Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

Joseph Plazo and Andrea Trent Discuss Tax Implication on Growing Nations at the Kuala Lumpur Business Summit

Some of the most frequently discussed issues in economics is how tax rates relate to economic growth. Promoters of tax cuts promise that the decline in the tax rate will lead to increased economic growth and prosperity. Others maintain that if we all reduce taxes, virtually all the gains will visit the affluent, as those would be the people who pay the most taxes. What exactly does economic theory indicate about the connection between economic growth and taxation?

Income Taxes and Extraordinary Instances

In studying economic policies, Joseph Plazo declares thatit is always helpful to study excessive cases. Extreme instances are scenarios for example "What if we had a 100% income tax rate?", or "What if we raised the minimum wage to $50.00 an hour?". While completely unrealistic, they do give quite bare examples of what focus essential economic variables will transfer when we change a government policy.

Joseph and Andrea suppose that the postulate. Suppose that we lived in a society without taxation. We are going to worry about the way the government fund its plans later on, but for now we'll suppose they have adequate money to fund most of the plans we've nowadays. In case there are no taxes, then the government doesn't get any income from taxation and citizens do not spend any time worrying about the best way to evade taxes. If someone has a wage of $10.00 an hour, they get to keep that $10.00. If such a society were potential, we could see that people would be rather productive as any income they bring in, they keep.

Now contemplate the opposing case. Taxes are actually set to be 100% of income. Any cent you bring in goes to the government. It might appear that the government would get lots of cash this means, but that is probably not going to happen. If I don't get to keep anything out of what I make, why would I go to work? I'd rather spend my time reading or playing baseball. In fact, going to work would risk my power to endure. I'd be a lot better off spending my time attempting to develop strategies to get the things I need without giving them to the authorities. I'd spend a great deal of my time attempting to grow food in a hidden garden and bartering with others for the things I need to live. I'dn't spend any time working to get a business if I did not get anything from it. Society as a whole would not be very productive if everybody spent a substantial part of the time attempting to evade taxes. The government would earn almost no income from tax, as very few people would visit work if they did not get an income from it.

While all these are extraordinary cases, they do illustrate the consequence of taxes and they're useful guides of what occurs at other tax rates. A 99% tax rate is very just like a 100% tax rate, and if you blow off group prices, having a 2% tax rate isn't much different from having no taxes whatsoever. Go back to the person bring in $10.00 an hour. Do you believe he'll spend more time at work or less if his take home pay is $8.00 rather than $2.00? I'd bet you that at $2.00 heisn't planning to spend lots of time at the office and he's going to spend a lot of time looking to earn a living away from the prying eyes of authorities.

Taxes and Other Ways of Funding Authorities

In the instance where government can finance spending beyond taxation, Joseph Plazo and Andrea Trent see the following:

Productivity drop as the tax rate increases, as people decide to work less. The more complicated the tax rate, the more time individuals spend evading taxes and the less time they spend on more productive task. So the lower the tax rate, the higher the worth of all the goods and services made.

Government tax revenue does not necessarily improve as the tax rate increases. The authorities will get more tax income at 1% rate than at 0%, but they will not get more at 100% than they'll at 10%, as a result of disincentives high tax rates cause. Thus there's a peak tax rate where government revenue is greatest. The association between income tax rates and government revenue could be graphed on something called a Laffer Curve.

Clearly, government systems are not self-funding.

This results in the issue on tax cuts. Are tax cuts as terrible as Capitalists like to exhort?

A tax cut does not necessarily help or damage an economy. You must consider exactly what the revenue from those taxes is being spent on before you are able to discover the result the cut will have on the market. From this discussion, though, we see the next general tendencies:

Cutting taxes and wasteful spending will help an economy due to the disincentive effect due to tax. Cutting taxes and beneficial programs may or may not benefit the market.

A certain amount of government spending is necessary on the military, law enforcement, and the court system. A country which does not spend an adequate amount of cash in these regions will have a depressed market. A lot of spending in these types of regions is wasteful.

A state also needs infrastructure to really have a high level of financial activity. Much of the infrastructure cannot be satisfactorily given by the private sector, so governments must spend cash in this area to make sure economic growth. Yet too much spending, or spending in the incorrect infrastructure could be wasteful and slow economic growth.

If individuals are naturally inclined to spend their particular money on schooling and health care, then tax useful for social systems probably will slow economic growth. Social spending which targets low income families is much better for the market than universal programs.

If folks are not inclined to invest towards their own instruction and health care, then there can be a benefit to suppling these goods, as society as a whole benefits from a healthy and knowledgeable workforce.

Before I get an inbox filled with hate mail, I'm not proposing that the authorities stop all social programs. There may be many benefits to these plans that aren't measured in economic growth. A slow down of economic growth will probably happen as these plans are enlarged, yet, so that should continually be kept in mind. If the plan has enough other advantages, society as a whole may wish to have lower economic growth in return for more societal plans.

Admittedly this article oversimplified some crucial dilemmas. However that's usually crucial in a first look for an economic problem. I intend on dealing with some of these specific issues in more depth in the near future. I'd want to hear your take on the dilemma and what you'd like to see covered in more depth as time goes on

Joseph Plazo is an entrepreneur and attorney in the Ateneo De Manila University. He provides pro bono consulting to local government and SMEs. Andrea Trent serves as a finance adviser in the ADB and delivers accounting supervision at the WHO.

Asian Development Bank

Don't be the product, buy the product!