Impuestos vs crecimiento económico y empleo

Esta es una recopilación de varios estudios enlazados en esta entrada de Being Classically Liberal. Tomé las partes más relevantes de los abstracts o de los documentos en general sobre el tema.

“The most recent studies find a significant negative correlation: An increase in government size by 10 percentage points is associated with a 0.5 to 1 percent lower annual growth rate (…) we discuss two explanations of why several countries with high taxes seem able to enjoy above average growth (…) and (ii) that countries with large governments compensate for high taxes and spending by implementing market-friendly policies in other areas. Both explanations are supported by current research.”

“we find that government size (…) plays a significant role in affecting the steady-state unemployment rate. Importantly, (…) transfers and subsidies are found to significantly affect the steady-state unemployment rate”

“we find that a large government sector is likely to increase unemployment. It appears to have a particularly detrimental effect on women and the low skilled and to substantially increase long-term unemployment. It seems that dominant stateowned enterprises, a large share of public investment in total investment as well as high top marginal income tax rates and low income threshold levels at which they apply are particularly detrimental.”

“we found: (1) positive shocks to government outlays slow down economic growth and raise the unemployment rate; (2) different types of government outlays have different effects on growth and unemployment, with transfers and subsidies having a larger effect than government purchases; (3) causality runs one-way from government outlays to economic growth and the unemployment rate”

“Empirical evidence (…) suggests that, on average, creation of 100 public jobs may have eliminated about 150 private sector jobs, slightly decreased labour market participation, and increased by about 33 the number of unemployed workers.”

“we show that the negative effect from government size is very robust and may have been underestimated in previous studies.(…) We find clear evidence that globalization has a positive effect on growth, but find no effect of economic freedom. Finally, we find that the negative effect of government size decreases substantially in size but remains significant when we add the period 1996-2005 to the sample. Our results support the idea that countries with big government can use institutional quality such as economic freedom and globalization to mitigate negative growth effects of taxes and public expenditure.”

“The results show a robust inverse relationship between initial government size and subsequent growth (…) a 10 percentage point increase in initial government spending as a share of GDP in Europe is associated with a reduction in annual real per capita GDP growth of around 0.6–0.9 percentage points a year”

“The results of the analysis suggest that income taxes are generally associated with lower economic growth than taxes on consumption and property. (…) Property taxes, and particularly recurrent taxes on immovable property, seem to be the most growth-friendly, followed by consumption taxes and then by personal income taxes. Corporate income taxes appear to have the most negative effect on GDP per capita. (…) There is also evidence of a negative relationship between the progressivity of personal income taxes and growth”

“Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes. Recurrent taxes on immovable property appear to have the least impact. (…) reduced rates of corporate tax for small firms do not seem to enhance growth, and high top marginal rates of personal income tax can reduce productivity growth by reducing entrepreneurial activity”

“Investment is shown to respond negatively to an increase in the corporate tax rate and a decrease in capital depreciation allowances through changes in the user cost of capital. (…) The paper finds evidence that corporate and top personal income taxes have a negative effect on productivity. In contrast, tax incentives for research and development (R&D) are found to have a positive effect on productivity.”

“We find that both taxation of corporate and personal income negatively influence economic growth. The correlation between corporate income taxation and economic growth is more robust, however.”

“We find that a higher provincial statutory corporate income tax rate is associated with lower private investment and slower economic growth. Our empirical estimates suggest that a 1 percentage point cut in the corporate tax rate is related to a 0.1–0.2 percentage point increase in the annual growth rate.”$FILE/A03_Ferede.pdf

“We find that statutory corporate tax rates are significantly negatively correlated with (…) economic growth rates (…) we again find that increases in corporate tax rates lead to lower future growth rates within countries. (…) a cut in the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points will raise the annual growth rate by one to two percentage points.”

“it is found that corporate taxes have a negative effect on productivity at the firm level. The effect is negative across firms of different size and age classes except for the small and young, which may be attributable to the relatively low profitability of small and young firms. The negative effect of corporate taxes is particularly pronounced for firms that are catching up with the technological frontier. In the investment analysis, the results suggest that corporate taxes reduce investment through an increase in the user cost of capital. This may partly explain the negative productivity effects of corporate taxes if new capital goods embody technological change.”

“We find that short run output effects of tax shocks are large and that it is important to distinguish between different types of taxes when considering their impact on the labor market and on expenditure components.”

“Eliminating the model’s U.S. corporate income tax produces rapid and dramatic increases in the model’s level of U.S. investment, output, and real wages, making the tax cut self-financing to a significant extent. Somewhat smaller gains arise from revenue-neutral base broadening, specifically cutting the corporate tax rate to 9 percent and eliminating tax loopholes.”

“Our results indicate that along the intensive margin the Danish taxation generates an overall efficiency loss corresponding to a 12 percent reduction in total income. It is possible to reap 4/5 of this potential efficiency gain by going from a high-tax Scandinavian system to a level of taxation in line with low-tax OECD countries such as the United States.”


Dejar un comentario

Por favor, inicia sesión con uno de estos métodos para publicar tu comentario:

Logo de

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s