Why Countries Compete in Ad Valorem Instead of Unit Capital Taxes
This paper contributes to resolving the puzzle that in practice most countries use ad valorem (corporate income) taxation, while a large part of the tax competition literature views business taxes as unit (wealth) taxation. We point to the dual role that corporate taxation plays in attracting mobile capital, on the one hand, and in absorbing economic rents, on the other hand. In contrast to the previous literature, we show (i) that detrimental tax competition may be less severe in a system of ad valorem taxes than in a system of unit taxes and (ii) that ad valorem taxation may be the equilibrium outcome in a decentralized world where countries decide themselves on the tax system. Interestingly, the decentralized choice of the ad valorem system may be a prisoner's dilemma since the countries' welfare may be higher if they choose unit taxes.
|Date of creation:||2012|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.socialpolitik.org/|
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bucovetsky, S., 1991. "Asymmetric tax competition," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 167-181, September.
- Skeath, Susan E. & Trandel, Gregory A., 1994. "A Pareto comparison of ad valorem and unit taxes in noncompetitive environments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 53-71, January.
- Nobuo Akai & Hikaru Ogawa & Yoshitomo Ogawa, 2011. "Endogenous choice on tax instruments in a tax competition model: unit tax versus ad valorem tax," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 495-506, October.
- S. P. Anderson & A. de Palma & B. Kreider, 2000.
"Tax Incidence in Differentiated Product Oligopoly,"
THEMA Working Papers
2000-10, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
- Anderson, Simon & de Palma, Andre & Kreider, Brent, 2001. "Tax Incidence in Differentiated Product Oligopoly," Staff General Research Papers 5202, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Simon P. Anderson & Andre de Palma & Brent Kreider, 2000. "Tax Incidence in Differentiated Product Oligopoly," Virginia Economics Online Papers 341, University of Virginia, Department of Economics.
- S. P. Anderson & A. de Palma & B. Kreider, 1999. "Tax incidence in differentiated product oligopoly," THEMA Working Papers 99-10, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
- Anderson, S.P. & de Palma, A. & Kreider, B., 1999. "Tax incidece in Differentiated product Oligopoly," Papers 99-10, Paris X - Nanterre, U.F.R. de Sc. Ec. Gest. Maths Infor..
- Nobuo Akai & Hikaru Ogawa & Yoshitomo Ogawa, 2010. "Endogenous Choice on Tax Instruments in a Tax Competition Model: Unit Tax versus Ad Valorem Tax," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 10-01, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics and Osaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP).
- Wilson, John Douglas & Wildasin, David E., 2004. "Capital tax competition: bane or boon," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(6), pages 1065-1091, June.
- Wilson, John Douglas, 1999. "Theories of Tax Competition," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 52(n. 2), pages 269-304, June.
- Zodrow, George R. & Mieszkowski, Peter, 1986. "Pigou, Tiebout, property taxation, and the underprovision of local public goods," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 356-370, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:vfsc12:62079. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.