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

Mintz: Wrong Again on Corporate Taxes

Ten days ago, Jack Mintz released yet another paper claiming that international competitiveness requires continued corporate tax cuts. In addition to the usual questionable interpretations, it featured at least one straight factual error.

Mintz inaccurately reports Iceland’s 2010 statutory corporate tax rate as 15% (Table 2 on page 7 and Table 3 on page 9 in the PDF). In reality, Iceland raised its corporate tax rate back to 18% in 2010, as reported by the OECD, the World Bank, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

I appreciate Mintz’s reluctance to acknowledge corporate tax increases, given his narrative that corporate taxes are always and everywhere falling. In fact, many countries plan to raise business taxes and toughen enforcement.

In Mintz’s simple average, Iceland counts for as much as the US. Still, a 3% error for one country out of 33 does not make much difference. The paper reports an average statutory rate for the OECD (excluding Estonia) of 25.7%. Iceland’s correct rate brings that average up to 25.8%.

However, the mistake is disconcerting since Mintz expects readers to take on faith his Marginal Effective Tax Rate (METR) calculations, which purport to integrate business tax provisions other than statutory rates.

No one can reproduce or scrutinize these calculations or the assumptions underlying them. Mintz runs the black box, the media reports the numbers it spits out, and policymakers listen intently.

Even if one accepts the METRs, a simple average of them is meaningless. If investment opportunities are roughly proportional to economic size, countries should be weighted by Gross Domestic Product.

For a few years – 2006, 2007 and 2008 – Mintz actually presented weighted averages. His problem was that they did not really make the case for further Canadian corporate tax cuts.

His solution was to stop presenting weighted averages. In 2009, 2010 and 2011, Mintz continued advocating corporate tax cuts based on simple averages alone.

As I demonstrated three weeks ago, Canada’s statutory corporate tax rate in 2010 was comfortably below the weighted OECD average. Applying the same approach to Mintz’s METRs reveals a weighted OECD average of 27.4%.

By comparison, Canada’s METR was just 20.5%. Federal and provincial governments could roll back corporate tax rates to 2010 levels or higher, while retaining a significant competitive advantage over other advanced economies as well as major emerging economies like Russia (31.9%), India (33.6%), Brazil (35.1%) and Argentina (43.1%).

UPDATE (March 9): Mintz has corrected Iceland.

METRs and GDP in the OECD
(GDP = expenditure approach, US$ billions, purchasing power parity)

 

2009

GDP

2010

METR

United States

14,044

34.6 %

Japan

4,135

29.5 %

Germany

2,975

23.8 %

France

2,173

34.0 %

United Kingdom

2,173

27.9 %

Italy

1,953

26.9 %

Mexico

1,540

17.5 %

Spain

1,481

25.4 %

Korea

1,321

29.5 %

Canada

1,276

20.5 %

Turkey

1,024

5.6 %

Australia

877

26.0 %

Poland

722

14.3 %

Netherlands

675

16.8 %

Belgium

392

(1.7 %)

Switzerland

350

17.6 %

Sweden

346

18.9 %

Greece

328

13.0 %

Austria

325

25.3 %

Norway

269

24.7 %

Czech Republic

268

12.0 %

Portugal

266

20.8 %

Chile

243

6.7 %

Denmark

208

18.5 %

Israel

206

14.6 %

Hungary

203

15.9 %

Finland

188

18.3 %

Ireland

177

10.9 %

New Zealand

125

17.6 %

Slovak Republic

124

11.2 %

Slovenia

56

11.6 %

Luxembourg

42

16.8 %

Estonia

27

N.A.

Iceland

12

8.9 %

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from rcp
Time: March 6, 2011, 5:24 am

Does anyone know why the Belgian METR is negative? It seems hard to believe that Google (say) wouldn’t be running their money through Belgium instead of Ireland given that rate.

Comment from Erin Weir
Time: March 7, 2011, 9:12 am

I think it’s mainly because Belgium allows corporations to deduct the assumed cost of equity financing (in addition to actual interest payments on debt financing.)

This rate is marginal rather than average. It is not as though corporations get a tax refund on every dollar flowing through Belgium.

Comment from rcp
Time: March 7, 2011, 11:11 am

Thanks, Erin. So maybe I’m a little slow, but doesn’t that mean that, marginally, any company that has a sub in Belgium and a sub anywhere else, should try to run more and more business through the Belgian sub, as opposed to the other one? Maybe there’s a risk premium for the Flemish vs. Walloons unpleasantness.

Comment from Erin Weir
Time: March 7, 2011, 12:38 pm

My understanding of Mintz’s analysis is that, if an extra dollar of new investment in any OECD country generated the same pre-tax return for a corporation, it would invest the extra dollar in Belgium.

I do not think that METRs have any bearing on the shifting of reported profits, which is why Mintz still examines statutory corporate income tax rates.

Comment from Paul Jacobson
Time: March 8, 2011, 6:53 am

1) Taxes are not the only factor affecting investment intentions. Workforce, net labour costs, infrastructure all play a part. However, it is notable that the European economy with the strongest growth (Germany) has a substantially lower METR than its nearest neighbours with the singular exception of Ireland.
2) Richard Gordon in his blog has a strong discussion on tax incidence suggesting that corporate taxes do not land where most people think. http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2010/08/incidence.html
3) I would commend the Gentry study from the U.S. Treasury for people interested in a strong perspective on the issues of tax incidence.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota101.pdf

Comment from Marc Lee
Time: March 8, 2011, 12:25 pm

Gordon’s views (and it is Stephen not Richard) are based on some flimsy evidence, rooted in a lot of bad theory.

Here is what the Gentry study says. Tell me if you think this describes the world we live in:
“While further research is necessary to draw definitive conclusions, these studies suggest that labor may bear a substantial burden from the corporate income tax. These empirical results are consistent with computable general equilibrium models based on an open economy in which a single country sets its tax policy independently of other countries; in these models, assumptions that capital is mobile and consumers are willing to substitute tradable goods produced in different countries imply that labor can bear more of the incidence of the corporate tax than capital bears.”

CGE models are only quasi-empirical in that the results are driven by the assumptions made. I have yet to see an empirical result that definitely shows that changes in CIT rates translate into wage changes. This would be a really hard thing to prove, given all of the other things going on in the economy and labour market.

Comment from Travis Fast
Time: March 8, 2011, 1:31 pm

@ Marc,

Yes a quasi-empirical empirical confirmation of a CGE pseudo reality. You can see why it might ring so true to an econometrician.

Comment from Erin Weir
Time: March 9, 2011, 8:22 am

Sorry to pile on, but here is my response to a previous Stephen Gordon post on the same subject.

By my count, Germany borders nine countries. Seven of them have substantially lower METRs, as calculated by Mintz: The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Poland and Denmark. If anything, Germany’s relative economic success supports the view that business taxes are not decisive to investment and growth.

Comment from Tavis Fast
Time: March 9, 2011, 9:48 am

@ Erin

Yah, but Ireland…..oh shit, never-mind.

Write a comment





Related articles