Trending Topics >>
Sunday, April 20, 2014

BREAKING VIEWS

How Do We Force Cash Hoarders to Invest? Tax Them

600px-Tim Cook in 2012 WWDC

The supply-side economists of the 1980s famously emphasized how government policies (especially taxes) affect incentives. They argued that taxes act as disincentives to work, saving, and investment. Conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation repeat this, like a mantra, to the present day. The argument is basically that tax policy—by discouraging desirable economic activities—misaligns private incentives from the common good. In practice, of course, it has been used mainly to justify tax cuts for corporations and high-income individuals.

Today, it’s clear that incentives are badly misaligned, but not because of excessive taxation. Corporations are making record profits while investment remains at historic lows. Nonfinancial corporations are stockpiling enormous sums of cash—totaling almost $1.5 trillion at the end of last year, according to Moody’s. Apple alone has nearly $150 billion in cash reserves.

This investment shortfall is at the core of the “recovery” and chronically high unemployment.

Nonfinancial corporations, like Apple, are sitting on $1.5 trillion in cash. A cash-reserves tax would spur investment, employment and growth.

There’s an obvious response—a tax on this idle cash that would light a fire under corporations to spend it now. If focused on expanded production and new investment, such spending would help close the still-enormous gap between the economy’s current production and its potential. And it could help boost employment, which has hardly grown (relative to the working-age population) during our current sluggish recovery.

Mihir Desai, a professor at Harvard Business School, proposed a tax on “excess cash reserves” in a 2010 Washington Post op-ed and alluded to it again in congressional testimony the following year. Recently, the Financial Times’ Martin Wolf called for a “punitive tax on retained earnings” to spur investment. (He wrote this about Japan, but has suggested this policy more generally.) Overall, however, this idea has, so far, not made much of an impact on public debates.

Desai views a cash-reserves tax as a solution to a “coordination problem.” This means a situation in which individuals act rationally (from their own vantage point), yet their decisions add up to an “irrational” (undesirable) overall outcome. Low investment in a depressed economy is a classic example: No single company can affect overall demand in the U.S. economy very much. As long as demand is weak, then, it makes no sense for any one company to expand its current production or future capacity. Therefore, low investment creates a vicious circle of low demand, low output, and high unemployment. A cash-reserves tax would increase the cost of not investing. By spurring new spending, it would create the demand needed to justify the new investment.

Despite record profits and rampant corporate tax avoidance, public debate has focused largely on yet more tax cuts for big corporations. In part, this is because big business speaks with a giant megaphone. In recent congressional testimony, Apple CEO Tim Cook (pictured) blamed U.S. corporate taxes for Apple’s huge offshore cash hoards. Economists, commentators, and politicians have echoed calls for a repatriation “tax holiday.” This shows how thoroughly the bias in favor of corporate tax cuts has permeated the political mainstream.

To work right, a cash-reserves tax should come along with other changes to the corporate tax code. By itself, the tax would not necessarily distinguish between spending on new investment and cash disbursements to shareholders. From the standpoint of total demand, however, inducing companies to “disgorge” profits to shareholders—in the form or dividends or stock buybacks—would probably not help much. Corporate stock is overwhelmingly owned by wealthy individuals, who would surely save a large portion of the windfall. It would make sense, then, to impose a cash-disbursements tax high enough to prevent corporate cash stockpiles from just going into shareholders’ bank accounts.

Meanwhile, the loophole in the tax code that allows corporations to exploit offshore tax havens also need to be addressed. The answer, though, is not to suspend the “repatriation” tax, but to close the loophole and tax corporate profits on a global basis.

The cash-reserves tax, if done right, would be an elegantly double-edged policy. If corporations still won’t spend their cash hoards, the tax would boost government revenue—which could be used to address human needs, build infrastructure, etc. (If corporations won’t invest, the government will.) On the other hand, the companies could avoid the tax by spending the idle cash, increasing output and employment.

For years, we’ve been told that rising corporate profits and growing inequality are necessary incentives for the “job creators” to do their magic. Maybe it’s time to abandon the sanctity of corporate profits and tell the corporations to move it—or lose it. 


Alejandro Reuss is co-editor of Dollars & Sense.


Like this article? Get more free!
We'll send you a round-up of the best of the Spectator's journalism and political commentary as well as special offers and information so you can take action on issues you care most about. Sign up today!

 

 

THE LATEST

 


[Environment]

A Fossil-Fueled Market Bubble

By Brett Fleishman

 

Why hasn’t Wall Street imploded over this yet? Well, remember how “nobody” could see the housing bubble coming?

Read

 


[Economics]

How to End California’s Water Crisis

By Polly Cleveland and Mason Gaffney

 

California farmers get their water free, or close to free. Any of us who have taken elementary economics should be shouting from the rooftops or blasting through cyberspace: if you make something free, you will get waste and shortages!

Read

 


[Media]

Good News and Bad News about News

By Emily Schwartz Greco and William A.
Collins

 

The news business does look better than it did not long ago. How about the actual quality of what’s being reported? It's generally bad.

Read

 


 
SUBSCRIBE!

 

83¢ an issue is our unconscionably low introductory rate. The Spectator is reader-supported and depends on you!

 

Click here for more details

 


[National Security]

A Tortured Twist on Ethics

By Yosef Brody

 

Why isn't the American Psychological Association pursuing ethics charges against psychologist John Leso for abuses he helped carry out at the Guantánamo prison?

Read

 


[Foreign Policy]

The Diplomatic Dance with Iran

By Chris Toensing

 

Iran might stumble but the Obama administration should take the greatest possible care not to trip its partner.

Read

 


[Economics]

A Long, Gilded Life

By Sam Pizzigati

 

The last link between America's plutocratic past and present has left us.

Read

 


[Politics]

No-Fault Gun Laws

By Peter Lindstrom

 

The increasing number of lax gun laws in many states are one reason all gun deaths (homicide, suicide and accident) been growing steadily since 2000.

Read

 


[Economics]

You Get What You Don’t Pay For

By Ryan Alexander

 

No matter how hard lawmakers try to close their eyes, click their heels, and hope for the best, they can’t make highway funding magically appear. But that doesn’t stop them fiddling and flailing as they burn through the Highway Trust Fund.

Read

 


[Politics]

America Has Long Been Twitchy about Its Sphere of Influence

By Jim Sleeper

 

The best reasons to impose strong sanctions against Russian-nationalist tyranny aren’t anthropological but liberal and, yes, geopolitical.

Read

 


 

GET MORE!

 

We'll send you the best of the Spectator every week.

 

Enter your email address below and sign up today!

 

 


 

 

  • Create an account
    *
    *
    *
    *
    *
    Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.