Author
Listed:
- Ergete Ferede
(Department of Economics, Grant MacEwan University)
- Bev Dahlby
(The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary)
Abstract
Raising taxes can come at a serious cost. Not just to the taxpayer, of course, but to the economy. Every tax hike naturally leads people or companies to reallocate resources in ways that are less productive, resulting in a loss of income-generating opportunities. At a certain point, raising taxes becomes manifestly counterproductive, with the revenue lost due to the negative economic effects outweighing any tax gains. In cases like that, a government would actually raise more money by lowering taxes, broadening the tax base, than it does by increasing taxes. In fact, an analysis of the tax-base elasticities of the provinces, using data from 1972 to 2010, reveals that this very phenomenon is what occurred in Saskatchewan, which raised corporate taxes to a point where it began to backfire, sabotaging the government’s goal of raising more revenue. It also occurred in New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I., and Nova Scotia. In all these provinces, tax increases on corporate earnings actually ended up yielding less for the provinces than the provincial governments would have collected had they instead lowered corporate income taxes. In five other provinces, governments undermined their own provincial economies over the same period, raising corporate taxes when they would have been better off actually cutting the corporate income tax, and making up the difference with a revenue-neutral sales tax. Alberta, Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec all paid dearly for the decision to hit corporations with higher taxes, by sacrificing what could have been significant welfare gains had they sought to raise the same amount of revenue through higher sales taxes (or in the case of Alberta, a new sales tax). Quebec, at least, has lower tax-base elasticity than the others, however, possibly due to its unique cultural and linguistic characteristics, which may make it somewhat less likely for people and investors to leave the province. The evidence clearly demonstrates that corporate income taxes are far more sensitive to changes in the provincial tax rate than are personal income taxes or general sales taxes. Of course, it is not hard to see why politicians may feel political pressure to raise taxes on corporations, who do not vote, rather than passing tax increases onto residents, who do. But, while taxing corporations may be popular, preferred both by the voters and the politicians, when creating greater economic opportunities for their residents, provinces would have been far better off, over the measured 38-year period, looking elsewhere for additional revenue. As politically contentious as it may be, that means going easier on corporations and instead raising personal income and sales taxes.
Suggested Citation
Ergete Ferede & Bev Dahlby, 2016.
"The Costliest Tax of All: Raising Revenue Through Corporate Tax Hikes can be Counter-Productive for the Provinces,"
SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 9(11), March.
Handle:
RePEc:clh:resear:v:9:y:2016:i:11
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Kenneth McKenzie, 2019.
"Altering the Tax Mix in Alberta,"
SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 12(25), September.
- Kenneth J. McKenzie, 2016.
"Make the Alberta Carbon Levy Revenue Neutral,"
SPP Briefing Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 9(15), April.
- Adam Found & Peter Tomlinson, 2017.
"Business Tax Burdens in Canada’s Major Cities: The 2017 Report Card,"
e-briefs
269, C.D. Howe Institute.
- John Lester, 2021.
"Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal and Provincial SR&ED Investment Tax Credits,"
SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 14(1), January.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:9:y:2016:i:11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bev Dahlby (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spcalca.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.