Only Tax Unprofitable Businesses

It is income tax time again. Instead of the usual rant, I have a creative alternative for you to ponder: Only taxing unprofitable businesses. That is if we are stuck on the illogical notion of taxing income per se at all. 

Loyal readers know that we shouldn't tax corporations' profits and that we should not tax incomes in general. Corporations are just fictional middlemen between owners/workers and customers. Taxing their profits or income is just an indirect (inefficient) way to tax those owners, workers, and customers without properly changing their behavior. It would be much, much better to tax businesses as they add value to the production of final goods and services through the use of capital and labor. All of this as being part of a larger scheme to tax resource use rather than resource creation. But I digress.

Let's assume we are going to tax businesses' incomes. How should we do this? 

I propose we reverse the concept and instead of taxing a share of the revenues minus expenses (when R > E) we tax a share of the expenses minus the revenues (when E > R). In other words we only tax unprofitable businesses. 

Here is the reason for the proposal. Revenues are a measure of the benefits that a business has provided. It is an estimate of what value they have brought to the world. Expenses are a measure of the costs they have taken. It is an estimate of what value they have destroyed in an attempt to add value through their business activity. If their expenses exceed their revenues in a given year, for that year at least they have detracted from society by virtue of their activity. 

Perhaps we would need a 3-year average profitability test or carryover provision of 50% of profits from year 1 to year 2 and 25% of profits from year 1 to year 3. I'm open to ideas here. That way we smooth out business cycle and idiosyncratic effects that might otherwise undesirably punish a business in a given year for circumstances beyond its control or for investments made that have long-run payoffs. But let's not lose sight of the goal: taxing firms that cannot turn a profit (i.e., don't add value to the world).

An instant objection is that this would make a startup business unduly expensive potentially stifling economic growth. Just a little understanding of how markets work invalidates this worry. Under this arrangement a tax on an annual net loss simply adds to the cost of capital. If the expected payback is sufficient, the investment will be made. Look at it this way: Is it better that resources are used with tax encouragement (deductibility) on the prospect of future economic value creation (future profitability that would then be taxed) or that resources are used while being taxed (a discouragement to frivolous investment)? The expected return is likely the same in either case*--it is just a matter of when taxes are collected and on whom the burden falls (taxing failure or taxing success). Given that taxes discourage that which is taxed, I know in principle which one I want bearing the burden.

Thus, this method has two key attributes to admire:

1. It punishes bad investments by taxing failure.
2. It creates an economic environment that increases the returns to good investments by not taxing success.

A side benefit is that it potentially cleans up accounting--a lot. A great deal of effort (resources) is put into doctoring the books so that a firm looks less profitable than they actually are. This leads to an additional benefit of disincentivizing expenditure that is not actually net profitable. Executive perks, luxury offices, unnecessary equipment, etc. now all carry a burden where once they earned a subsidy. 

Does this have a chance in the hell that is our tax code of coming to fruition? Of course not. And if it did, the later temptation to reverse course would be too great to assume future profits would be tax free. But it is a fun thought experiment that yields a new way to see the economic error in our current taxing ways.

*This is kind of a reverse Ricardian Equivalence whereby known taxes on losses have to be justified by expected profits in the future. As long as the tax rate on losses is not devastatingly high, in which case it would prevent any method of transferring future expected profits to the current day to finance a current tax burden, the tax that would be applied to future profits is instead realized before those profits are themselves realized. This assumption is no different than assuming current tax rates on profits are not so high as to devastate the ability for businesses to earn a profit in our current system.