« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A Quick Case for Cutting the Corporate Tax Rate

Alan Reynolds over at CATO published a nice piece at National Review Online (NRO). He adeptly points out the fallacy of Obama’s claim that raising taxes on the top 2% will raise a princely sum of revenue to put toward our skyrocketing deficit.

The Treasury Department calculated that

raising the top two personal-income-tax rates — to 36 from 33 percent and to 39.6 from 35 percent on incomes above $250,000 and $377,000, respectively — would raise just $23.1 billion in 2013, barely enough to finance federal spending for two days.

How is this supposed to be a solution? It’s not, but it’s the stuff of which good rhetoric and sound bytes are made. Making the rich “pay their fair share” puts the onus on the wealthy — someone other than the average taxpayer — as a red herring to the hide the fact that our deficit problem is so large, a tax increase isn’t going to make a dent. But the Democrats can’t admit that their tax-and-spend mentality is falling apart.

Yet the real interesting part of the article starts halfway in. Reynolds goes on to make the case for cutting the corporate tax rate, an important point raised in the Simpson-Bowles package that has been all but forgotten. We are reminded that both Obama and Romney have suggested lowering the rates in the past, which are among the highest in first-world countries at 35%. Cutting the rates would be stimulative, as more money becomes readily available to businesses which have been struggling in this economy. It would also serve to entice businesses to relocate here, instead of our businesses continuously seeking lower tax rates outside the US (as they are now). We desperately need the economy to grow — to grow our way out of this slump, instead of trying to tax our way out of it (and putting ourselves back into a recession). Reynolds notes,

the positive impact on business investment, and on multinational decisions to locate new businesses in the U.S. rather than abroad, would be swift and powerful. There is nothing to lose from cutting the corporate tax rate, not even revenue, and the economic gains are likely to be quite astonishing.

Let’s hope for some real tax relief out of the fiscal cliff negotiations. Besides allowing the current tax rates to stay in place — perhaps permanently — so that we can stop being in a state of economic uncertainty, cutting corporate taxes should be a key item on the table.

Crossposted at alanjoelny.com

COMMENTS

  • http://www.licgop.com licgop

    I’ve yet to understand why Republicans aren’t bashing the Democrats over the notion that we need to raise taxes on the top 2%. If Republicans would just say that doing this would only reduce the deficit by 2% it might start sinking in that the plans being offered by the opposition aren’t realistic solutions.

    Then again neither was the Ryan Plan but it would be light year ahead of just raising taxes on the top 2%.

    • http://www.alanjoelny.com alanjoelny

      Raising taxes on the top 2% would put us back in a recession because it would put a drag on consumption. You couldn’t raise enough revenue to fix the deficit by raising taxes on the highest earners even if you were to tax them at 100%. It’s that bad. But the Democrat tax increases are really not about revenue. It’s about following through on the class warfare rhetoric to formally establish the notion that “rich people are evil/need to pay their fair share”. They do it now and they will do it again and again — by appealing to that base argument That’s why the GOP desperately needs to move the conversation elsewhere and focusing on and pushing for solutions — starting with cutting the corporate tax rate.

      • http://www.licgop.com licgop

        This is why we should stop fighting this. Let this lapse. The lefts go to move to save them from not putting forth the reductions in spending that we need is the whole argument of the rich need to be taxed more. We should neutralize it and let this lapse. Then hammer them on not being serious about controlling spending.

    • commonsenseobserver

      I would argue that bringing the debt ratio down over the long run is a very realistic solution, perhaps not politically, but certainly economically. But then politics neutralizes economics, even if no politician will ever be able to abolish boom and bust.

      Most of the public, according to opinion polls, recognize that tax hikes alone can’t solve the problem, that spending cuts must be part of the solution. But then, we also like everything, which means politicians can only get away by cutting “fat and inefficiency” and maybe foreign aid.

      • http://www.alanjoelny.com alanjoelny

        “we also like everything, which means politicians can only get away by cutting “fat and inefficiency” and maybe foreign aid.”
        You hit the nail on the head.

      • http://www.licgop.com licgop

        And yet we don’t even do that. This is the problem as I see it. We haven’t even pushed to reduce the size of government. Our guys really at the core are no better than the other side if you lack the balls to risk your elected office to do the right thing.

        • commonsenseobserver

          Oh?

          Spending as a percentage of the economy would have declined (or rather, be declining) dramatically over the long run if GOP budget plans had been enacted.

          • http://www.licgop.com licgop

            Would the growth of the government? After all isn’t the Republican Party essentially the Anti-Federalist Party at heart or have we just given up the notion and sold our souls to help the beast keep growing so we can have our guys in office?

  • gmat

    Thanks for bringing this up. I agree it’s a mystery why this doesn’t get more attention.

    One part of a sustainable recovery will be to get manufacturers currently located elsewhere to relocate to the US, or to encourage their would-be competitors to start up in the US, or both.

    Lowering the corporate rate to what it is in competing countries seems an obvious choice.