Role of Taxation:
Provision of goods and services.
To simplify, we can lump all goods and services provided into one of four categories,
based on whether or not the good or service is excludable or rivalrous.
An excludable
good is one such that enjoyment of the good or service can be denied if a
person does not pay to access it. For example, a cookie is excludable while a tree
is not. I can prevent you from enjoying the cookie if I put it behind a viewing
glass and only give it to you to enjoy if you pay me first. Alternatively, even
if I have a tree in my yard, behind my fence, the tree provides shade, oxygen,
and visual benefits to many in the area, and the owner of the tree cannot prevent others from gaining these benefits.
A
rivalrous good is one such that only one person can enjoy the benefit of the
good or service at a time. For example, again, we can use a cookie as an
example of a rivalrous good, while we can use a tree as an example of a non-rivalrous
one. In the case of the cookie, If I eat and enjoy the cookie, you cannot, thus
the benefit of this cookie is only received by the one who gets it.
Alternatively, concerning the tree, this would be non-rivalrous. If you are
enjoying the view of a tree, or its cooling properties, shade, etc. this does
not prevent me or others from similarly enjoying the benefits of the tree.
Typically
speaking, the free market is really good and efficient at providing goods and
services which are both excludable and rivalrous (we call these private goods).
Unfortunately, the free market tends to have a significantly harder time
providing goods which are either non-excludable or non-rivalrous or both. Let’s
take a look at an example of some of these goods.
Club Goods:
Goods
or services which are excludable but non-rivalrous (up to some capacity) are
considered to be club goods. A perfect example of club goods is roads.
Although
we typically do not charge a user fee to utilize a road, it is theoretically simple to
throw up a toll booth or similar technology and prevent access to the road until a user pays. Thus,
although we tend not to exclude them, roads are an excludable good. Similarly,
roads are non-rivalrous (up to some capacity), meaning that typically if I
decide to drive on a road, I am not precluding anyone access to this road. Of
course, there is a point where the roadway becomes congested (traffic) and roads
switch from being a club good to being a private good.
The
problem is that to efficiently provide a club good, we need to price
it accordingly. That is, a club good should have a zero-user fee when there is no
congestion, however when we move to a congested state, then the good has a
price to reflect the cost that one person inflicts on another by
denying them access.
If roadways (or other infrastructure such as sewer, water, bridges, tunnels, pathways,
etc.) are provided by the private sector, then typically the focus of the
provision of these services is around areas that face congestion. That is, the
private sector would have an incentive to under-invest in these goods and
services to have congestion to be able to charge an effective
(profitable) price for them.
Thus
we, as a society, have typically decided that due to the social benefits that
are provided by these goods and services, we should have government over
private enterprise to provide this good or service and typically allow them to
be provided for zero user cost and instead finance the use of the good through
general tax revenue.
The
problem that this then creates of course is that individuals have no incentive
not to overutilize the resource (because it is free to use) thus creating
rivalrous situations (such as traffic jams).
Common Resource Goods:
In this
case, we are not typically talking about the provision of a good or service,
but rather the managing of an existing (typically natural) good or service. The
solution to preventing a collapse of the resource itself is through the use of legislation
and imposing a tax on the utilization of this good or service through the
form of a user fee. This is often seen as a permitting fee, stumpage fee, or
usage fee. The purpose of such fees is to limit consumption of the good or
service to prevent its collapse. This is often the key argument for forestry
bylaws, resource royalties, and water fees. That is, these fees are not being
collected to provide a good or service, but rather being charged to limit the
consumption of a good or service, and thus promote the effective and sustainable
management of that good or service.
Public Goods.
The
final type of good or service to look at for public provision is a public good.
This is a type of good that is both non-rivalrous and non-excludable. The
classic example of a public good is a park or large green space.
Due to
the nature of public goods, the private market tends to significantly under-provide them. For example, let's look at the ability of individuals to come
together to fund and build a new park.
Suppose
that there is an orphaned lot in your neighbourhood, and you and all your
neighbours agree that this would be a great spot for a park, some green space,
a few trees for shade and maybe even a small play structure. To get
this to happen the neighbourhood needs to solicit donations to fund the
construction of this. While scenarios like this do happen, and we are capable
of building parks in this fashion – what is the difficulty we run up against?
The issue is that everyone agrees they’d benefit from the park being built.
This means that they’d benefit irrespective of whether they donate money or not,
as long as it is built. From an individual view then, each person would be best
off if they don’t donate, or only donate very little, while their neighbour donates more, allowing the park to
be built. The issue of course is that everyone hopes that their neighbour
donates so that they don’t have to and the result is either that a) the park
does not get built or is underbuilt or b) a significant amount of time and resources have to go
into raising funds. The result of either of these scenarios is that private
individuals are generally unable to provide a satisfactory amount of public
goods.
The
solution then is for the government to recognize the need and social benefit
received by these public goods and then provide them through general taxation
revenue. Essentially forcing each member
of society to contribute a little to a project to create a public good
that nearly all will enjoy, thus increasing the social welfare as a whole.
A final note on public provision of private goods:
There
of course are certain private goods (excludable and rivalrous) that we as a
society have decided to provide through taxation rather than allowing the free
market to provide and charge. Some examples of these are policing, fire
protection, education and health care.
In each
of the above cases, the service provided is rivalrous. If you need a police
officer, firefighter or health care professional you are preventing someone
else from accessing their service. While similarly these services could easily
be excluded. You don’t get to utilize the service unless you have paid for it
first, or alternatively, will be billed after the fact.
Even though these (and other) goods and services are technically private and
thus could be provided more efficiently through the private market, we have
collectively decided that the social and equity impacts of having these
provided through the public realm outweigh the potential inefficiencies that
arise through its public provision.
Role of Taxes continued:
This
then brings us back to completing our conversation around the role of taxes. First
and foremost the role of taxes is to collect general revenues to then be
able to provide Club, Public and selected private goods to the residents at
zero or low user cost. This is the provision of roadways, bridges, tunnels,
bike lanes, schools, hospitals, parks, green spaces, rec centres, libraries,
etc. This ensures in the case of club and public goods that enough of the good
or service is being provided for the benefit of society, or in the case of a
publicly provided private good, that we have equitable access to the good or
service irrespective of ability to pay (IE. Schools, hospitals, etc.).
The
second role of taxes is to encourage pro-social behaviour. This is best seen in
the case of common resource goods. As history has shown time and time again the zero cost to utilize certain resources results in the overuse and exhaustion
of the resource. Just look at the Atlantic fisheries, many forests in eastern
Canada and Europe, and our current use of a clean environment. In this case, the role of
the government is to appropriately price the good or service to
prevent its exhaustion and to ensure that it can be appropriately managed sustainably. Thus, the role of taxation is to prevent or limit consumption,
and then to utilize the revenues raised to either subsidize non-exhaustive
alternatives or to fund the costs of managing the resource at risk. A great
modern example of this would be the introduction and implementation of the
carbon tax which both discourages consumption of carbon-intensive resources,
funds the management of climate-sensitive areas and subsidizes alternative
forms of non-exhaustive (“green”) goods.
High cost of Low taxes:
With
the basis of why the government collects taxes and provides the above-mentioned
goods and services, what happens if the government fails to collect sufficient
tax revenues? While hardly an exhaustive list, there are a few potential
outcomes which have varying levels of social, and fiscal implications. Keep in
mind, while I have said the following list is nowhere near exhaustive, it is
also not mutually exclusive, many of these outcomes likely take place in mixed
scenarios.
Postponing of costs:
Let’s
start with the most straightforward of scenarios. To keep taxes low
today, a government decides to postpone known costs. That is, they continue to
provide current goods and services as listed above, but they neglect the
amortized maintenance and replacement of these assets that will have to be
funded in the future. For example, let's suppose that we could forecast that a
new police station is needed for $500,000 in ten years. We could
explore a few different scenarios.
a) 1) Put aside $X each budget cycle to save for this
project.
b) 2) Keep taxes low today and wait till some future
time to start saving.
c)
3) Wait till the end and debt finance the whole
thing.
Let’s explore what this looks
like in each scenario, if we presume a 5% prevailing interest rate, and
presume we could get this same rate on our savings and borrowing, we face the
following decisions based on when we start financing:
That is, as we can plainly see, every
choice to keep taxes low today, by not putting money aside for known costs,
results in a larger tax lift needed tomorrow, Further, this decision puts a
higher burden on the taxpayer as each year postponed is a year where
compound interest cannot be earned.
While the final option, to
borrow, results in an annual tax lift between beginning to save in years three
and five, the resulting burden to the taxpayer is the highest of all. If we
make a further presumption, we can see the impact of each as a percentage
increase to the budget. To keep things as realistic as possible let’s presume
that we began with a million-dollar budget that, by default, will have to
increase at 3% a year to cover inflationary and growth pressures. That being
the case we can witness the resulting required tax lift (above the 3%) to finance this replacement in each case:
Again,
we can see in the final row added, that each year of postponement results in a
drastic increase to the tax lift needed to meet this future
obligation.
Moral
of this story? You can kick the can down the road to keep low tax rates for a
while, but eventually, all bills come due! Even if you decide to leave it and just borrow
in the future, the tax burden is significantly higher than had you simply made
the tough choice up front.
Cutting services:
One of
the other options that governments have to keep the taxes lower, would be to
cut services. Keep in mind the services provided are typically done so as they satisfy
a need that is unmet by the private market due to the nature of non-rivalrous
and non-excludable goods.
The
choice to cut services is fine. It is ultimately society’s role to determine
which services are desired and which are not. As we progress, grow and change, our demands and desires for services also grow and change. Thus, over time
certain services that were once provided by the government may no longer be
beneficial, while others that were never on the radar are now pressing.
The
issue with cutting services is ultimately similar to that of postponing costs.
If you cut funding for services, despite a growing population, you are asking
those who work in that field to do more with less. While initially this can be
done for a time, it ultimately leads to staff burnout, fatigue, and inability
to deliver on the mandate given.
The
result is often a failure or a near collapse of the system. We can see this
currently in the aftermath of decades of service level cuts across much of the
public service, but arguably most painfully felt in the fields of education and
healthcare.
Suppose that budgets were cut by
a half percent based on the argument that this would improve efficiency. While this might not seem like a
large impact, after 5 years, an increase of 2.54% would be needed to return to
the original funding amount, and after 10 years an increase of 5.14% would be
needed. That is, while you might be able to cut taxes to put the squeeze on a
certain department, the continued squeeze on a department requires a large
single-period increase to return to baseline service levels in the
case that this ‘efficiency’ is not found.
The tangential case of cutting
services is not allowing services to expand. Suppose that the population and
service demanded is increasing by a half percent a year. Rather than meeting
this increased demand with increased staffing and resourcing each year, you
would be required to make a 2.54% increase in 5 years and a 5.14% increase in 10
years simply to catch up to the underinvestment in staff and resourcing.
Again, the resulting message is
either a small pain today or a large pain tomorrow if you decide to kick the
can down the road.
Charging user fees:
One way
to lower the general taxation rate is to shift some of the burden of provision
of services from being funded by general tax revenue, towards being funded
either entirely or partly through user fees. The more things you can shift
towards user fees the less you can charge in general taxes, but the more the
households that utilize this service tend to pay as a proportion of their incomes.
The charging of user fees is an
interesting economic case. On the one hand, if you can identify the individual
who will benefit from the good or service, then they ought to pay for access to
this benefit. Think of rec-centres and pools in this case. On the other hand,
many of the goods and services provided by the government are provided due to the
social benefit that they provide, and the charging of user fees acts as an
additional per unit tax which typically adds to the regressivity of a tax system.
There
are many services provided by the government such that it is easily identifiable as
to who is benefiting and thus able to charge them for access. From fire,
police, education, public transportation infrastructure, recreation, sewer,
garbage, water, I could go on. It is ultimately a policy choice whether or not
to charge for any of these services through user fees.
If the
choice is made to not charge for these services, then we will tend towards over-utilizing, exhausting, or operating these resources over capacity – think of
traffic on the highway partially due to no user fee, or wait times in the ER
due to similar reasons.
Alternatively,
if the decision is made to charge for these services through a user fee, then
the user fee in essence acts as a tax to access. As this tax is a flat rate
($10 to drop into the pool for example) then this user fee by definition would
be regressive as a $10 fee is a larger proportion of income to someone who makes $500 a
week versus someone who makes $1000 a week.
Further,
as the user fee is ultimately an optional tax (only pay it if you access it) the
resulting social impacts are that those with lower incomes will tend to
self-select out of these services, some of which are argued as vital for health
and well-being.
Thus,
the choice to shift the tax burden from general tax revenue to user fees has
the potential of adding to the regressive nature of taxation, predominately
benefiting the higher-income earners while negatively affecting those who earn less.
Privatization of services:
To finish
off this non-exhaustive list, let's look at the option of privatizing services. The
idea of this was largely popularized with the rise of neo-liberalism and the move
towards privatization of public assets seen worldwide but predominately
championed by Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US.
The basic idea is that the
private sector is more efficient than the public sector, thus if we privatize certain
public services, these services will be able to be provided more cost-effectively.
While it may be true that the
private sector can be more efficient, this is based on the assumption that the
private sector is operating with high levels of competition. Many goods and
services provided by governments are essentially monopolistic goods. Thus,
the privatization of these lines of business provides a one-time boost to the
budget as those assets are liquidated, but often results in long-term reduction
in service levels and cost increases in line or greater than what may have been expected
had it been kept in the public sphere.
Of course, this is not always the
case – there are situations like the privatization of insurance in Alberta or
the privatization of telecommunication where due to technological advancements
competition was able to exist, thus driving a more efficient outcome than
the government service. Unfortunately, however, more cases of privatization
result in the privatization of a monopoly provider which we will continue to
explore in this case.
Let’s presume that to keep
taxes low today, the decision is made to privatize a certain line of public
service that had a budget cost of $100,000. Again, if we keep things simple, for this to make sense the contracted provision of this service must be
either the same or less than the current public provision cost. Let’s presume that
the contractor can initially provide this service for $90,000 an instant savings
of $10,000 as well as the positive cash flow from the sale of assets associated
with this business line. Looks like a win.
Let’s look at some of the
distributional effects. First, when this was provided publicly, it was
typically provided by higher wage unionized workers, meaning that a larger
proportion of this cost was going towards the labour force, those actually
doing the work as well as the managers. When this is privatized and the service is now provided at a lower cost, the new
entrepreneur has two options to turn a profit, either cut wages or
cut service levels – typically both.
The result of the cutting of
wages is a transfer of wealth from a distributed level between several workers
into a concentrated level in the hands of the owner(s). Further, if possible,
the reduction of service levels results in a lower provision per dollar spent
by the public, thus society as a whole tends to lose while the few owners are
the ones that tend to gain the most from the provision of a previously public
service through privatization to a monopoly.
The outcome described above has
been witnessed and played out time and time again. Without going into a full history
of these events a brief look at the privatization of highway maintenance in
Ontario, the privatization of prisons, the privatization of air ambulances and
more highlight the frequent failures of privatization to monopoly providers.
The long-term effects of privatizing
to a monopoly provider can be worse, in many ways binding governments to perpetual high-cost, low-service contracts. Many of these lines of business are
monopolistic due to the extremely high capital cost of providing the service. As
a result, there are often very few if any competing bids at each contract
renewal. When this happens the monopolist provider knows that the government only
has two options, accept their bid to provide the service or take the service
back in-house.
This creates a moral hazard
problem as the monopolist provider knows the huge capital cost that the
government would have to face to bring this back in-house, and thus
knows that the government cannot likely repatriate the service.
Thus, knowing this, the monopolist provider has the majority of the power in the
contract negotiation, able to push the terms of the contract renewal to be
increasingly in their favour over the public or taxpayers’ favour, thus
resulting in even higher costs to the public, higher levels of wealth
concentration in the hands of the few owner(s) and lower levels of service.
There is significantly more
research that exists on this topic, a fairly straightforward, non-technical,
analysis of the failure of privatization can be found here,
or an even easier read is this economist article that can be found here.
Conclusion and summary
Throughout this post, I have aimed to justify why the government has a role in providing goods and services and how the government can attempt to provide these services
equitably (trying to promote vertical and horizontal equity of
taxation). Further, I discussed the problems due to pandering to an electorate by
artificially keeping taxes low by postponing costs, cutting services, shifting
costs from taxation to user fees, or privatizing these services altogether.
While
it is the policymaker's prerogative to undertake any of the above actions to
provide a momentary reprieve in general taxation, the policymaker needs to
recognize that any reprieve today will result in a higher cost tomorrow as
demonstrated in each of the above cases.
Thus,
the primary role of the policy maker is to determine which services are to be the
responsibility of their government and ensure through proper governance, oversight of management, and planning that these services are provided in the most effective way to promote the highest possible social benefit.
Unless a given good or service is now obsolete or is not capable of being provided through a truly competitive market, then any decision to postpone, or cut funding to an effective service today, will result in a higher cost tomorrow, thus we have our high cost of low taxes.
As always should you have any questions, thoughts or comments, please feel free to reach out or comment below!