MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3124365307 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v4i1.42357

Small Business Taxation: Revamping Incentives to Encourage Growth

2011· article· en· W3124365307 sur OpenAlexaff
Duanjie Chen, Jack Mintz

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe School of Public Policy Publications · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIncentiveBusinessIndustrial organizationEconomicsMicroeconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This study adopts a new approach in assessing the impact of taxes on small business growth and suggests the need to consider new incentives that would be more effective in encouraging small business growth and would also improve the neutrality of the existing tax system. In recent years, federal and provincial governments have provided various corporate tax incentives to small businesses with the aim of helping them grow. While it is commonly believed that small businesses are responsible for most job creation, unfortunately the only study available has shown that while many small businesses are created, few grow. Yet many governments believe that the incentives are important even though little evidence supports the effectiveness of small business corporate concessions. Some provinces have actually eliminated corporate taxes on small businesses or reduced such taxes to a symbolic level (e.g., one to two percent) without there being any empirical support in favour of the effectiveness of such actions.In contradiction to the widely held view that small business tax concessions encourage growth, such small business tax relief could actually be antithetical to growth by creating a “taxation wall.” First, it could result in the breakup of companies into smaller, less efficient-sized units in order to take advantage of tax benefits even if there are economic gains to growing in size. Second, it could encourage individuals to create small corporations in order to reduce their personal tax liabilities rather than grow companies. And third, it could lead to a “threshold effect” that holds back small business from growing beyond the official definition of “smallness,” regardless of the criteria for measuring size (e.g., the size of revenue or assets, or the number of employees). In this paper, we evaluate the impact of both corporate and personal taxes on the growth of small business and we focus in particular on the likely consequences of the aforementioned threshold effect. We use a new approach in assessing the impact of taxes on small business growth by estimating the amount of tax paid on the rate of return to capital as a small business grows in size. We show that small business growth is hampered by the existing tax system. As a business grows, effective tax rates on capital investments made by entrepreneurs virtually double when the business grows from as a little as $1 million to over $30 million in asset size. The issue is particularly important to the provinces that have been creating greater gaps between large and small business tax rates.The aim of tax incentives should be to try to avoid creating a wall that inhibits growth in small businesses, but instead flattens corporate and personal taxes with respect to incentives structured to induce growth. We provide some specific recommendations for growth-enhancing incentives that are superior to the small business tax deduction and other incentives of a similar type. Incentives associated with size should be avoided as much as possible, a proposal that is consistent with International Monetary Fund (IMF) recommendations.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,909
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,002
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,105
Tête enseignante GPT0,258
Écart entre enseignants0,153 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations19
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe School of Public Policy PublicationsMême sujetCorporate Taxation and AvoidanceTravaux en français237 207