by Summary:
Abstract Corporate taxation is a perennially controversial topic in American politics. In fact, it may be the tax policy controversy that most Americans are aware of and even have an opinion about. Nevertheless, the purpose of corporate taxation is unclear in popular, or even for that matter, academic, discourse. In this paper we lay out and critically evaluate contemporary and historical corporate tax policy debates based on three common justifications for taxation: the “revenue” justification, the “distribution” justification, and the “behavior” justification. The revenue theory argues that the purpose of taxes is to raise the money required to finance expenditures. The distribution theory argues that certain taxes are required to produce desirable distributional outcomes. The
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: corporate taxation, economics and law, taxation, US economy, US fiscal policy, US Politics, US tax policy
This could be interesting, too:
Abstract Corporate taxation is a perennially controversial topic in American politics. In fact, it may be the tax policy controversy that most Americans are aware of and even have an opinion about. Nevertheless, the purpose of corporate taxation is unclear in popular, or even for that matter, academic, discourse. In this paper we lay out and critically evaluate contemporary and historical corporate tax policy debates based on three common justifications for taxation: the “revenue” justification, the “distribution” justification, and the “behavior” justification. The revenue theory argues that the purpose of taxes is to raise the money required to finance expenditures. The distribution theory argues that certain taxes are required to produce desirable distributional outcomes. The
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: corporate taxation, economics and law, taxation, US economy, US fiscal policy, US Politics, US tax policy
This could be interesting, too:
Robert Waldmann writes The US economy is the envy of the first world
Joel Eissenberg writes The truth about immigration
Angry Bear writes The U.S. Economy Reaches Superstar Status
Nick Falvo writes Ten things to know about the 2023-24 Alberta budget
Abstract
Corporate taxation is a perennially controversial topic in American politics. In fact, it may be the tax policy controversy that most Americans are aware of and even have an opinion about. Nevertheless, the purpose of corporate taxation is unclear in popular, or even for that matter, academic, discourse. In this paper we lay out and critically evaluate contemporary and historical corporate tax policy debates based on three common justifications for taxation: the “revenue” justification, the “distribution” justification, and the “behavior” justification. The revenue theory argues that the purpose of taxes is to raise the money required to finance expenditures. The distribution theory argues that certain taxes are required to produce desirable distributional outcomes. The behavior theory argues that certain taxes are required to change organizational and individual behavior in ways that benefit society.
This paper will trace the application of these justifications in American corporate tax law debates from the late nineteenth century through to the present, and analyze the implications of these debates to the contemporary corporate income tax debate. In particular, we argue that: a) following the observation made in 1946 by former President of the New York Federal Reserve Beardsley Ruml that, in the context of a modern government with a non-convertible currency, a floating exchange-rate, and its own central bank, “taxes for revenue are obsolete,” the revenue theory is empirically false; b) The distribution theory case for the modern corporate income tax is weak; and c) from the perspective of the behavior theory, the modern corporate income tax has strongly perverse impacts on corporate behavior.Binzagr Institute for Sustainable Prosperity
Corporate Taxation in a Modern Monetary Economy: Legal History, Theory, Prospects
Rohan Grey and Nathan Tankus