I’ve explained the economics of taxation, which is based on the common-sense notion that you get less productive economic activity when taxes drive a bigger wedge between pre-tax income and post-tax consumption.
Simply stated, the more you tax of something, the less you get of it, and this applies to taxes on labor and taxes on capital.
Today, let’s examine some empirical evidence. I’ve done that before (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), but it’s always good to expand the collection.
Three Italian professors, in a new working paper for the Centre for Economic and International Studies, investigated the relationship between taxes and growth.
We’ll start with a description of the methodology.
In this paper, we revisit a traditional issue in the empirics of growth and economic policy: whether taxation has long-lasting effects on real GDP dynamics. …we focus on the impact that taxes may have
on the rates of physical and human capital accumulation. …our main departure from the existing literature is the use of a semi-parametric technique, which allows for countries’ unobserved heterogeneity in the input effects on per capita GDP. …we test our model, using a sample of 21 OECD countries over the period 1965-2010.
Here are the key findings.
Our main finding is that taxation negatively affect per capita GDP growth rates, both directly and indirectly, via physical and human capital saving rates. …Our cross-country analysis makes a clear point on this, at least for our sample of OECD countries: on average, tax cuts produce a beneficial impact on GDP dynamics but of modest size. In our baseline specification, a cut by 10% in personal income tax rate generates an change in the real per capita GDP growth rate of +1% while a cut by 10% in corporate income tax rate increases the rate of growth of real per capita GDP by 0.9%. …The main message of our empirical exercise is that, across various samples and specifications, taxes are harmful for growth.
These are very strong results.
Though I find it very interesting that the authors say they are “of modest size.”
I guess that depends on expectations and perspective. I’ll simply repeat the point I made two years ago about the importance of even small increases in the long-run growth rate.
The bottom line is that future Americans would enjoy significantly greater prosperity with better tax policy.
That’s a desirable outcome at any point in time, and it’s even more important today as we consider how to recover from the economic wreckage caused by the coronavirus.
Interestingly, the study ends with some interesting estimates on the impact of lower tax rates on labor and capital.
Table 10 reports the results of a “what if”exercise, in which we compute the change in GDP growth rate generated by a ceteris paribus cut by 10 % in τw and τk.
And here is the aforementioned Table 10 (“τw” is the tax rate on labor and “τk” is the tax rate on capital).
There are two big takeaways from this research.
First, it’s further evidence that Trump’s tax reform, which lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, was a very good step for the American economy.
Second, it’s further evidence that it’s a big mistake for Biden and other folks on the left to push for higher tax rates, including big increases in tax rates on personal income.
P.S. Just in case those last two sentences sound overly favorable to Trump, I’ll remind people that reckless spending increases – sooner or later – will lead to punitive tax increases. In other words, if Biden wins and there are big tax hikes, Trump will deserve some of the blame (just as Bush’s irresponsible policies set the stage for some of Obama’s irresponsible policies).
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] all, people in government value taxes more than growth, jobs, competitiveness, and all sorts of other […]
[…] all, people in government value taxes more than growth, jobs, competitiveness, and all sorts of other […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] bottom line is that lower tax rates are good for economic performance and my friends on the left shouldn’t get too worried about disappearing tax […]
[…] Those who want more advanced primers on taxes and growth should click here and […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] economists agree on that point), and because I think a less-punitive tax system is possible (and desirable) if there’s a smaller burden of government spending, I think the findings shown in Figure 4 make […]
[…] economists agree on that point), and because I think a less-punitive tax system is possible (and desirable) if there’s a smaller burden of government spending, I think the findings shown in Figure 4 make […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] those low tax rates also are better for prosperity, which is something that should be of interest to a bureaucracy with the words […]
[…] economists agree on that point), and because I think a less-punitive tax system is possible (and desirable) if there’s a smaller burden of government spending, I think the findings shown in Figure 4 make […]
[…] economists agree on that point), and because I think a less-punitive tax system is possible (and desirable) if there’s a smaller burden of government spending, I think the findings shown in Figure 4 make […]
[…] economists agree on that point), and because I think a less-punitive tax system is possible (and desirable) if there’s a smaller burden of government spending, I think the findings shown in Figure 4 make […]
[…] economists agree on that point), and because I think a less-punitive tax system is possible (and desirable) if there’s a smaller burden of government spending, I think the findings shown in Figure 4 […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] Lawyers and accountants will win and the economy will lose. […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] Lawyers and accountants will win and the economy will lose. […]
[…] tax breaks for rich people. Instead, I want to cut their taxes in ways that promote greater national prosperity so that I’ll benefit as […]
[…] want special tax breaks for rich people. Instead, I want to cut their taxes in ways that promote greater national prosperity so that I’ll benefit as […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] Lawyers and accountants will win and the economy will lose. […]
[…] Lawyers and accountants will win and the economy will lose. […]
[…] bottom line is that lower tax rates are good for economic performance and my friends on the left shouldn’t get too worried about disappearing tax […]
[…] bottom line is that lower tax rates are good for economic performance and my friends on the left shouldn’t get too worried about disappearing tax […]
[…] bottom line is that lower tax rates are good for economic performance and my friends on the left shouldn’t get too worried about disappearing tax […]
[…] bottom line is that lower tax rates are good for economic performance and my friends on the left shouldn’t get too worried about disappearing tax […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] We should instead be condemning the “tax hells” of the world. Those are the jurisdictions that cause economic misery. […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] I’m not a fan of child credits, even for families that pay taxes. Simply stated, there are other types of tax cuts that will do a much better job of boosting after-tax family […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] people ask me why I’m a libertarian, I rarely mention high taxes and wasteful spending. Nor do I make philosophical arguments about the non-aggression principle. […]
[…] But I always try to explain why these complicated tax issues are important – assuming we want a competitive tax system that doesn’t needlessly undermine growth. […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] simply means that class-warfare tax policy (ever-higher tax rates on the so-called rich) causes the most economic damage. Even the left-leaning OECD agrees with this […]
[…] simply means that class-warfare tax policy (ever-higher tax rates on the so-called rich) causes the most economic damage. Even the left-leaning OECD agrees with this […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] redistribution programs, are doubly harmful to prosperity. The economy is first hurt by the taxes needed to finance the programs, and then the economy is hurt because the programs give people […]
[…] such as redistribution programs, are doubly harmful to prosperity. The economy is first hurt by the taxes needed to finance the programs, and then the economy is hurt because the programs give people […]
[…] being said, lower tax rates are better for prosperity than higher tax rates (as illustrated by academic studies from economists). And since even small differences in economic […]
[…] being said, lower tax rates are better for prosperity than higher tax rates (as illustrated by academic studies from economists). And since even small differences in economic performance can […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] bottom line is that lower tax rates are good for economic performance and my friends on the left shouldn’t get too worried about disappearing tax […]
[…] bottom line is that lower tax rates are good for economic performance and my friends on the left shouldn’t get too worried about disappearing tax […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] impact will be that “the rich” pay more. The economic impact will be less capital formation and entrepreneurship, and those are the changes that hurt the vast […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] When I read stories like this, I wonder if my friends on the left will learn any lessons about tax competition, the Laffer Curve, or the economic consequences of bad tax policy. […]
[…] https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2020/05/12/taxes-and-growth/ […]
[…] political impact will be that “the rich” pay more. The economic impact will be less capital formation and entrepreneurship, and those are the changes that hurt the vast […]
[…] be competing to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
[…] be competing to attract millionaires, not repel them. Assuming, of course, politicians care about jobs and prosperity for the rest of the […]
Reblogged this on Boudica BPI Weblog.
Except for the FACT you never pay for those tax cut. That is why your numbers are skewed to give the wrong perception. If in fact you paid for the those tax cuts, the government would then be removing from the economy money they were spending creating a zero sum to the deficit. By removing money the Economy would slow unless those receiving those tax cut put every penny of their tax cut back into the economy. Since the tax cuts come at the TOP END which are people who already have more money then they can spend the likelihood of that is ZERO! Since the money you took out of the economy was money that went to the working poor for support programs that money was given to those who needed more money to live and therefore 100% goes back into the economy. The fraud of this This Tax cut ruse then shows up in the deficits. It can be completely expose if we look at GDP growth under Reagan and minus the deficit spending. The GDP under Reagan grew 2.56 Trillion while in that same time period when you add back the surpluses from the 83 SS act Reagan deficit spent 1.97. The net growth 590 billion dollar over 8 years, averages to a of growth 73.75 Billion a year. Now if we look at Jimmy Carter we see the economy grew 590 Billion while he deficit spent 299. billion, The net growth there is 291 billion, but that is over 4 years so the average per year there is 72.75 Billion per year. The TAX CUT DID NOTHING TO INCREASE Growth in real GDP. Then when you take into account the expansion of credit in the Reagan years you could make the argument that all those tax cut did was give the wealthy more money to consolidate there own wealth. Thus labor got suppressed and the greatest wealth gap ever now exist.
You didn’t miss anything. THAT is the point of CUTTING taxes. A “small” cut, 10% (not sure if that means 35% to 25% or 35% to 31.5%,) causes tremendous growth.
Here’s some “anecdotal” evidence. Where do retirees move? To HIGH property tax states or states with ZERO property tax?
What do states do to attract companies? Give them TAX incentives by offering ZERO taxes for a period of time.
What do you think would happen if states actually moved their corporate taxes to ZERO? Explosive growth!
And what about a ZERO personal property tax? People would flock to those states. And guess what? They would settle in the areas where they could easily work in states with HIGHER salaries and wages so that they could get the best of both worlds.
And here’s some Olde Wisdom from Thee Frugal Curmudgeon:
You NEVER own anything upon which there is a property tax.
Don’t believe me? See who is living in your house and driving your car if you don’t pay the property tax. But, but, I OWN it “free and clear”…except now the government does.
An increase of 1% of GDP is quite spectacular (33% or even 50%) when growth rates are typically in the 2% to 3% range. Or did I miss something?