Logic is Not a Prerequisite
I was listening this past week to objections being raised against the gross receipts tax. Two jumped out, mostly because they came from the same person and followed one right after the other.
The first: the gross receipts tax is not related to profitability and will hurt businesses with small profit margins.
The second: we know that it is going to get passed on, just like all other taxes, to consumers and is going to hurt low income families.
I wanted to interrupt, “Choose one … but you can’t have both.”
If profit margins are cut, consumers won’t be affected.
If the tax is passed on to consumers, profit margins won’t be affected.
But logic has never been a necessary ingredient in political discourse.
What do economists know about what happens to taxes on business? Very little really. As William Oakland of Tulane University, and William Testa, vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago, wrote in the May, 2000, issue of Economic Development Quarterly, “The actual incidence of business taxes remains unknown …”
There have been lots of studies, but the results depend largely on the assumptions made at the beginning as to how businesses respond to various taxes. It may be that it is this underlying uncertainty that makes the contradictory assertions about the gross receipts tax both believable.
The broad base, the low rate, and the simplicity are the strengths of the gross receipts tax. Because it applies to all economic sectors, the rate can be low. The lower the rate, the more easily it can be incorporated into the cost of doing business. Because the tax affects all economic activity and not just the production of tangible goods, if it is passed on, it is passed on to a much broader range of consumers than those now affected by the sales tax.
The gross receipts tax is better than alternatives that have been suggested to raise the same revenue. Doubling the individual and corporate income taxes would do little to spread the burden of taxes to those who now don’t pay and would simply make those who are paying now, just pay more. Broadening the sales tax to include consumer services would be far more regressive than a gross receipts tax.
8 comments:
“Choose one … but you can’t have both.”
Actually, there is a third, (and that a progressive misses it odd): labor will pay.
All three responses will certainly happen.
Business and stockholders will pay (and consider moving to avoid GRT).
Or Business will squeeze the cost of GRT out of workers if they can.
Or Business will pass it onto consumers until they can't tax it if they can.
All three will happen for sure and some buisness may do all three.
Business cuts cost every day. GRT just another one for them.
Or Business will pass it onto consumers until they can't tak it, if Business can.
You get the point though I think first go around
Oddly, it's Labor who will probably take the greatest hit I suspect. This is the Progressives Productivity dilemma. Added social costs create a push for greater labor productivity. Business pushes jobs off shore, less productive high paying jobs disappear, families forced into multiple lower paying jobs...
...competition forces the need for productivity but upping the cost of social programs just aggrevates it... when instead the Gov's job should be to promote properity overall...
Blair said prosperity and social justice not incompatible and I'd argue social justice hard to come by without prosperity... but Blairism hasn't reached Illinois yet. With the collapse of neo-Liberalism, it never will.
Businesses are NOT going to leave the state. The broad base allows a LOW RATE to be applied. Illinois qwill still be a moderate tax state.It would be more expensive to move than to pay the GRT. It is the least regressive tax and since the consumer has a choice about what she/he consumes it would be optional for them.Groceries and medicine would be exempt. Spare us the whining about pyrimidding. It just won't happen that much and the sky is not falling.
Why do business interest groupsd keep whining? Greed!
Bill,
Why do Businesses keep whining? In this case, it isn't greed, it's a charade to pass HB750, which is what Madigan wants.
The fact of the matter is that Bill is correct. These effects happen "at the margin."
Some businesses will leave IL. Some will cut back on hiring. Some will decide not to hire. Some will be able to pass the cost on. Some will decide to pick a state that isn't hiking taxes and regulation. etc etc etc.
[As an aside, does this legislature of nuts even consider the impact of their actions? Why would a company enter a state where nearly every bill is either a tax increase, as sop to corrupt school districts (HB 261) or a new regulation.]
All taxes have SOME effect, and arguing otherwise is just plain nonsense.
I agree with Bruno that GRT is a set up to get HB 750 through...
As a rule, I favor flatter income taxes... I'd argue for zero corporate tax because corporations invest and create jobs...
But I'm not buying into any Tax increase in Illinois until the Politicians can straighten out their acts on contracting and conflicts of interest... and then introduce some meaningful reforms in Education and Pensions to give some assurance we're not throwing good money after bad...
..then talk to me about a tax increase.
Read Chicago papers today about what passes for government in this state and it makes you sick.
Two words would solve the monetary problems of this state - FLAT TAX.
No exceptions, no loopholes.
In the meantime, if the GRT passes, most intelligent people will think long and hard about their purchases and cut backs will happen. I already have cut back on driving and plot my paths very carefully to save on fuel. My discretionary spending will disappear with the GRT.
The governor needs to stop setting up new programs that make him look magnamimous and start paying the state's bills. He has no idea what he is doing. Now the talk is universal healthcare in Illinois. He has already changed KidCare to All Kids and spent plenty for the conversion, along with the same expenditures for Healthy Women, Vet's Care, etc. Now it will become universal healthcare? Why didn't he do that up front and save the state come conversion money and believe me it was in the millions. The thinking process of this administration is flighty at best. The GRT is one of those "let's throw it up against the wall" moments, like much of what is passing for governing here in Illinois these days.
We don't need highly paid consultants, especially those living outside this state, to tell us what is good for us. We are all adults and we already know and it isn't pie-in-the-sky governing.
Disgusted,
Illinois already has a flat tax written into the Const.
This is one reason some on the left want a convention.
Here is the REAL ISSUE, IMO. Absent the ability to pass "progressive" taxes, the kleptocrats in Government have passed a steeply progressive tax by proxy. It's called the Property Tax, and it operates EXACLTY like a steeply progressive tax, except for the fact that they have gotten so greedy that they are hurting the lower and middle class as well.
The answer is to risk a Convention, and work to get a SPENDING (NOT A TAX) CAP on EVERY governmental entity in Illinois.
Inflation + population growth would do.
Pass a spending cap with a supermajority required for an override, and I'd be fine with letting localities decide how they want to get it.
Post a Comment