A key to economic understanding is the
concept that only people have money.
Other entities pass around the money and may hold it for a while, but
when you “follow the money,” as the expression goes, it always eventually comes
back to individual wallets and bank accounts.
Thomas Piketty, a well-respected French
economist, professor and author of several books on income inequality, made the
point clearly in a 2009 essay. He wrote,
“Let’s also recall that no taxes are paid by businesses: ultimately, every euro
of tax is always paid by households…there is unfortunately nobody except
physical, flesh and blood people who can pay taxes.”
He goes on to say, “Inevitably, firms
pass on everything they pay to their workers (by reducing their wages), or to
their shareholders (by reducing dividends or accumulating less capital in their
name) or to consumers (by raising prices).”
Higher (or lower) corporate taxes means one or more of these entities is
going to be affected.
In fact, this economic principle is not
limited to taxes. Any action that
affects every company in the US or all companies in a particular industry –
whether it be regulations, union bargaining, tariffs, or external events such
as weather – feeds back to the end consumer.
This is true because when a cost affects every company, it takes
competition out of the equation. In this
case each company can pass along those costs directly without fear of falling
behind.
It works in both directions: companies
pass along costs to the three categories of people but their revenue also
comes from people. After they make
sales and pay expenses, they must decide how much of the difference to reinvest
in the business, making shareholders happy; how much to lower the price, hoping
to get more customers and grow the business; or how much to increase wages,
hoping to attract and retain the best workers.
So when CBS reports, as they did early
last month, that Apple, Amazon and Google made a load of money in the last
quarter of 2017, we must understand that those billions came from our wallets. And no one forced anyone to buy an iPhone or
order items on line. Facebook had
similar positive results, but they forced no one to log in or click on the ads. All these companies got their money from
individuals (households) by providing goods and services that they valued. Unlike the case of corporate taxes where every
company gets to pass along added costs, all these companies, and any other
company that wants to stay in business, must compete every day to provide the best
service or product at the best price. When
they do, they attract customers. That’s
where their money comes from.
Some politicians want you to hate the
rich. But, barring those who inherited
their wealth, it was people who made them wealthy by willingly giving
them money in return for something of value, either directly (Jeff Bezos at
Amazon) or indirectly (Warren Buffett investing in successful companies).
This dynamic works very well unless the
government gets involved. When certain
companies are favored due to their relationships rather than their ability to
provide the best for the least, their incentive shifts from satisfying customers
to influencing politicians. They no
longer compete for our business where we voluntarily trade our money for their
products. Instead they compete for money that was taken from us involuntarily by the government (in taxes) and
paid out in grants and subsidies. It’s easy to see how this can skew the
system, replacing an emphasis on added value with efforts to influence politicians. This shift ends up costing the entire economy
in the long run as less efficient companies stay in business through government
favors.
Economic understanding helps voters to
step back and look objectively at some of the actions and promises of elected
officials, sorting through fact and fiction by following the logical path to
and from households – wallets and bank accounts. As a current example, when all the cities and
states sue drug companies over the opioid epidemic, the money they (and their
lawyers) collect will ultimately be an indirect tax levied on households
through higher drug prices just as tobacco lawsuits translated into higher
cigarette prices.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Click again on the title to add a comment