• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Obama critics say his tax proposal will hurt investment. The best evidence says it won't.

ksen

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,540
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7863239/taxes-investment-yagan

The case against investment taxes is one of those things that can be demonstrated in the abstract through some fairly elegant math, but it's difficult to confirm empirically. Fans of the Obama proposal will enjoy Danny Yagan's 2014 paper "Capital Tax Reform and the Real Economy: The effects of the 2003 dividend tax cut" which is probably the best recent empirical look at the question. Yagan's conclusion is that the Bush administration's big cut to the dividend tax "caused zero change in corporate investment" and had "no impact on employee compensation." It did have, however, "an immediate impact on financial payouts to shareholders."

Looking forward to the forthcoming denials about how investment taxes really do hurt corporate investment despite evidence to the contrary.
 
You should look forward to people not giving a shit about what Obama says anymore instead.
 
You should look forward to people not giving a shit about what Obama says anymore instead.

Good point. The next two years will be a waste of time politically. Does Clinton agree with this proposal?
 
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7863239/taxes-investment-yagan

The case against investment taxes is one of those things that can be demonstrated in the abstract through some fairly elegant math, but it's difficult to confirm empirically. Fans of the Obama proposal will enjoy Danny Yagan's 2014 paper "Capital Tax Reform and the Real Economy: The effects of the 2003 dividend tax cut" which is probably the best recent empirical look at the question. Yagan's conclusion is that the Bush administration's big cut to the dividend tax "caused zero change in corporate investment" and had "no impact on employee compensation." It did have, however, "an immediate impact on financial payouts to shareholders."

Looking forward to the forthcoming denials about how investment taxes really do hurt corporate investment despite evidence to the contrary.

This paper is obviously biased. Everyone who really understands economic issues knows that when we make things better for the elites, the economic benefit Trickles On to the commoners, so we know for a fact that Bush's cut to the dividend tax produced great benefits for our entire economy, while Obama's proposed tax hike will ruin the economy. [/conservolibertarian]
 
I would expect a dividend tax hike, all other things being equal, to result in fewer dividends. And perhaps more of things that are substitutes for dividends such as stock buybacks.

This has approximately nothing to do with the levels of investment or the health of the economy.
 
I would expect a dividend tax hike, all other things being equal, to result in fewer dividends. And perhaps more of things that are substitutes for dividends such as stock buybacks.

This has approximately nothing to do with the levels of investment or the health of the economy.

You should tell Heritage.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/10/how-tax-reform-would-help-american-families

Families use savings to pay for down payments on homes, education, retirement, unexpected bills, or anything else that they may desire to buy in the future. High rates discourage them from saving by making spending today more attractive than spending in the future. High tax rates on interest income, dividends, and capital gains discourage families from saving, thereby reducing the amount they can spend in the future by forgoing spending and saving today. When they save less today, families are less secure in the future.

Pass-through businesses, which pay their taxes on their owners’ individual tax returns rather than through the corporate tax system, also pay the high rates that families pay. More than 4 million of them have employees.[1] Those with more than 100 workers employ 20 million Americans.[2] The high tax rates that they pay reduce the amount of earnings that they can reinvest into their businesses. This hurts families because the reduction in investment reduces the number of jobs that the businesses create and the wage increases they give to their workers.

Further reducing investment are the multiple layers of taxes that investors face when contemplating an investment. Much investment is taxed first at the corporate level, where businesses organized as C-corporations pay the U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent—the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Investment is then taxed at the investor level through taxes on capital gains and dividends, which are both taxed at 23.8 percent. Combined, these rates mean that investment returns face a tax rate of almost 54 percent, including state taxes.
 
The empirical research that I am familiar with finds that it business investment is not terribly responsive to changes in the cost of capital. Since the tax does not dramatically change the cost of capital, one would not expect much effect on business investment. Furthermore, the empirical research on personal saving that I am familiar does not show that personal savings are responsive to after-tax returns on savings. So I would say the Heritage Foundation's argument is not based on empirical evidence.
 
The empirical research that I am familiar with finds that it business investment is not terribly responsive to changes in the cost of capital. Since the tax does not dramatically change the cost of capital, one would not expect much effect on business investment. Furthermore, the empirical research on personal saving that I am familiar does not show that personal savings are responsive to after-tax returns on savings. So I would say the Heritage Foundation's argument is not based on empirical evidence.

Does this lack of response in savings include not being responsive to interest rates offered?
 
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7863239/taxes-investment-yagan

The case against investment taxes is one of those things that can be demonstrated in the abstract through some fairly elegant math, but it's difficult to confirm empirically. Fans of the Obama proposal will enjoy Danny Yagan's 2014 paper "Capital Tax Reform and the Real Economy: The effects of the 2003 dividend tax cut" which is probably the best recent empirical look at the question. Yagan's conclusion is that the Bush administration's big cut to the dividend tax "caused zero change in corporate investment" and had "no impact on employee compensation." It did have, however, "an immediate impact on financial payouts to shareholders."

Looking forward to the forthcoming denials about how investment taxes really do hurt corporate investment despite evidence to the contrary.

I'm looking forward to you explaining how a study of Bush dividend taxes, which is a small part of the Obama proposed taxes on investment, has much to do with the real issue, the capital gains tax? But as you seemed confident in the author, perhaps you ought to be aware of another paper Yagan co-authored that suggested low marginal income tax rates and ZERO taxation of capital is the best policy...

http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4263739/Mankiw_OptimalTaxationTheory.pdf?sequence=2

Abstract:
We highlight and explain eight lessons from optimal tax theory and compare them to the last few
decades of OECD tax policy. As recommended by theory, top marginal income tax rates have
declined, marginal income tax schedules have flattened, redistribution has risen with income
inequality, and commodity taxes are more uniform and are typically assessed on final goods.
However, trends in capital taxation are mixed, and capital income tax rates remain well above
the zero level recommended by theory. Moreover, some of theory's more subtle prescriptions,
such as taxes that involve personal characteristics, asset-testing, and history-dependence, remain
rare in practice. Where large gaps between theory and policy remain, the difficult question is
whether policymakers need to learn more from theorists, or the other way around.

Gotta love VOX...always a source for "pretend" objectivity.
 
Economist are all Captain Aftermaths.They could not predict a sunrise.
 
The empirical research that I am familiar with finds that it business investment is not terribly responsive to changes in the cost of capital. Since the tax does not dramatically change the cost of capital, one would not expect much effect on business investment. Furthermore, the empirical research on personal saving that I am familiar does not show that personal savings are responsive to after-tax returns on savings. So I would say the Heritage Foundation's argument is not based on empirical evidence.

Does this lack of response in savings include not being responsive to interest rates offered?
All I recall is that there is little evidence that US household saving does changes much when after-tax returns change. I would reason that if interest rates offered change and that changes after-tax returns, then there savings would not be terribly responsive.
 
Ask the wrong question, get a stupid answer. This has basically nothing to do with what Obama's tax proposals would do.
 
Loren, what would they do?

The targeting of high frequency trading is going to flop because it's a narrow-margin activity.

Beyond that it will somewhat cut investment. I don't think anyone can quantify the amount.

I'm calling the study garbage because it's focusing on how corporations reacted--when we are dealing with things that are basically passed through, what counts is how investors react.
 
Back
Top Bottom