The centerpiece of President Trump’s tax plan is a 15 percent corporate tax rate.
Republicans in Congress aren’t quite as aggressive. The House GOP plan envisions a 20 percent corporate tax rate, while Senate Republicans have yet to coalesce around a specific plan.
Notwithstanding the absence of a unified approach, you would think that the stage is set for a big reduction in America’s anti-competitive corporate tax rate, which is the highest in the developed world (if not the entire world) and creates big disadvantages for American workers and companies.
If only.
While I am hopeful something will happen, there are lots of potential pitfalls, including the “border-adjustable tax” in the House plan. This risky revenue-raiser has created needless opposition from major segments of the business community and could sabotage the entire process. And I also worry that momentum for tax cuts and tax reform will erode if Trump doesn’t get serious about spending restraint.
What makes this especially frustrating is that so many other nations have successfully slashed their corporate tax rates and the results are uniformly positive.
My colleague Chris Edwards recently shared the findings from an illuminating study published by the London-based Centre for Policy Studies. It examines what’s happened in the United Kingdom as the corporate tax rates has dropped from 35 percent to 20 percent over the past 30 years. Here’s some of what Chris wrote about this report.
New evidence comes from Britain… It shows the tax rate falling from 35 percent to 20 percent since the late 1980s and corporate tax revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) trending upwards. As the rate has fallen, the tax base has grown more than enough to keep money pouring into the Treasury. …the CPS study says, “In 1982-83 when the rate was 52%, corporation tax receipts yielded revenues equivalent to 2% of GDP. Corporation tax now raises over 2.3% of GDP when the headline rate is at just 20%.”
And keep in mind that GDP today is significantly greater in part because of a better corporate tax system.
Here’s the chart from the CPS study, showing the results over the past three decades.
The results from the most-recent round of corporate rate cuts are especially strong.
In 2010-11, the government collected £36.2 billion from a 28 percent corporate tax. The government expected its corporate tax package—including a rate cut to 20 percent—to lose £7.9 billion a year by 2015-16 on a static basis. …But that analysis was apparently too pessimistic: actual revenues in 2015-16 had risen to £43.9 billion. So in five years, the statutory tax rate fell 29 percent (28 percent to 20 percent) but revenues increased 21 percent (£36.2 billion to £43.9 billion). That is dynamic!
None of this should be a surprise.
Big reductions in the Irish corporate tax rate also led to an uptick in corporate receipts as a share of economic output. And remember that the economy has boomed, so the Irish government is collecting a bigger slice of a much bigger pie.
And Canadian corporate tax cuts generated the same effect, with no drop in revenues even though (or perhaps because) the federal tax rate on business has plummeted to 15 percent.
Would we get similar results in the United States?
According to experts, the answer is yes. Scholars at the American Enterprise Institute estimate that the revenue-maximizing corporate tax rate for the United States is about 25 percent. And Tax Foundation experts calculate that the revenue-maximizing rate even lower, down around 15 percent.
I’d be satisfied (temporarily) if we split the difference between those two estimates and cut the rate to 20 percent.
Let’s close with some dare-to-hope speculation from Joseph Sternberg of the Wall Street Journal about what might happen in Europe if Trump significantly drops the U.S. corporate tax rate.
Donald Trump says many things that alarm Europeans, but one of the bigger fright lines may have come in last week’s address to Congress: “Right now, American companies are taxed at one of the highest rates anywhere in the world. My economic team is developing historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone.” What’s scary here to European ears is…the idea that tax policy is now fair game when it comes to global competitiveness. …One of the biggest political gifts Barack Obama gave European leaders was support for their notion that low tax rates are unfair and that taxpayers who benefit from them are somehow crooked. Europeans pushed that line among themselves for years, complaining about low Irish corporate rates, for instance. The taboo on tax competition is central to the political economy of Europe’s welfare states… Mr. Obama…backed global efforts against “base erosion and profit shifting,” meaning legal and efficient corporate tax planning. The goal was to obstruct competition among governments… The question now is how much longer Europe could resist widespread tax reform if Mr. Trump brings in a 20% corporate rate alongside rapid deregulation—or what the consequences will be in terms of social-spending trade-offs to a new round of tax cutting. Dare to dream that Mr. Trump manages to trigger a new debate about competitiveness in Europe.
Amen. I’m a huge fan of tax competition because it pressures politicians to do the right thing even though they would prefer bad policy. And I also like the dig at the OECD’s anti-growth “BEPS” initiative.
P.S. I want government to collect less revenue and spend less money, so the fact that a lower corporate tax rate might boost revenue is not a selling point. Instead, it simply tells us that the rate should be further reduced. Remember, it’s a bad idea to be at the revenue-maximizing point on the Laffer Curve (though that’s better than being on the downward-sloping side of the Curve, which is insanely self-destructive).
[…] Lower corporate rates boost competitiveness […]
[…] Lower corporate rates boost competitiveness […]
[…] Lower corporate rates boost competitiveness […]
[…] Lower corporate rates boost competitiveness […]
[…] And there’s plenty of evidence (from the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom) that lowering corporate tax rates is a smart place to […]
[…] voluminous research in the area (including studies from Australia, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom), I wrote yesterday about a new study showing that lower corporate tax rates produce more economic […]
[…] there’s plenty of evidence (from the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom) that lowering corporate tax rates is a smart place to […]
[…] it was good for U.S. competitiveness since the United States corporate tax rate no longer was the highest in the developed […]
[…] it was good for U.S. competitiveness since the United States corporate tax rate no longer was the highest in the developed […]
[…] column will review his plan for a big increase in the corporate tax rate. But since I’ve written about corporate tax rates over and over and over again, we’re going to approach this issue is a new […]
[…] column will review his plan for a big increase in the corporate tax rate. But since I’ve written about corporate tax rates over and over and over again, we’re going to approach this issue is a new […]
[…] column will review his plan for a big increase in the corporate tax rate. But since I’ve written about corporate tax rates over and over and over again, we’re going to approach this issue is a new […]
[…] I applaud this big drop in tax rates. It’s been good for the world economy and good for workers. […]
[…] such an initiative could be a major threat after the 2020 election, so let’s augment our collection of evidence showing why a higher rate would be a very bad […]
[…] reduction in the corporate tax rate is the crowing achievement of the Trump […]
[…] Which is a very good argument for why tax competition should be allowed to flourish. […]
[…] In the past few years, I’ve bolstered the case for lower tax rates by citing country-specific research from Italy, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Israel, Portugal, South Africa, the United States, Denmark, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom. […]
[…] he hasn’t read the substantial academic literature showing that lower rates are good for […]
[…] We both agreed that the lower corporate tax will boost international competitiveness. […]
[…] And if the focus is corporate taxation, I usually share my primer on the issue, and then link to research from Australia, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom. […]
[…] also good evidence from Canada and the United Kingdom if you want country-specific examples of the relationship between corporate tax rates and corporate […]
[…] business vs small business – Everyone agrees that America’s high corporate tax rate is bad news for competitiveness and should be reduced. The vast majority of small businesses, however, pay taxes through […]
[…] business vs small business – Everyone agrees that America’s high corporate tax rate is bad news for competitiveness and should be reduced. The vast majority of small businesses, however, pay taxes through […]
[…] expectations of future after-tax profits. So if investors think that good reforms – such as a lower corporate tax rate – are going to happen, then it makes sense that the value of financial assets will […]
[…] the federal corporate tax rate in Canada is 15 percent, far lower than the 35 percent federal corporate rate in the United States, I’m not surprised […]
[…] Well, it’s happened again, though this time the bureaucrats inadvertently just issued some research that makes the case for the Laffer Curve and lower corporate tax rates. […]
[…] did a good job his last few years in office). Maybe she will cut tax rates (the corporate rate already has been slashed and will be reduced to 17 percent over the next few […]
[…] the lower corporate tax rate would have a big supply-side impact (and there’s plenty of evidence from overseas to support that notion), but many of the other provisions of his plan are sure to reduce […]
[…] plan would put pressure on European nations to lower their corporate tax rates. Which is exactly what happened after the U.S. dropped its corporate tax rate back in the […]
[…] the lower corporate tax rate would have a big supply-side impact (and there’s plenty of evidence from overseas to support that notion), but many of the other provisions of his plan are sure to reduce […]
[…] Reprinted from International Liberty. […]
[…] Reprinted from International Liberty. […]
[…] Mitchell. The case for lower corporate tax rates, if you want growth and competitiveness. Japan as a more likely role model for the future of the US than Greece. Tax policy and welfare, […]
I’m all for reducing total revenues to government, dramatically reducing tax rates and eliminating all tax preferences, tariffs, and subsidies.
However, focusing only on the corporate rate is a mistake. It will eliminate the possibility of getting rid of taxes on investment. It may push up rates on individuals, particularly those who will game the system by reducing their salaries in favor of the lower corporate rates.
We need a lower flat rate and the elimination of all wealth taxes.
Lowering the corporate tax rate would be a huge shot in the arm for the American economy. Unfortunately some politicians refuse to believe the historical evidence that lowering rates will produce more growth and therefore more tax revenue. I’m waiting to see what happens.