We need a broader debate over corporate welfare

While much of the interest over the budget standoff centers on Medicaid, my latest research brief looks at another disagreement.

This debate is over how the state should govern tax revenues coming from and being directed to corporations (i.e., corporate taxes and corporate welfare). There are four possible policy combinations involved. They are:

Freedom & Growth: Low corporate taxes, low corporate welfare
Letting producers and households keep more of their own resources to use as they see best is a proven way to promote faster economic growth and expansion.

Redistribution, Anti-Business: High corporate taxes, low corporate welfare
High levies on producers with few giveaways to corporations is the political class redirecting resources from one group to others.

Redistribution, Pro-Business: Low corporate taxes, high corporate welfare
Low levies on producers with high giveaways to corporations is the political class redirecting resources to one group from others.

Central Planning & Cronyism: High corporate taxes, high corporate welfare
Taking more resources from producers and households to be directed at the whim of the political class is proven way to slow economic growth and empower politicians.

Read the brief to find out where the governor and legislature disagree, where they surprisingly agree, and what policy implications there are.

Jon Sanders / Research Editor and Senior Fellow, Regulatory Studies

Jon Sanders studies regulatory policy, a veritable kudzu of invasive government and unintended consequences. As director of regulatory studies at the John Locke Foundation, Jo...