Why Kickstarter’s great for tax revenues

By Felix Salmon
June 18, 2012
Matt Yglesias has a very odd piece at Slate entitled "The Kickstarter Recession".

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Matt Yglesias has a very odd piece at Slate entitled “The Kickstarter Recession”. In a nutshell, he seems to think that a crowdfunded economy would run on less money than the current economy, and therefore produce less in the way of much-needed tax revenues. He’s wrong on both counts, I think.

Kickstarter, when it works well, is a disintermediation tool for creative projects. Films get made, albums get recorded, art projects get realized which would otherwise never have seen the light of day — because the people who love those things are sending money directly to the creators, without production companies or record labels or art galleries feeling the need to veto any project where they can’t make money themselves. When the inefficient intermediary is cut out, many more projects become viable, and the cultural economy expands rather than contracts.

Up until now, the cultural world has been reliant upon intermediaries to the degree that it was basically impossible for a creative person to be successful unless and until they could support not only themselves but also a pretty large number of professionals whose job it was to help package and sell whatever it was that was being created. The result was a heavy artificial dampener on the creative economy. With Kickstarter, that’s changing: while professional packaging and selling still has its place, it’s no longer the determinant of whether something gets the opportunity to generate money or not.

But even if the creative economy didn’t expand as a result of Kickstarter, the chances are that crowdfunding would still increase rather than decrease tax revenues. Here’s Yglesias:

In conventional finance, money doesn’t care about your passion or the joy you get from being your own boss. People deposit money in bank accounts, and then the banks try to make a profit by lending it out. That means giving credit to people with sound business plans and likely profits. The genius of Kickstarter is to open the door a bit more widely. People sponsor something like Neal Stephenson’s sword-fighting game or the wildly successful Pebble smart watch project not because they think kicking in capital is the optimal investment strategy, but because they—like the founders—are just enthusiastic about the idea. In other words, Kickstarter gives investors the chance to do what workers and small business people have been doing forever—sacrifice potential earnings for the sake of passion.

What Matt misses here is the tax implications of the two models. I deposit money in a bank account, and get some derisory rate of interest on it: I’m not going to be paying any significant taxes on that income. The bank lends the money out to Neal Stephenson or to Pebble — but because these are risky startups, a lot of them fail, and the bank has to write off a lot of those loans. Overall, its profits on that lending are small — and as we all know, banks never pay much in the way of taxes in the first place. Maybe a few bankers will get a slightly higher bonus, and pay income taxes on that bonus. But as a percentage of my original bank deposit, the amount of money we’re talking about here is tiny. And the loan itself, of course, isn’t taxable: Neal Stephenson and Pebble only have to pay taxes once they’ve paid back the loan and started making profits.

In the crowdfunding model, by contrast, when Kickstarter writes a check to Neal Stephenson, that’s Neal Stephenson’s income, right there, and he has to pay taxes on it. Yes, he can probably write off associated expenses. But the fact is that the tax revenues associated with a successful Kickstarter campaign are enormous compared to the tax revenues associated with putting the same amount of money into a checking account. And remember that Kickstarter, too, pays income taxes on its own profits.

When I fund a Kickstarter project instead of keeping that money in a checking account, it’s silly to consider me to be “sacrificing potential earnings” — I’m just spending money, which is a different thing entirely. It’s consumption, and it’s taxable: it’s exactly the kind of 21st-Century economic activity which the government wants to encourage.

Now it’s possible that when Yglesias talks about Kickstarter, he isn’t really talking about Kickstarter, but rather about the crowdfunding mechanisms built into the JOBS Act, none of which yet exist, and which Kickstarter has said it has no interest in being part of. Since they don’t yet exist, we can’t really judge them — but they’re still equity rather than debt, and that alone means that they are going to generate much more tax revenue than funding from banks.

In other words, when you cut out the middleman, be it a bank or a record label, that’s good for the economy and great for tax revenues. Kickstarter was not built as some kind of engine for the US macroeconomy. But at the margin, it can only help.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

I know nobody likes middlemen, especially in the entertainment business, but their income taxes are lost when they are removed from the process. I’m not saying I disagree with the Kickstarter model, but it can reduce jobs and taxes.

Posted by hoosier_gdi | Report as abusive

@Hoosier: unless you think removing middlemen will somehow decrease aggregate demand and increase the private savings rate (doubtful), then the money still gets spent, but merely flows to the Kickstarter entrepreneur instead of flowing to the middlemen. Most people other than middlemen would view that disintermediation as innovation and productivity enhancing, and a net positive for the economy.

When you go to a concert instead of a play, does the economy suffer from job loss and lower taxes?

Posted by SteveHamlin | Report as abusive

AIUI, KS is a means of raising initial working capital by collecting pre-paid purchase orders for the “reward” – usually the product itself or something associated with it. Lots of risk on all sides in this model, but it probably funds a lot of things that would never be pursued except for KS, so maybe it’s OK – just OK.

All the tax stuff – doesn’t hang together IMO, but so what?

Posted by MrRFox | Report as abusive

KS may not be a boon for tax revenue, because it is actually Amazon Payments collecting and distributing the money. And the IRS requires Amazon (or any 3rd party) to file Form 1099-K to report unadjusted annual gross sales information only when BOTH of the following thresholds in a calendar year:
More than $20,000 in gross sales, and more than 200 transactions.

A large number of successful KS campaigns then could (potentially) be going unreported for tax purposes.

Posted by thispaceforsale | Report as abusive

I think the point is that the kind of project that gets funded will be different. The government taxes financial returns from investments, but not warm glow returns; these sorts of financing venues make it easier for investors to pursue warm glow at the expense of pecuniary returns.

Posted by dWj | Report as abusive

Thinking creating jobs and start-ups could be bad for our economy is out of sense, unless the one who says that is stupid (i hope not) or interested (that means not objective…)
No need to discuss, just evidences…wait 5 more years and he will understand.

Posted by photon2211 | Report as abusive

“Thinking creating jobs and start-ups could be bad for our economy is out of sense, unless the one who says that is stupid ….” (Photon)

I’m often (correctly) accused of exactly that. Was thinking about this thread before falling asleep (Good God – I gotta get a life!) – it’s probably a societal benefit that people explore ideas by listing on KS, and finding out that nobody wants their crazy stuff, rather than borrowing a couple hundred thousand $ from a bank and then finding out.

Posted by MrRFox | Report as abusive