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

Simpson Walks the Party Line on Corporate Taxes

Yesterday’s Jeffrey Simpson column was entitled, “Walking the Line on Corporate Tax Cuts.” Incredibly, he walks the narrow 1.5% line between the Liberal and NDP proposals.

To his credit, Simpson takes an open-minded look at the evidence, which indicates “no discernible links” from corporate taxes to employment or investment. On this basis, he accepts the Liberal proposal to raise revenue by restoring the 2010 federal corporate tax rate of 18%.

He mysteriously goes on to conclude that the NDP proposal to restore the 2008 rate of 19.5% “is a move in the wrong direction.” He offers no theory of why 18% is reasonable but 19.5% “is unwise.”

To put these figures in perspective, the federal corporate tax rate (including surtax) was 22.1% in 2007, before the Conservative cuts began. It was 29.1% in 2000, before the Liberals started slashing.

If one accepts the excellent analysis in the first three-quarters of Simpson’s column, then the NDP proposal is somewhat better (not to mention more trustworthy) than the Liberal proposal.

However, having Simpson and the Liberals on board for even a modest corporate tax increase is definitely a move in the right direction.

UPDATE (April 18): I have the following letter in today’s Globe and Mail.

In Walking the Line on Corporate Tax Cuts (April 15), Jeffrey Simpson correctly explained that differences in corporate tax rates have no discernible effect on employment or investment. After arguing that the Liberals’ proposed federal corporate tax rate of 18 per cent is reasonable, he concludes that the NDP proposal of 19.5 per cent “is a move in the wrong direction.”

To put both cautious increases in perspective, this rate was 22 per cent as recently as 2007 and 29 per cent until 2000 (including the corporate surtax). The NDP would go modestly further than the Liberals in what Mr. Simpson’s own evidence indicates is the right direction.

Erin Weir, senior economist, International Trade Union Confederation, Brussels

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Donald Hughes
Time: April 16, 2011, 7:53 am

“He offers no theory of why 18% is reasonable but 19.5% ‘is unwise.'”

So, then, what’s your optimal tax rate and mix?

If there is no discernible link between corporate tax and investment, why not a 95% rate?

Comment from Erin Weir
Time: April 16, 2011, 2:55 pm

The conclusion that corporate tax rates have no discernible effect on investment is based on the range of rates that countries have actually implemented.

Of course, there is good reason to believe that a 95% corporate tax rate would curb investment.

I do not claim to have precisely identified the point at which a higher rate would appreciably affect investment. However, that point does not lie between the Liberal and NDP proposals.

Comment from Donald Hughes
Time: April 16, 2011, 9:26 pm

The issue would seem to be what the optimal mix is, though. Saying that it wouldn’t hurt that much to raise to a 33.5% combined rate as a Layton-Horwath team would probably do is pretty obviously correct to me, but that doesn’t seem like the real issue. I mean, for a party that still calls itself socialist, saying that there should be a massive tax cut for corporations relative to only a decade ago seems like a political dead end – unless there is some evidence (which there is) that corporate tax isn’t the best tax to raise revenue from.

Comment from Nathan Rao
Time: April 18, 2011, 7:12 am

Barrie McKenna says the following in his Globe piece this morning:

“Across OECD countries, government revenue from corporate income tax as a share of gross domestic product is higher now than in the late 1990s. And taxes of all kinds (corporate, individual and value-added) are bringing in more revenue as a share of the economy now versus a decade ago.”

This doesn’t sound right to me. Could someone provide (or point me to) a good response? Similarly, it would be interesting to see a good rebuttal of the awful piece by Doug Saunders in the Saturday Globe.

Thanks.

Comment from Nathan Rao
Time: April 18, 2011, 8:07 am

Oops, sorry, Armine Yalnizyan has already responded to the Saunders column here:

http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2011/04/16/the-legend-of-zero/

Comment from Erin Weir
Time: April 18, 2011, 9:13 am

Corporate tax revenues are higher relative to GDP because pre-tax corporate profits are much higher relative to GDP. However, corporate taxes now collect a smaller share of profits.

Write a comment





Related articles