Jobs and investment
Corporate tax rates have become a hot election topic. The Conservatives say they will implement the previously legislated reduction in the federal corporate tax rate to 15% in 2012, the Liberals say they will roll the current 16.5% rate back to last year's 18%, and the NDP wants to increase the rate further to 19.5%. To these we need to add provincial rates that range from 10% to 16%.
One point of contention is whether corporate tax cuts generate investment and jobs. Opponents of tax cuts like to claim there is no evidence of increased investment. For example, Canadian Auto Workers economist Jim Stanford recently released a paper for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives claiming that "tax rates have had no direct, statistically significant impact on investment."
Before I get to Mr. Stanford's paper, we need to acknowledge some key issues.
First, the economy is a complicated place and, despite the claims of various political parties and commentators, it is not at all straightforward to determine the impact of corporate tax cuts on things like investment and job creation.
Economic theory suggests that a key determinant of investment is something economists call the "cost of capital." This can be thought of as the cost of a unit of investment to firms and reflects, among other things, the price of capital, the interest rate, the depreciation rate, and corporate income taxes. Our economic models predict that if the cost of capital decreases -because of a reduction in interest rates, a corporate tax cut, etc. -investment will increase "all else being equal" (more on this below).
Now this is just a theory. Testing this theory is not straightforward. One problem involves data and measurement. Measuring investment itself is not as simple as you might think. Measuring the cost of capital is also difficult and requires all sorts of assumptions about interest rates, depreciation rates, the tax system, etc. Another problem is that investment is a forward looking decision. Thus, expectations about the future, including the cost of capital in the future, play a key role. Moreover, aside from the cost of capital, other factors such as economic conditions, and possibly business profitability, can affect investment.
Because of all of this, it has proven rather difficult to establish a strong relationship between the cost of capital and investment. The use of better data, including looking at corporate behaviour at the firm level and the use of sophisticated econometric techniques, has changed this. And there is little doubt that an economic consensus now exists based upon credible, properly done, peer reviewed research that reductions in the cost of capital due to corporate tax cuts do indeed encourage investment.
The estimates vary, and not all economic studies are created equal, but most of the credible studies find that a 10% reduction in the cost of capital will lead to an increase in investment in the long run of between 5% and 10%. Some studies, including some using Canadian data, estimate an even higher impact, perhaps as high as 15% for a 10% reduction in the cost of capital for some types of investment.
This flies in the face of some recent analysis that has been reported in the media. One such analysis is Mr. Stanford's recent paper. It is based on what he describes as "original econometric analysis of historical Canadian data on business fixed non-residential investment."
This is not the forum to deliver a technical critique of Mr. Stanford's paper; however, I will say that in my view the analysis is flawed and would not stand up to a rigorous peer-review process. Among several methodological errors that Mr. Stanford makes is the way he measures a key variable -what he calls the effective corporate income tax rate. His approach is simply wrong, inconsistent with the theory, and does not properly measure the impact of corporate taxes on the cost of capital. His use of highly aggregated data is also a problem.
Most modern studies are based on firm level data and at the very least make the very important distinction between investment in machinery and equipment (which is thought to be quite sensitive to the cost of capital) and buildings and structures (which is less sensitive). Failure to make this distinction results in what economists call "aggregation bias" and can severely affect the results.
Two other points bear emphasis. One is that investment responds to changes in the cost of capital with relatively long lags. As such, we should not expect a corporate tax cut this year to lead to a significant increase in investment this year, or next year, or even the year after that. The above estimates are for the long run -seven to 10 years at least.
Still another important point is that the estimates are based on that "all else being equal" condition. Economists often use this phrase to the bafflement of non-economists. But it is important. It may well be that investment actually falls, despite the tax cuts. This is because of the impact of other factors that can affect investment. The point is that, on average over the long run, the best empirical studies suggest that investment will eventually respond to tax-induced reductions in the cost of capital, and will be higher than it otherwise would have been.
Finally, there's the jobs issue. I am not aware of any peer-reviewed studies that directly estimate the impact of corporate tax cuts on job creation. Again, the problem is that a myriad of factors influence job creation, and it is difficult to isolate and identify the impact of any one factor, such as higher investment due to tax cuts.
What economists do instead is use the estimates I talked about earlier in simulation models of the economy to calculate the potential impact on job creation of the additional investment due to tax cuts. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is important to understand that it requires that we make several assumptions about the nature and structure of the economy. Again, what we shouldn't do is undertake a superficial comparison of jobs and corporate taxes and draw any conclusions one way or another -that nasty "all else being equal" thing rears its ugly head again.
There is, however, some recent econometric evidence which shows that lower corporate taxes do lead to higher wages and salaries. This research is relatively new and more work needs to be done before anything approaching a consensus emerges, but it is consistent with many theoretical models of the economy that argue that corporate tax reductions primarily benefit labour, particularly in a small open economy like Canada. This suggests that corporate tax cuts may actually be progressive; a topic for another day.
Hypocrisy on health care
In search of an issue that could turn the polls in his favour, the Liberals suddenly have begun focusing on health care. "Mr. Harper is a right-wing guy, and right-wing guys don't believe in the Canadian health-care system," Bob Rae said this week. "[He] has a long record of public statements opposing universal public health care in favour of private, for-profit delivery of health services -and given the risky spending and cuts in his platform, there is no reason to trust him."
We suppose this was inevitable. Over the past several elections, the Liberals have insisted that they alone can protect Canadian values -from women's rights, to the Charter of Rights and Freedom, to multiculturalism. They also have accused the Tories of having a "secret agenda" and of embracing "Americanstyle" policies. Since many Liberal supporters see our monopoly public-health system as a defining feature of the Canadian social contract, the health theme fits in well with this overall approach.
How inconvenient, then, that the health-care facts are not cooperating with Michael Ignatieff's party.
It was a Liberal prime minister, Paul Martin, who first turned a blind eye to the largescale growth of for-profit private clinics, particularly in Quebec and British Columbia. Even former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien allowed the start-up of some private clinics that violated the spirit of the Canada Health Act (CHA). So before the Liberals start throwing stones on the universal health-care file, they might want to consider the glass house they have constructed for themselves.
By the time Canadians voted the Grits out of office in early 2006, there were already more than 50 private, for-profit clinics in Quebec alone, most in the Montreal area, and several in Paul Martin's own riding. Mr. Martin's personal physician operated one of the largest chains of private health clinics in the country (although the Liberal prime minister insisted he saw his doctor only in his public practice). If any of this ever was objectionable to Messrs. Rae and Ignatieff, they seem to have kept their complaints to themselves.
In fact, the 2006 election was itself precipitated, in part, by the Liberals' unwillingness to enforce the CHA. Despite having pledged $41-billion to the provinces over 10 years in a 2004 deal that was supposed to fix the public health system "for a generation," by 2005 the NDP were nipping at the minority government's heels over the growth of private medicine. In 2005, Mr. Layton complained that a meeting with Mr. Martin on the issue "was a disappointment. Our specific proposal was rules to stop the growth of privatized health care. But the Prime Minister did not agree action was needed."
The Liberals insist Mr. Harper has a health-care spending plan that would eliminate Ottawa's leverage to force the provinces to comply with the Canada Health Act. They claim Mr. Harper's suggestion of transferring federal tax points to the provinces so each can raise its own revenues to fund its own health system would do away with the only bargaining chip Ottawa has -federal transfer payments -to make the provinces preserve the universal government health monopoly.
But here again, it was Mr. Martin who did away with what is known as the federal spending power. His 2004 agreement with the provinces permitted them to spend the additional $4-billion that Ottawa would send them annually any way they saw fit; no penalties would be extracted from provinces that spent the money in ways forbidden by the CHA. In practical terms, that amounts to the same thing the Tories are proposing in 2011.
The Liberals credibility on the health-care file was already in doubt because their first campaign ads on the topic misquoted Mr. Harper as wanting to do away with the CHA -a claim they were forced to retract. More importantly, their own history makes a mockery of their fearmongering.
Our belief is that this country needs more health-care freedom and flexibility. And we would be only too happy if Mr. Harper (or Mr. Ignatieff, for that matter) came out tomorrow with a definitive promise to let provinces conduct health care as they see fit, as a first step toward creating a European-style mixed publicprivate health system. But neither major party has given any indication that it would entertain such ambitious reforms. And to the extent that our system has liberalized in recent years, it is Paul Martin, not Stephen Harper, who deserves (depending on your perspective) credit or blame.
0 comments:
Post a Comment