Entrepreneurial Risk, Credit Constraints, and the Corporate Income Tax: A Quantitative Exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the positive effect that corporate income tax has on capital formation in the presence of liquidity constraints and uninsurable risk. The author uses a dynamic general-equilibrium model in which individuals choose whether to become entrepreneurs or workers. Workers save by holding corporate equity and therefore are subject to double taxation, as the return on their savings is taxed at both the corporate and personal level. Entrepreneurs, on the other hand, save by investing in their businesses and are taxed only at the personal level. This differential tax treatment results in an increase in capital accumulation because entrepreneurs must save in response to liquidity constraints and uninsurable risk. A calibrated version of the model is used to quantify the consequences of eliminating the corporate income tax. Interestingly, the removal of the corporate income tax decreases capital formation: by eliminating double taxation, the return on workers' savings increases, which in turn reduces the number of entrepreneurs. Consequently, the stock of capital decreases, since entrepreneurs have a higher marginal rate of saving than workers, as they save not only for life-cycle motives but to self-insure against business risk and to start and finance their businesses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".