A Kauffman Foundation site

RSS Feed Link

About Taxes and Entrepreneurship

Posted by: Jonathan Ortmans on May 23, 2011 Source: Policy Dialogue on Entrepreneurship

Jonathan OrtmansAmerica’s fiscal health remains currently at the heart of most economic policy chatter. We are living in tight fiscal times. Congress has been focusing on reaching agreements on reducing spending and budget battles are expected to wage on throughout much of this year. Since balancing the budget is inseparable from tax policy, we take a quick look this week at how taxes shape incentives for entrepreneurs.

While I have yet to find a person that decided against starting a business because of unfavorable taxation, taxes can certainly act as an additional burden of risk-taking. Certain tax structures have been found to influence entrepreneurship negatively in research experiments. For example, in 2000, Glenn Hubbard and Bill Gentry found through tax records that higher progressivity lowers the probability of an individual choosing entrepreneurship over corporate employment. In 2001, Bob Carroll and co-authors found that entrepreneurial profits were lower in states with higher marginal tax rates. And in a recent Huffington Post article, Tim Kane explained that higher flat-rate taxes have been found to have no effect on entrepreneurial behavior, and argued in favor of adopting a flat tax with a relative high rate. In his blog post “Steeper Taxes, Fewer Entreps, Less Jobs,” Kane further suggests that the taxes entrepreneurs fear most are not corporate, but individual taxes (usually at the top marginal rate), since many of today´s startups are sole proprietorships or Limited Liability Companies (LLCs).

For the most recent analysis, I recommend reading the chapter on tax policy in the Kauffman Foundation´s just-released Rules for Growth, which clearly lays out a roadmap for moving away from taxes on income—that penalize risk-taking, innovation, and employment—and shifting toward a more consumption-based tax system that encourages saving which in turn funds investment. I would only add that we strive to avoid temporary changes and focus on permanent pro-growth provisions to our tax code wherever politically possible.

Our policymakers should also be careful not to slash the budget at the expense of the America´s most important source of new growth—new firms. For example, the research tax credit should be made permanent, and redesigned for optimal results. While young companies (until age 5) employ 12.5 percent of private sector workers, startups create 150 percent of new jobs in the US.

Entrepreneurs can help to grow the economy—a positive and guaranteed way of reducing the budget deficit. Further, while economic growth is obviously not the sole objective in our policymaking, neither is it the sole value of entrepreneurs who move us forward with socially-important objectives, such as public health or a clean environment. There is no question that innovative entrepreneurs—with their new products, processes and approaches, their new markets, and sometimes their entirely new industries—are crucial not just for an economy's long-term growth, but also for many other of society´s goals.

With the role of start-ups as the drivers of job and wealth creation now being so much better articulated and documented, we see increasing attention and recognition from both parties to entrepreneurs. The fact that Chapter 7 of the 2011 Economic Report of the President is fully dedicated to entrepreneurship is a point in case. As all eyes turn to the federal budget and whether to raise the debt ceiling, I hope the President and the Congress will be sure to take a cue from the Hippocratic Oath and ‘first, do no harm’ to America’s best prospects for new private sector jobs and growth—its nascent entrepreneurs.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Jonathan Ortmans is president of the Public Forum Institute, a non-partisan organization dedicated to fostering dialogue on important policy issues. In this capacity, he leads the Policy Dialogue on Entrepreneurship, focused on public policies to promote entrepreneurship in the U.S. and around the world. In addition, he serves as a senior fellow at the Kauffman Foundation.

Category:  Growth & Poverty 

1 Comments

RE: About Taxes and Entrepreneurship
May 23, 2011 @ 10:46 PM
BB said...
Your flat consumption tax idea goes completely against the community of entrepreneurs idea you posted on Facebook today. Entrepreneurial eco-systems/communities require infrastructure, education, services, all of which requires taxes.

The entrepreneurial miracles in San Fran or Boston over the last decades arose precisely because of the tax money spent on public education in those communities that created educated employees for entrepreneurs AND all the services businesses that require them too to such as FEDEX, PR, Advertising, logistics, warehousing, distribution, fulfillment, customer service, construction, engineering,etc. Amar Bhide's "massive multi-player game" full of people who have had Kaleidocsope educations in public schools is the real engine of innovation and entrepreneurship in the USA. That AND competitive markets which means Anti-Trust suits are needed in most sectors of our economy today to get things back on track. The AT&T bust up case unleashed more entrepreneurship than any recommendation I've read here yet!

Would be great to see a comparison of value creation between high tax and high skill high education communities versus low skill and low value-added extraction/agribusiness economies. How much more firm creation in those extraction markets? That is the easy stuff today in the USA. All incentives point to it. That would show us exactly what value creation all that firm formation growth really means.

Would be good to see the linear regression analysis of your tax "progressivity" in states along with competitiveness as measured in market share and market concentration in those states too. I'd like to see the Stats on those variables to see for myself which is the most significant factor. Anybody can say there is a linear relationship between two things. The insight comes from relative importance of factors. The motivation behind your focus on flat taxes is so transparent. BTW Gates and Buffet at least publicly disagree. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVOwaMWewGY

You may say taxes on income squash entrepreneurship, but history shows they are the only way for a society to remain cohesive and in one piece. Otherwise, they collapse into bankruptcy usually because of foreign wars and debts to pay for them. Very bad for entrepreneurship and property rights for the small businessmen. Quite good for the extractors who come in after the collapse and during the civil war.

I'll read your Rules for Growth if you read Herodotus and Thucydides! The answers are all there about what happens to nations, societies, and families when flat taxes are imposed by the few rich at the top to save a few generations of grandchildren some idleness and political puppet string pulling , which is exactly what we have too much of today in this country today. That is what is really hurting entrepreneurship. It is hurting social stability movign toward extremist right-wing politics which means the money is leaving here for more stable places. Europe is getting all new infrastructure right now! Oh, also read James Galbraith "Predator State" about the effects of too highly concentrated capital in a nation and the effect on entrepreneurship and job growth. Josth Farley also writes about the violence and "security apparatus" economy that comes with that too. And violence for girls and women too. Simple linear regression is not really very revealing about something so complex as this topic at this time!

BTW it is absolutely wrong that are in tight fiscal times. British researcher in "Treasure Islands" says $21T in US investment money is offshore now. Chasing speculation. Which is NOT productive investment for growth. That in the lowest effective corporate tax environment in a developed country on earth, and the lowest personal tax environment for Plutocrats on earth, with exception quite possibly China or other undeveloped countries. But, the air is not breathable for sophisticated Plutocrats and their grandchildren, nor is the water drinkable!

Add a Comment

Search PDE

Policy Dialogue on Entrepreneurship Get Your Weekly Digest

Register today to receive news and updates from Entrepreneurship.org.

Email Newsletter Signup