Skip to main content
Log in

Entrepreneurship and personal income tax: evidence from Canadian provinces

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper employs the dynamic panel estimation method to investigate the effects of the top personal income tax rate on entrepreneurship as proxied by the employer business entry rate using data from Canadian provinces over the period 1984–2015. The empirical findings of this paper show that the top income tax rate has a negative and statistically significant effect on entrepreneurship both in the short and long term. According to the preferred estimate of this study, a one percentage point increase in the top statutory marginal income tax rate is associated with a 0.13 percentage point decrease in the business entry rate in the short term and a 0.41 percentage point decrease in the long term. Based on the long-term results, on average, a province that raises its top personal income tax rate by one percentage point can expect to have about 405 fewer new employer businesses enter its economy. This is a significant loss for an economy that has been experiencing a decline in entrepreneurship for a long time. The key findings of this paper are robust to various sensitivity checks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As discussed in Poterba (1989) and Gentry (2010), sometimes the benefit of business start-ups is captured primarily in capital gains when the start-up goes public or is sold. Entrepreneurs take a lot of risk expecting success and higher capital gains. Thus, capital gains tax can be considered as a tax on successful entrepreneurs and it may discourage business start-ups. In Canada, during the period under investigation, part of an individual’s net capital gains is included as income in the personal income tax system. Thus, there is not much distinction between capital gains tax and personal income taxes.

  2. Djankov et al. (2010) and Da Rin et al. (2011) also use a similar measure of entrepreneurship, but their focus is on corporate tax policy.

  3. For example, in Canada, as in many countries around the world, self-employment income is subject to the personal income tax after the self-employed deduct all their business expenses. Some argue that such arrangement provides entrepreneurs a greater opportunity for tax planning and avoidance.

  4. Some business losses can be carried forward to offset future income, and this can partly compensate for some of the risks that entrepreneurs face.

  5. The Statistics Canada dataset covers all businesses (in all sectors) which employ workers. In Canada, all employer businesses are required by law to remit to the Canadian Revenue Agency (the tax authorities) on the payments they made to their employees and income tax deducted from them. Thus, all firms that hire workers (regardless of their size and sector) and issue employment records (also called T4 slips) are included in the database. A firm is considered “new” when the business issues T4 slips in the current year for the first time. That is, a new firm is the one that did not file T4 slips to the government in the previous year.

  6. During the period under investigation, the federal top marginal income tax rate was 34% (between 1984 and 1987) and 29% (between 1988 and 2015). Currently, the federal statutory top marginal income tax rate is 33%, a rate that has been in place since 2016.

  7. In Canada, all provincial governments apply their respective income tax rates on comparable personal income tax base as defined by the federal government.

  8. See Industry Canada (2015).

  9. For the province of Quebec, Parti Quebecois is categorized as an NDP government.

  10. The ten Canadian provinces listed in ascending order based on current population are Prince Edward Island (PEI), Newfoundland & Labrador (NFL), New Brunswick (NB), Nova Scotia (NS), Saskatchewan (SK), Manitoba (MB), Alberta (AB), British Columbia (BC), Quebec (QB), and Ontario (ON).

  11. During the period under investigation, detailed information on the share of employer businesses in total businesses is not readily available for Canada. Statistics Canada began compiling such data only beginning from 2015. In 2015 (the last year of our sample period), employer firms account for about 32.5% of all business establishments in Canada.

  12. This is commonly termed as own-account self-employment, and Ferede (2013) uses own account self-employment rate as the main dependent variable.

  13. There is a lot of variation in the NDP dummy across time and provinces. During the period under investigation, the NDP held power in Nova Scotia (for 5 years), Quebec (for 12 years), Ontario (for 5 years), Manitoba (for 21 years), Saskatchewan (for 16 years), Alberta (for 1 year), and British Columbia (for 10 years). In the other three provinces (Newfoundland & Labrador, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island—which are the three smallest Canadian provinces both in terms of population and economic sizes), NDP was not in power during the sample period.

  14. According to the numerical estimate, a one-percentage point increase in the top personal income tax rate is associated with a 0.409 percentage point decline in the employer business entry rate. The mean value of the number of total active businesses during the period under investigation is 99,110. Thus, a 0.409 percentage point reduction in the business entry rate is translated as a reduction in the number of new business by 405 (i.e., 0.00409X99110).

  15. One may wonder whether the tax-induced reduction in the number of businesses is efficiency enhancing and beneficial. However, the issue of the optimal number of businesses in the provincial economies is beyond the scope of this paper. Our analysis focuses on the issue of employment creation and higher economic activities associated with the rise in the number of businesses.

  16. We experiment by using the gap between the top marginal personal income tax rate and the small business corporate income tax rate as an explanatory variable instead of the two variables separately. The results do not change much. The coefficient of this new variable is − 0.137, and it is statistically significant at the 5% level.

  17. One may be puzzled with this result given the uniqueness of Quebec in the federation. However, a closer look at the empirical results reveals that this is not entirely unexpected. The reason is that the inclusion of provincial dummies captures time-invariant provincial characteristics. The year dummies also absorb important events that are common to all provinces.

  18. During the sample period under investigation, province-specific policy changes that may affect business entry could occur over time. For example, changes in the federal grants to the provinces, the ability to write off inputs, and changes in tax pass through resulting from the harmonized sales tax (HST). In the empirical literature, a common approach to deal with such changes is by including province-specific time trends. Our main empirical finding is robust to the inclusion of province-specific time trends. The empirical results with province-specific time trends are available upon request.

  19. Differenced-GMM estimation method also provides similar results.

  20. We also obtain similar results when we use one period-lagged (rather than contemporaneous) values of the explanatory variables as in Da Rin et al. (2011).

References

  • Anyadike-Danes, M., Hart, M., & Du, J. (2015). Firm dynamics and job creation in the United Kingdom: 1998-2013. International Small Business Journal, 33(1), 12–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-component models. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 29–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Åstebro, T. (2017). The private financial gains to entrepreneurship -- is it a good use of public money to encourage individuals to become entrepreneurs? Small Business Economics, 48(2), 323–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Åstebro, T., & Tåg, J. (2017). Gross, net, and new job creation by entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 8, 64–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baliamoune-Lutz, M., & Garello, P. (2014). Tax structure and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 42, 165–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, D., & Deskins, J. (2006). State tax policy and entrepreneurial activity. U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy. Small Business Research Summary No. 284. Available at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs284tot.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2018.

  • Bruce, D., Liu, X., & Murray, M. N. (2015). State tax policy and entrepreneurship. National Tax Journal, 68, 803–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemens, J., Emes, J., & Veldhuis, N. (2015). Entrepreneurship, demographics, and capital gains tax reform. Fraser Research Bulletin, Fraser Institute. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/entrepreneurship-demographics-and-capital-gains-tax-reform.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2018.

  • Cullen, J. B., & Gordon, R. (2007). Taxes and entrepreneurial risk-taking: theory and evidence for the U.S. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 1479–1505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Da Rin, M., Giacomo, M. D., & Sembenelli, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship, firm entry, and the taxation of corporate income: evidence from Europe. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 1048–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlby, B., & Ferede, E. (2012). The effects of tax rate changes on tax bases and the marginal cost of public funds for Canadian provincial governments. International Tax and Public Finance, 19(16), 844–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decker, R., Haltiwanger, J., Jarmin, R. S., & Miranda, J. (2014). The role of entrepreneurship in US job creation and economic dynamism. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(3 (Summer)), 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djankov, S., Ganser, T., McLiesh, C., Ramalho, R., & Sheleifer, A. (2010). The effect of corporate taxes on investment and entrepreneurship. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2(3), 31–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engström, P., & Holmlund, B. (2009). Tax evasion and self-employment in a high-tax country: evidence from Sweden. Applied Economics, 41, 2419–2430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairlie, R. W., & Miranda, J. (2017). Taking the leap: the determinants of entrepreneurs hiring their first employee. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 26(1), 3–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferede, E. (2013). Tax progressivity and self-employment: evidence from Canadian provinces. Small Business Economics, 40(1), 141–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferede, E., Dahlby, B., & Adjei, E. (2015). Determinants of statutory tax rate changes by the Canadian provinces. Economics of Governance, 16, 27–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fölster, S. (2002). Do lower taxes stimulate self-employment? Small Business Economics, 19, 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, T. A., & Wall, H. J. (2006). Creating a policy environment for entrepreneurs. Cato Journal, 26(3), 525–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentry, W. M. (2010). Capital gains taxation and entrepreneurship. Williams College mimeo. http://accf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Capital-Gains-Taxation-and-Entrepreneurship.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2018.

  • Gentry, W. M., & Hubbard, R. G. (2000). Tax policy and entrepreneurial entry. American Economic Review, 90, 283–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godin, K., Clemens, J., & Veldhuis, N. (2008). Measuring entrepreneurship: conceptual frameworks and empirical indicators. Studies in Entrepreneurship and Markets, No. 7. Fraser Institute. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/MeasuringEntrepreneurship2008.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2018.

  • Haltiwanger, J. C., Jarmin, R. S., & Miranda, J. (2013). Who creates jobs? Small versus large versus young. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(2), 347–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, A. (2012). Tax policy and entrepreneurship: empirical evidence from Sweden. Small Business Economics, 38, 495–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurst, E., & Pugsley, B. (2011). What do small businesses do? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 43(2), 73–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Industry Canada (2015). Determinants of entrepreneurship in Canada: state of knowledge. Available at: www.ic.gc.ca/SMEresearch. Accessed 15 May 2018

  • Keuschnigg, C., & Nielsen, S. (2004). Progressive taxation, moral hazard, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 6, 471–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, J., Wang, H., & Lazear, P. (2014). Demographics and entrepreneurship, NBER Working Paper 20506. https://www.nber.org/papers/w20506. Accessed 15 June 2018.

  • Macdonald, R. (2014). Business entry and exit rates in Canada: a 30-year perspective. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-626-X, Economic Insights, no. 038. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/11-626-X2014038. Accessed 21 June 2018.

  • Milligan, K. (2016). Canadian tax and credit simulator. Database, software and documentation, version 2016-2. http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/kmilligan/ctacs/CTaCS-documentation.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2018.

  • Mooij, R., & Nicodeme, G. (2008). Corporate tax policy, entrepreneurship and incorporation in the EU. International Tax and Public Finance, 15, 478–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickel, S. (1981). Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica, 49, 1417–1426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2001). Science, technology and industry outlook, drivers of growth: information technology. Paris: Innovation and entrepreneurship, OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parente, P., & Silva, S. (2012). A cautionary note on tests of overidentifying restrictions. Economics Letters, 115, 314–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker SC (1999) The optimal linear taxation of employment and self-employment incomes. Journal of Public Economics 73(1):107–123

  • Poterba, J. (1989). Capital gains tax policy toward entrepreneurship. National Tax Journal, 42, 375–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robson, M. T., & Wren, C. (1999). Marginal and average tax rates and the incentive for self-employment. Southern Economic Journal, 65, 757–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer, C., & Romer, D. (2010). The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks. American Economic Review, 100, 763–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, H. S. (2004). Entrepreneurship and taxation: empirical evidence. In V. Kanniainen & C. Keuschnigg (Eds.), Venture capital, entrepreneurship, and public policy. CESifo Seminar Series. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/venture-capital-entrepreneurship-and-public-policy. Accessed 15 May 2018

  • Schuetze, H. (2000). Taxes, economic conditions and recent trends in male-self-employment: a Canada-US comparison. Labour Economics, 7, 507–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuetze, H. (2002). Profiles of tax noncompliance among the self-employed in Canada. Canadian Public Policy, 28, 219–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuetze, H., & Bruce, D. (2004). The relationship between tax policy and entrepreneurship. Swedish Economic Policy Review, 11, 235–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. A. (2008). The illusions of entrepreneurship: the costly myths that entrepreneurs, investors, and policy makers live by. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrini, R. (2005). Cross-country differences in self-employment rates: the role of institutions. Labour Economics, 12, 661–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen, J.-F., & Gordon, D. (2014). An empirical model of tax convexity and self-employment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 96(3), 471–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ergete Ferede.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4 Definitions of variables and data sources
Table 5 Summary statistics for key variables (by province), 1984–2015

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferede, E. Entrepreneurship and personal income tax: evidence from Canadian provinces. Small Bus Econ 56, 1765–1781 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00226-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00226-w

Keywords

JEL classifications

Navigation