About the Authors

Roy Cordato is vice president for research and resident scholar at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, NC. ... See All Posts by This Author

It Just Ain't So | Roy Cordato

Corporations Should Pay Higher Taxes?

Rattner's Argument Is Based on a False Premise

The May 18 Washington Post article “Why Companies Pay Less” is less remarkable for what it says than for who is saying it. Its author is not Ralph Nader or Robert McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice. It is Steven Rattner, a well-known investment banker and a founder of the Quadrangle Group, a large private investment firm. Since it is unlikely that Rattner does not realize that his argument—that corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes—is based on a false premise—that corporations pay taxes—I can only conclude that he is being deliberately misleading.

In his article, Rattner reports sadly, “Over the past 50 years, the share of tax revenue coming to the federal government from business has collapsed. . . . In fiscal 2003 corporate taxes represented just 7.4 percent of federal revenue, down from 32 percent in 1952. . . . Corporate taxes as a percentage of our gross domestic product dropped to 1.2 percent in 2003, compared with as high as 6 percent in the early 1950s.”

In a defensive tone he denies that favoring tougher enforcement of the tax and the closing of “loopholes” is “populist or antibusiness or redistributionist.” All he wants is what any tax system should aim for: “to distribute the burden fairly.”

The corporate income tax has always been the darling of the socialist left. For this group, whose true goal is to transfer increasing amounts of revenue from private to government control, it may be the perfect tax. It gives these self-proclaimed champions of the downtrodden a way to tax the very constituency they claim to represent, while leading that constituency to believe the tax is being imposed on its “oppressors.” Indeed, corporate taxes are the most dishonest taxes used by any level of government.

It is curious that Rattner would call for a fair distribution of the tax burden on corporations, because as Rattner clearly must know, corporations pay no taxes. They appear to pay taxes, but as Henry Hazlitt would remind us, we need to look past appearances to see the true effects of economic polices.

Corporations pay no taxes not because of the litany of loopholes and special breaks that Rattner lists in his article or because of “the . . . sophistication of large multinational corporations in . . . shifting profits to countries with lower tax rates.” It is because corporations can’t pay taxes. All taxes, corporate or otherwise, must come out of some real human being’s pocket.

All this is well known and not at all controversial. Yet Rattner does not even hint at the possibility that the true burden of the corporate tax may be borne by exactly those taxpayers he is presumably championing in his article. The unstated implication of Rattner’s argument is that customers of corporations are paying too little for their products; employees of corporations are being paid too much for their work; and shareholders, even retirees and those putting a few dollars a month into IRAs and 401ks, are getting too much in return for their investments.

But even if corporate taxes were transparent to those who pay (in which case they probably wouldn’t exist), they would still violate every important principle of sound tax analysis. Again, this is a point that Rattner cannot credibly claim to misunderstand. While there is no such thing as an efficient tax, some forms of taxation clearly do more economic damage than others.

A basic principle of taxation is that the tax system should seek to minimize the extent to which some market decisions are favored over others. This means that income should be taxed only once.

Double, Triple Taxation

But the corporate income tax introduces double and in some cases triple taxation into the system. A worker at Wal-Mart pays personal income tax on a salary that has already been reduced by the corporate income tax.

Wal-Mart’s customers are taxed at least twice. Their purchasing power is reduced when they pay tax on their income. Then it is further reduced when the corporate tax raises the prices they pay at the cash register.

A shareholder in the company faces triple taxation. First, when any income is taxed, the tax by definition reduces the potential income stream—interest, dividends, and capital gains—that the income can generate. Second, dividends and capital gains are reduced further by the corporate income tax. And third, when dividends and capital gains are finally earned, they are taxed as part of the investor’s personal income.

Corporate taxes are hidden and fraudulent. The people who pay them do not know they pay them, and thus such taxes help mask the actual cost of government. If it is true that companies are finding ways to avoid these taxes and less revenue is being generated, then we should cheer those companies on. Ultimately corporate taxes should be abolished. Lovers of big government have no better friend than a tax that everyone thinks someone else pays.

—Roy E. Cordato

rcordato@johnlocke.org

John Locke Foundation

There Are 7 Responses So Far. »

  1. It’s easy then, just tax the corporation, not the wage earner! It seems this guy believes only the wage earner should pay taxes! People have bought this bs for the past 30 years, I think we might be getting wise to this.

  2. The question to ponder is not who pays the taxes or what method of collection of taxes is in place. The question to ask is what is the proper roll and function of government in America today? As long as enough people believe that the proper roll and function of the American government is to solve social-economic problems such as poverty,education,health-care,drugs etc.,etc.,etc.then the method of collection and who pays is a moot point. The problem is on the spending end. There is no”third way”possible. Either we have liberty and with that liberty self-responsibility or we have central planning with high taxes and an all powerful government. Hidden,direct,in-direct taxes,it doesn’t matter. What matters is how much of the wealth you created you get to keep and how much the government gets to”solve”problems.

  3. Libertarian jerry

    very good point

  4. Seems that corporations now pay writers at the washington post. This article isn’t slanted its a free fall from a cliff. Logical fallacies are all over this article.

  5. @ Joann Dunne. Neither corporations nor wage earners should have their output taxed. Such taxation is theft. What they should be taxed on are the inputs that come from society: natural resource use.

  6. Truth Seeker,

    Please point out the specific fallacies and why you believe them to be fallacies.

    I’d like to see these fallacies and use critical thinking skills to see if you are correct.

  7. Thanks Roy!
    You melt down the fallacy of “other-entity” taxation like a magician. This seperation of human-created institutions and human-paid taxation often vexes my ability to explane, but you really nailed it; I’ll be passing this one on.

Post a Response

© Copyright 2011 Freeman - Ideas on Liberty. All rights reserved.

62 queries. 1.154 seconds