview/reports/conference_drafts/international_tax.pdf Rachel Griffith, James Hines and Peter Birch Sorensen:''International Capital Taxation'' (draft for the Mirrlees enquiry), 2009]</ref>. The deductability of interest payments favours established corporations that can readily finance their investments by borrowing at the expense of  innovative, knowledge-based and recently established firms that are riskier or less able to provide collateral, so have to obtain most of their funding from shareholders. In fact empirical evidence at the firm level<ref>[http://www.cepii.fr/anglaisgraph/workpap/pdf/2008/wp2008-19.pdf Jens Arnold and Cyrille Schwellnus: ''Do Corporate Taxes Reduce Productivity and Investment at the Firm Level? Cross-Country Evidence from the Amadeus Dataset'', CEPII, September 2008]</ref> and at the industry level<ref>[http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2008doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00007A42/$FILE/JT03257802.PDF Laura Vartia: ''How do Taxes affect Investment and Productivity? - An Industry-Level Analysis of OECD Countries'', OECD working paper ECO/WKP(2008)64, December 2008]</ref> confirms the conclusion that corporate taxation reduces productivity. However, alternative forms of corporate taxation (such as the use of 100% "capital allowances" or the adoption of "flow-of-funds" taxation ) may mitigate some of the above  effects.
There is no apparent advantage to be gained from adding  a tax on company profit to its taxation as part of personal income taxation - although it  was suggested in the Meade Report that it might be considered to be a payment for the privileges of limited liability<ref>[http://www.ifs.org.uk/docs/meade.pdf, ''The Structure and Reform of Direct Taxation'',  chapter 12, page 227]</ref>.  Corporate taxation may be expected to reduce productivity in several ways. It can alter the relative costs of capital and labour in such a way as to move resources into less productive activities. It imposes compliance costs on firms and administrative costs on governments, thereby diverting  resources away from productive activities.  It  may reduce incentives to invest and  innovate, and it may  impair technology transfer by deterring foreign direct investment<ref>[http://www.ifs.org.uk/mirrleesreview/reports/conference_drafts/international_tax.pdf Rachel Griffith, James Hines and Peter Birch Sorensen:''International Capital Taxation'' (draft for the Mirrlees enquiry), 2009]</ref>. The deductability of interest payments favours established corporations that can readily finance their investments by borrowing at the expense of  innovative, knowledge-based and recently established firms that are riskier or less able to provide collateral, so have to obtain most of their funding from shareholders. In fact empirical evidence at the firm level<ref>[http://www.cepii.fr/anglaisgraph/workpap/pdf/2008/wp2008-19.pdf Jens Arnold and Cyrille Schwellnus: ''Do Corporate Taxes Reduce Productivity and Investment at the Firm Level? Cross-Country Evidence from the Amadeus Dataset'', CEPII, September 2008]</ref> and at the industry level<ref>[http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2008doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00007A42/$FILE/JT03257802.PDF Laura Vartia: ''How do Taxes affect Investment and Productivity? - An Industry-Level Analysis of OECD Countries'', OECD working paper ECO/WKP(2008)64, December 2008]</ref> confirms the conclusion that corporate taxation reduces productivity. However, alternative forms of corporate taxation (such as the use of 100% "capital allowances" or the adoption of "flow-of-funds" taxation ) may mitigate some of the above  effects.


===Taxes on consumption===
====Taxes on consumption====
Consumption taxes do not affect savings because they apply the same rate to current spending as they do to future spending, and a  uniform tax on all purchases would  not be  expected to affect economic activity, except for the possibility that their effect on purchasing power might  add to labour costs as a result of wage bargaining. However,  no consumption tax  effect was  revealed by a recent empirical study of the effect of taxation on employment <ref>[http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/19955/1/Employment_and_Taxes.pdf Stephen Nickell: ''Employment and Taxes'', Centre for Economic Performance Discussion Paper No 634, London School of Economics, May 2004]</ref>.  Consumption taxes  are considered  "regressive",  to the extent that  they are levied on goods that account for a relatively high proportion of the spending of poorer families - and exemptions of selected products are sometimes introduced to mitigate that effect.
Consumption taxes do not affect savings because they apply the same rate to current spending as they do to future spending, and a  uniform tax on all purchases would  not be  expected to affect economic activity, except for the possibility that their effect on purchasing power might  add to labour costs as a result of wage bargaining. However,  no consumption tax  effect was  revealed by a recent empirical study of the effect of taxation on employment <ref>[http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/19955/1/Employment_and_Taxes.pdf Stephen Nickell: ''Employment and Taxes'', Centre for Economic Performance Discussion Paper No 634, London School of Economics, May 2004]</ref>.  Consumption taxes  are considered  "regressive",  to the extent that  they are levied on goods that account for a relatively high proportion of the spending of poorer families - and exemptions of selected products are sometimes introduced to mitigate that effect.


===Property taxes===
====Property taxes====
Taxes on land and buildings may be expected to be more conducive to growth than income taxes because they have  much smaller harmful effects  on decisions  to supply labour, to invest in human capital, and to produce, invest and innovate;  and recent empirical evidence has confirmed that they  particularly conducive to economic growth<ref name=arnold>[http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2008doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00005C32/$FILE/JT03252848.PDF Jens Arnold: ''Do Tax Structures Affect Aggregate Economic Growth? Empirical evidence from a panel of OECD countries'', OECD Working paper ECO/WKP(2008)51,  October 2008]</ref>. They also have the merit of being cheap to collect and hard to evade. However,  taxes on housing, in particular, tend to be unpopular because of their visibility and their effect upon low-income householders; and in some countries there have even been proposals for their replacement by income tax . A tax on gains arising from increases in the unimproved value of land  (as recommended in the UK by the "Barker Review of Housing Supply"<ref>[http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/barker_review_report_494.pdf  ''Delivering Stability: Securing our Future Housing Needs'', (The Barker Review), H M Treasury, March 2004]</ref>) should not raise such objections, and, by discouraging  the practice of holding land out of use for speculative purposes, it could release land for housing and help to stabilise the housing market.
Taxes on land and buildings may be expected to be more conducive to growth than income taxes because they have  much smaller harmful effects  on decisions  to supply labour, to invest in human capital, and to produce, invest and innovate;  and recent empirical evidence has confirmed that they  particularly conducive to economic growth<ref name=arnold>[http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2008doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00005C32/$FILE/JT03252848.PDF Jens Arnold: ''Do Tax Structures Affect Aggregate Economic Growth? Empirical evidence from a panel of OECD countries'', OECD Working paper ECO/WKP(2008)51,  October 2008]</ref>. They also have the merit of being cheap to collect and hard to evade. However,  taxes on housing, in particular, tend to be unpopular because of their visibility and their effect upon low-income householders; and in some countries there have even been proposals for their replacement by income tax . A tax on gains arising from increases in the unimproved value of land  (as recommended in the UK by the "Barker Review of Housing Supply"<ref>[http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/barker_review_report_494.pdf  ''Delivering Stability: Securing our Future Housing Needs'', (The Barker Review), H M Treasury, March 2004]</ref>) should not raise such objections, and, by discouraging  the practice of holding land out of use for speculative purposes, it could release land for housing and help to stabilise the housing market.


In contrast, taxes on financial and capital transactions tend to reduce productivity and growth. It has been demonstrated  that taxes on intermediate transactions are inefficient because the same revenue can better be obtained  by taxing income  or consumption<ref name=dia>Diamond and  Mirrlees: ''Optimal Taxation and Public Production'', American Economic Review, Vol. 61. 1971</ref>. The harm that they cause arises from the fact that  they  discourage  transactions that would improve the allocation of resources. For example, capital gains taxes tend to discourage migration to areas where  labour is in greater demand by discouraging the buying and selling of houses<ref> W. Steven Clark: ''Taxation of Capital Gains of Individuals: Policy Considerations and Approaches'' OECD Tax Policy Studies No. 14  2006 [http://books.google.com/books?id=aWVIeNh-QMAC&dq=Taxation+of+Capital+Gains+of+Individuals:+Policy+Considerations+and+Approaches&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=lSvBnCNjZ2&sig=IC57PMayQcpusb2VDjfMunG44lM&hl=en&ei=crAmS5eEJIG8jAeIwozhBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false] (Google Books extract)</ref>
In contrast, taxes on financial and capital transactions tend to reduce productivity and growth. It has been demonstrated  that taxes on intermediate transactions are inefficient because the same revenue can better be obtained  by taxing income  or consumption<ref name=dia>Diamond and  Mirrlees: ''Optimal Taxation and Public Production'', American Economic Review, Vol. 61. 1971</ref>. The harm that they cause arises from the fact that  they  discourage  transactions that would improve the allocation of resources. For example, capital gains taxes tend to discourage migration to areas where  labour is in greater demand by discouraging the buying and selling of houses<ref> W. Steven Clark: ''Taxation of Capital Gains of Individuals: Policy Considerations and Approaches'' OECD Tax Policy Studies No. 14  2006 [http://books.google.com/books?id=aWVIeNh-QMAC&dq=Taxation+of+Capital+Gains+of+Individuals:+Policy+Considerations+and+Approaches&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=lSvBnCNjZ2&sig=IC57PMayQcpusb2VDjfMunG44lM&hl=en&ei=crAmS5eEJIG8jAeIwozhBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false] (Google Books extract)</ref>
.


===The tax mix===
====Environmental taxation====
The purpose of the environmental taxes that were  introduced in the latter part of the 20th century was to prevent the loss of economic welfare that would otherwise result from various forms of environmental pollution. They were supplemented in the 21st century by taxes that were introduced to guard against the danger of the very large long-term economic costs of adapting to global temperature rises of several degrees centigrade. A review undertaken for the British government has concluded that the economic costs of measures to avert that outcome will be substantially outweighed by  reductions in the cost of adaptation <ref>[http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm ''Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change'', UK National Archives 2008]</ref>. A review by economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research has concluded that environmental tax revenues do not significantly alter economic constraints on tax policy, and that environmental taxes need to be justified primarily by the cost-effective achievement of environmental goals<ref>[http://www.nber.org/papers/w14197  Don Fullerton, Andrew Leicester and Stephen Smith: ''Environmental Taxes'', NBER Working Paper No. 14197, July 2008]</ref>.
 
====The tax mix====
Empirical evidence  suggests that, as between the traditional sources of tax revenue, corporate taxes are the most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes, and that property taxes are the least harmful<ref name=arnold/>
Empirical evidence  suggests that, as between the traditional sources of tax revenue, corporate taxes are the most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes, and that property taxes are the least harmful<ref name=arnold/>


===Environmental taxation===
==Optimal taxation theory==
The purpose of the environmental taxes that were  introduced in the latter part of the 20th century was to prevent the loss of economic welfare that would otherwise result from various forms of environmental pollution. They were supplemented in the 21st century by taxes that were introduced to guard against the danger of the very large long-term economic costs of adapting to global temperature rises of several degrees centigrade. A review undertaken for the British government has concluded that the economic costs of measures to avert that outcome will be substantially outweighed by  reductions in the cost of adaptation <ref>[http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm ''Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change'', UK National Archives 2008]</ref>. A review by economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research has concluded that environmental tax revenues do not significantly alter economic constraints on tax policy, and that environmental taxes need to be justified primarily by the cost-effective achievement of environmental goals<ref>[http://www.nber.org/papers/w14197  Don Fullerton, Andrew Leicester and Stephen Smith: ''Environmental Taxes'', NBER Working Paper No. 14197, July 2008]</ref>.


==Taxation trends==




==References==
==References==
<references />
<references />

Revision as of 03:24, 15 December 2009

This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Tutorials [?]
Addendum [?]
 
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

Taxation is used to finance public expenditure or to service the national debt; and it can be used to promote personal and social welfare, alter conduct, or change the distribution of income or wealth. It affects the decisions of households to save, supply labour and invest in human capital, and the decisions of firms to produce, create jobs, invest and innovate. Nearly all forms of taxation can be expected to have adverse effects on productivity and economic growth.

Introduction

This article deals with the social and microeconomic effects of taxation at a given state of public expenditure. The macroeconomic effects of taxation, and the effects of varying combinations of taxation, public expenditure and debt, are dealt with in the article on fiscal policy. The taxonomy of taxation is discussed on the addendum subpage. A glossary of the terms shown in italics in this article is available on the related articles subpage

Tax structures

The effects of taxation

Every combination of the various forms of taxation has a different effect upon welfare, but they all have certain common features. In the terminology of economic theory, each of them has an income effect, and most of them have substitution effects. The income effect is the reduction in the resources available to taxpayers that is brought about by the transfer of resources to government. It occurs, therefore, without affecting the total of the country's resources. The substitution effect, on the other hand, may result in a reduction in the country's resources by bringing about a move to less productive activity. An increase in income tax may, for example, induce a skilled worker to reduce his working hours and spend more time on untaxed do-it-yourself activities. The resulting reduction in output would have the indirect effect of reducing national welfare. The substitution effect may alternatively have a direct effect of welfare by prompting taxpayers to buy products other than those that they would otherwise prefer. A tax on biscuits, for example, may prompt buyers to switch to an untaxed but less enjoyable product, such as bread. The size of the substitution effect depends upon the extent to which the tax varies with a level of activity (the marginal tax rate) and to the responsiveness of the level of that activity to its price (the elasticity of supply or demand). Taxes that have no effect upon supply or demand, such as a land-value tax or a poll tax, have no substitution effect, and activities whose level is relatively insensitive to price (such as purchases of bread) have relatively small substitution effects. Other things being equal the more numerous the persons or activities on which the tax is leveled (ie the larger the tax base), the smaller is likely to be the substitution effect because the lower are the marginal tax rates

A second common feature is the effect of taxation upon the distribution of income and wealth. Taxation may be expected to alter the distribution of income or wealth. The term ‘’vertical distribution’’ refers to distribution among people having different levels of income, and the term ‘’progressive tax’’ denotes a tax which bears progressively more heavily on higher- income taxpayers. However, a tax which is the same whatever the taxpayer’s income, such as a poll tax, is termed ‘’regressive’’ because it is harder for low-income taxpayers to afford it. The term ‘’horizontal distribution’’ is correspondingly taken to refer to the distribution of taxation among taxpayers who have similar levels of income, but the term is open to a variety of interpretations. The reduction of, or exemption from, tax liability for specific classes of potential taxpayer is often referred to as a ‘’tax break’’ and is indistinguishable from subsidies in favour of those classes. Tax breaks for specific activities, such as research and agriculture - or for specific classes of organisation, such as charities, are intended to encourage those activities or organisations; and tax breaks for specific classes of individual such as the elderly or mothers with small children, are often intended to alter vertical distribution.

The burden of taxation may not be confined to those who pay the tax, however. Producers may be able to pass a part of any tax increase taxes on to consumers by increasing prices or on to employees by reducing wages, and employees may be able to pass a part of any income tax increase on to producers by raising wages. The extent to which such shifting of the tax burden occurs depends upon conditions in the relevant product and labour markets.

Aggregate effects

It is generally accepted that endogenous growth theory provides a strong presumption that the net effect of taxation is to reduce economic growth as a result, for example, of its negative influence upon innovation and upon the development of human capital. A survey of the empirical evidence has concluded, however, that it does not support that aggregate presumption, although it does throw light upon the effects of some tax instruments.[1].

Effects of individual taxes

Personal income tax and social security contributions

Taxes on employment income and compulsory contributions to social security schemes can affect the supply of labour as a result both of their price effect - to the extent that they makes employees try to compensate for their loss of after-tax earnings - and their substitution effect - to the extent that they make employees willing to sacrifice their reduced net earnings in exchange for the benefits of increased leisure. Empirical evidence tends to indicate that income tax has a negative effect that is larger for females than for males, and that it is greater for both when tax rates are progressive[2]. The combined influence of employment income taxation and means-tested state benefits can also reduce the supply of labour as a result of the operation of the unemployment and poverty traps[3]. Taxes on employment income can also affect the demand for labour as a result of the tax wedge that is driven between he cost of labour to employers and the net payment received by employees. The magnitude of the effect upon unemployment depends upon the price flexibility in the relevant labour market, because it depends upon the extent to which employees are able to pass a tax increase on to their employers [4]. There is also evidence that high tax rates for low earners can increase unemployment among low-skilled employees, especially at relatively high levels of the minimum wage[5].

The substitution effect of personal taxation may be expected to reduce the motive for saving as a result of the reduced after-tax return but the income effect may prompt an increase in savings in order to preserve a desired level of retirement income. Empirical evidence concerning the magnitude of the net effect has yielded widely differing findings but there is general agreement that the outcome is a reduction in savings[6]. There is also some evidence to suggest that income tax may reduce human capital as a result of its effect upon the willingness of parents to spend money on their children[7].

The above effects suggest the possibility that high marginal tax rates have negative consequences for productivity, and an OECD study has indicated that progressive income tax does, in fact, cause significant reductions in GDP per head (in addition to any effects arising from the reduced acquisition of human capital), [8].

Corporation tax

There is no apparent advantage to be gained from adding a tax on company profit to its taxation as part of personal income taxation - although it was suggested in the Meade Report that it might be considered to be a payment for the privileges of limited liability[9]. Corporate taxation may be expected to reduce productivity in several ways. It can alter the relative costs of capital and labour in such a way as to move resources into less productive activities. It imposes compliance costs on firms and administrative costs on governments, thereby diverting resources away from productive activities. It may reduce incentives to invest and innovate, and it may impair technology transfer by deterring foreign direct investment[10]. The deductability of interest payments favours established corporations that can readily finance their investments by borrowing at the expense of innovative, knowledge-based and recently established firms that are riskier or less able to provide collateral, so have to obtain most of their funding from shareholders. In fact empirical evidence at the firm level[11] and at the industry level[12] confirms the conclusion that corporate taxation reduces productivity. However, alternative forms of corporate taxation (such as the use of 100% "capital allowances" or the adoption of "flow-of-funds" taxation ) may mitigate some of the above effects.

Taxes on consumption

Consumption taxes do not affect savings because they apply the same rate to current spending as they do to future spending, and a uniform tax on all purchases would not be expected to affect economic activity, except for the possibility that their effect on purchasing power might add to labour costs as a result of wage bargaining. However, no consumption tax effect was revealed by a recent empirical study of the effect of taxation on employment [13]. Consumption taxes are considered "regressive", to the extent that they are levied on goods that account for a relatively high proportion of the spending of poorer families - and exemptions of selected products are sometimes introduced to mitigate that effect.

Property taxes

Taxes on land and buildings may be expected to be more conducive to growth than income taxes because they have much smaller harmful effects on decisions to supply labour, to invest in human capital, and to produce, invest and innovate; and recent empirical evidence has confirmed that they particularly conducive to economic growth[14]. They also have the merit of being cheap to collect and hard to evade. However, taxes on housing, in particular, tend to be unpopular because of their visibility and their effect upon low-income householders; and in some countries there have even been proposals for their replacement by income tax . A tax on gains arising from increases in the unimproved value of land (as recommended in the UK by the "Barker Review of Housing Supply"[15]) should not raise such objections, and, by discouraging the practice of holding land out of use for speculative purposes, it could release land for housing and help to stabilise the housing market.

In contrast, taxes on financial and capital transactions tend to reduce productivity and growth. It has been demonstrated that taxes on intermediate transactions are inefficient because the same revenue can better be obtained by taxing income or consumption[16]. The harm that they cause arises from the fact that they discourage transactions that would improve the allocation of resources. For example, capital gains taxes tend to discourage migration to areas where labour is in greater demand by discouraging the buying and selling of houses[17]

Environmental taxation

The purpose of the environmental taxes that were introduced in the latter part of the 20th century was to prevent the loss of economic welfare that would otherwise result from various forms of environmental pollution. They were supplemented in the 21st century by taxes that were introduced to guard against the danger of the very large long-term economic costs of adapting to global temperature rises of several degrees centigrade. A review undertaken for the British government has concluded that the economic costs of measures to avert that outcome will be substantially outweighed by reductions in the cost of adaptation [18]. A review by economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research has concluded that environmental tax revenues do not significantly alter economic constraints on tax policy, and that environmental taxes need to be justified primarily by the cost-effective achievement of environmental goals[19].

The tax mix

Empirical evidence suggests that, as between the traditional sources of tax revenue, corporate taxes are the most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes, and that property taxes are the least harmful[14]

Optimal taxation theory

Taxation trends

References

  1. Gareth Myles: Economic Growth and the Role of Taxation, OECD 2007[1]
  2. Costas Meghir and David Phillips: Labour Supply and Taxes, Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2008
  3. Mike Brewer, Emmanuel Saez, and Andrew Shephard: Means-testing and Tax rates on Earnings, Institute of Financial Studies, 2008
  4. Daveri and Tabellini: Unemployment and Taxes: Do taxes affect the rate of unemployment?, Economic Policy Vol. 15 Issue 30, 2000
  5. Financing Social Protection: the Employment Effect, Chapter 4, OECD Employment Outlook, 2007
  6. William Dougan and Lei Zhang: Consumption Taxes, Income Taxes, and Saving: Evidence from OECD Countries, September 2009
  7. Peren Arin and Xiaoming Li> The Effects of Fiscal Policy on Human Capital Accumulation: Evidence from OECD Countries, OECD 2005
  8. Åsa Johansson, Christopher Heady, Jens Arnold, Bert Brys and Laura Vartia: Tax and Economic Growth, Economics Working Paper ECO/WKP(2008)28, OECD 2008
  9. The Structure and Reform of Direct Taxation, chapter 12, page 227
  10. Rachel Griffith, James Hines and Peter Birch Sorensen:International Capital Taxation (draft for the Mirrlees enquiry), 2009
  11. Jens Arnold and Cyrille Schwellnus: Do Corporate Taxes Reduce Productivity and Investment at the Firm Level? Cross-Country Evidence from the Amadeus Dataset, CEPII, September 2008
  12. Laura Vartia: How do Taxes affect Investment and Productivity? - An Industry-Level Analysis of OECD Countries, OECD working paper ECO/WKP(2008)64, December 2008
  13. Stephen Nickell: Employment and Taxes, Centre for Economic Performance Discussion Paper No 634, London School of Economics, May 2004
  14. 14.0 14.1 Jens Arnold: Do Tax Structures Affect Aggregate Economic Growth? Empirical evidence from a panel of OECD countries, OECD Working paper ECO/WKP(2008)51, October 2008
  15. Delivering Stability: Securing our Future Housing Needs, (The Barker Review), H M Treasury, March 2004
  16. Diamond and Mirrlees: Optimal Taxation and Public Production, American Economic Review, Vol. 61. 1971
  17. W. Steven Clark: Taxation of Capital Gains of Individuals: Policy Considerations and Approaches OECD Tax Policy Studies No. 14 2006 [2] (Google Books extract)
  18. Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, UK National Archives 2008
  19. Don Fullerton, Andrew Leicester and Stephen Smith: Environmental Taxes, NBER Working Paper No. 14197, July 2008