The Sunday Essay: How cutting corporate tax rates raises revenue
Matthew Sinclair 10:44pm
Many thanks to Matthew Sinclair, of the Taxpayers' Alliance, for the Sunday Essay below. We accept Sunday Essay submissions from any of our readers - be they MPs, policy wonks or nothing to do with politics at all. For more information on how to submit an essay, please click here - Pete Hoskin
With the public finances deep in the red many are arguing that there simply isn’t the money for tax cuts. Britain has one of the largest deficits in the developed world and, as the economic slowdown leads to greater unemployment, borrowing could easily spiral out of control. However, maintaining Britain’s high tax rates is not the way to control that deficit.
Spending has increased by around £30 billion at each Budget for the last five years. That has created deficits despite a strong economy and increases in taxation on a broad range of activities. Controlling spending is the essential step that any politician hoping to reduce the deficits has to take. Even if taxes were pushed up that would only delay the reckoning with the momentum that a decade of extravagant spending in the public services has built up.
While it might be tempting to look at the public finances and conclude that we can’t afford tax cuts, the truth is that we can’t afford high tax rates. Britain needs to be an attractive place to do business, now more than ever.
Over the last ten years Ireland has cut its corporate tax rates and revenues have grown far faster than they have in the United Kingdom. Of course, people might argue that Ireland’s achievements cannot be replicated here because Ireland is smaller, enjoyed EU subsidies or enjoyed some other advantage.
A TaxPayers’ Alliance report released this week shows that other countries have enjoyed similar increases in revenue following cuts in corporate tax rates. From France to Japan revenue gains have followed rate cuts. Testing this relationship empirically, our evidence suggests that low corporate tax rates are associated with greater revenue growth. Including other factors like growth in a country's export markets or increasing oil revenues didn't imperil our central conclusion that rate cuts would lead to increased revenue growth over time. We studied a cross-section of different countries’ average performance over a number of years, to try and work out whether cyclical factors were creating our result, and again arrived at the same conclusion that corporate tax revenue grows faster in countries with lower rates.
We have seen firms moving to avoid high corporate taxes in Britain. Shire Pharmaceuticals, Krom River, Hiscox and United Business Media have all announced that they are moving abroad. However, outright corporate flight is almost certainly a drop in the ocean compared to countless investments directed elsewhere to avoid high corporate tax rates.
The present chaos in the corporate world makes corporate tax cuts even more essential. With so many banks and other businesses being merged or otherwise reorganised corporate organisation is more flexible than it has been for years. In the United States commentators are already suggesting that New York risks losing its economic position if the investment banks that call it home go out of business or are moved in mergers. Businesses are choosing where they should locate themselves and jobs, prosperity and future tax revenues depend on encouraging them to choose London.
The British people clearly recognise that they are overtaxed. Polls show that 64% believe that the state spends, and therefore taxes, too much. Politicians who commit themselves to reducing the tax burden will enjoy a hefty electoral reward.
Controlling spending, not maintaining high taxes, is the way to control the budget deficit and some tax rate cuts can provide such a boost to our competitiveness that they increase revenue.
The Conservatives should promise that they will take aggressive action to control public spending and deliver tax cuts. They will be rewarded at the polls and with a much healthier economic and fiscal state with which to make their appeal for a second term.
Matthew Sinclair is a Policy Analyst at the TaxPayers’ Alliance. To join the TaxPayers’ Alliance for free visit www.taxpayersalliance.com



Previous




K.Vijayakumar
September 22nd, 2008 2:27am Report this commentWill the people in the lower economic strata in Britain say that the government is overspending? They will definitely complain that the government is not spending enough to make enough public goods and services available to them. The most difficult job in the world is to make the wealthy pay for the public goods and services they enjoy disproportionately compared to those who just manage to eke out a living. Their mantra is "cut taxes". The excuse is that taxes saved will be reinvested and the resulting economic growth will increase tax collection. Is this a proven economic fact?
Nick Kaplan
September 22nd, 2008 3:06pm Report this commentK.Vijayakumar; You say that the wealthy disproportionately enjoy public services. Are you mad?? Most wealthy people will have private health care, saving the NHS a fortune, and reducing waiting lists, yet still contributing by paying their taxes. Many will send their kids to private schools again saving the state a fortune. As far as I’m aware high earners tend not to claim unemployment benefit. They do not qualify for tax credits. Most will not need a state pension. I don’t suppose they generate any more garbage than the rest of us or use the roads a significant amount more than us (and if they do they pay duty on the fuel). So could you please explain in what way the wealthy enjoy public services disproportionately?
Of course if you meant their use is disproportionately minuscule in comparison to the huge amounts they contribute you would be correct and I apologise.
You also say “Their mantra is "cut taxes". The excuse is that taxes saved will be reinvested and the resulting economic growth will increase tax collection. Is this a proven economic fact?” Have you actually read the essay (or attached link)? If you had then you would see the answer is quite clearly; Yes. But not just because saved money is reinvested. It also decreases incentives for expensive tax avoidance, it attracts new investment from overseas, it incentives new domestic investment by offering higher returns and thus reducing risk, and it sends out the message that the government is friendly to business and the job and wealth creation that come with it.
Back to top