Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • A critical look at BC’s new tax breaks and subsidies for LNG May 7, 2019
    The BC government has offered much more to the LNG industry than the previous government. Read the report by senior economist Marc Lee.  
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • The 2019 living wage for Metro Vancouver April 30, 2019
    The 2019 living wage for Metro Vancouver is $19.50/hour. This is the amount needed for a family of four with each of two parents working full-time at this hourly rate to pay for necessities, support the healthy development of their children, escape severe financial stress and participate in the social, civic and cultural lives of […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Time to regulate gas prices in BC and stop industry gouging April 29, 2019
    Drivers in Metro Vancouver are reeling from record high gas prices, and many commentators are blaming taxes. But it’s not taxes causing pain at the pump — it’s industry gouging. Our latest research shows that gas prices have gone up by 55 cents per litre since 2016 — and the vast majority of that increase […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA welcomes Randy Robinson as new Ontario Director March 27, 2019
    The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is pleased to announce the appointment of Randy Robinson as the new Director of our Ontario Office.  Randy’s areas of expertise include public sector finance, the gendered rise of precarious work, neoliberalism, and labour rights. He has extensive experience in communications and research, and has been engaged in Ontario’s […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • 2019 Federal Budget Analysis February 27, 2019
    Watch this space for response and analysis of the federal budget from CCPA staff and our Alternative Federal Budget partners. More information will be added as it is available. Commentary and Analysis  Aim high, spend low: Federal budget 2019 by David MacDonald (CCPA) Budget 2019 fiddles while climate crisis looms by Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood (CCPA) Budget hints at priorities for upcoming […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Economic Models and Tax Policy

Over at Worthwhile Canadian Initiative (WCI), Stephen Gordon reasonably argues that economic models can be useful for policy analysis even if they lack the predictive power needed for forecasting. He writes:

A well-designed model will be able to reproduce the main features of interest of the real world. More importantly, it will also be able to reproduce the main features of interest of a world in which the policy under study did not take place.

It strikes me that such counterfactual analysis is always fraught with uncertainty, so economists (and other social scientists) should be cautious about their answers. But at least counterfactuals can help us ask the right questions.

A corollary to Stephen’s statement is that a poorly-designed model that fails to reproduce important features can lead to bad policy advice. As Iglika suggested, a misleading graph of the labour market (with quantity as numbers of jobs and price as nominal wage rates) is largely responsible for the knee-jerk opposition to minimum wages among many neoclassical economists.

I think that poorly-designed models also afflict tax policy, and WCI has recently showcased some important examples. Stephen has been promoting a conventional model of corporate taxes, which assumes that they apply to all operating profits.

This model ignores interest deductibility, Canada’s dividend tax credit, and the US government’s worldwide taxation of American corporations. These features mean that the minimum returns required to justify marginal investments are generally unaffected by Canada’s corporate tax rate.

Another recent WCI post repeats the model of sales-tax harmonization that seems to have taken over the minds of most mainstream Canadian economists. In this model, the HST is about removing sales tax from machinery and equipment to boost investment.

In fact, the previous Provincial Sales Tax already exempted much machinery and equipment. Most of the HST’s input tax credits will actually be for construction materials and intermediate goods.

On the whole, mainstream economists are too quick to discard institutional details in favour of abstract models. The institutional details often are, or should be, “the main features of interest.”

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Travis Fast
Time: February 1, 2011, 2:23 pm

You mean like the fact that the Swedish tax regime punishes corporations who pass through profits to high executive compensation instead of investment?

Comment from Erin Weir
Time: February 1, 2011, 2:31 pm

Even the US corporate tax system has some (rather ineffective) limits on the deductibility of executive compensation.

Comment from Travis Fast
Time: February 1, 2011, 2:35 pm

Yah but the Swedes really punish wealth holding outside of the corporation. It is fun watching Swedish business men in bad clothes fight it out for control and driving away in modest cars.

Comment from andrew jackson
Time: February 1, 2011, 4:00 pm

Great piece Erin. I am reminded of work by economists on EI disincentives which ignores key institutional features of the EI system. Like the rather key fact that it is quite possible – indeed encouraged – to work while on claim if temporary work becomes available. THe EI payment is reduced, and the work counts towards a future claim. Yet almost all models assume being on claim means being unemployed continuously until the end of the claim. This sounds trivial but it undermines supposedly robust findings that EI eligibility undermines work incentives.

Comment from Travis Fast
Time: February 1, 2011, 6:59 pm

Counterfactuals, I have read a series of conterfactual political science stories about everything from development to state formation and every time I walk away saying “maybe.” The most famous contemporary counterfactual argument is of course the American and British dissembling on Iraq. Much of what social scientists study are conjunctural, transient events which cannot be unwound out of their context. The level at which counterfactuals work is the same level at which theory works and theory only works (in the social sciences) at a very high level of abstraction. Which is fine, but the most you get at that level of inquiry are dogmatic truisms that really do not require any empirical confirmation.

I go to bed every night knowing that capitalism is a dynamic economic system which given the profit motive tends towards the increasing commodification of daily life and activities and tends towards ever increasing levels of productivity. What I can’t tell you or myself is if in absence of CIT cuts Canadian GDP per capita will be higher or lower than it would have been with the cuts. And really that is what Gordon’s post is about. He believes given the model kicking around in his head that they have to increase productivity thus no cuts means a lower productivity trend rate of growth.

As a policy maker why would I invite Gordon to do policy analysis for me (or his students) when I can telegraph both his and his students factuals and counter-factuals? It is just a rhetorical strategy to present the same theory twice. And repetition is the oldest trick in the propaganda racket.

Comment from Paul Tulloch
Time: February 1, 2011, 11:11 pm

have a look at the book 13 Bankers and you will have yourself so full of counter factuals you will have a gall bladder attack.

(oh those are painful- I am thinking gall stones may be the solution to greening the planet- once you get them, any red meat with fat in your diet becomes a demonic menace . I wonder if I get it removed will I somehow get back to my food world of Clockwork Orange? (not the movie, just the meaning of it)) Although potentially maybe all economists need to watch the movie and undergo treatment for violent tendencies- yes even the progressive ones- as judging by the theories, practice and outcomes, nobody has ever got it right and as it is outlined in the book 13 bankers, we have learned nothing.

Write a comment





Related articles