It is widely acknowledged that the U.S. has very close to the highest statutory corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world - just behind Japan. Yet, many commentators like to cite OECD data that indicates the U.S. has relatively low corporate tax revenues as a share of GDP. This is true, and it is a pattern that holds across OECD countries. As the following table illustrates, based on OECD data from 2009 (most recent), those countries with high statutory rates generally also have low revenues. In fact, there is essentially zero correlation between statutory rates and revenues, and when we exclude the outliers, Norway (oil revenue) and Greece (bankrupt), the correlation is slightly negative.
| OECD Corporate Income Tax Revenue and Statutory Rates, 2009 | |||||
| OECD Rank (Combined Statutory Rate) | Country | Federal Rate | Top State or Provincial Rate | Combined Federal and State Rate (Adjusted) | Revenue as a Percentage of GDP |
| 1 | Japan | 30 | 11.56 | 39.54 | 2.4 |
| 2 | United States | 35 | 6.3 | 39.1 | 2.1 |
| 3 | France | 34.43 |
| 34.4 | 1.4 |
| 4 | Belgium | 33.99 |
| 33.99 | 2.5 |
| 5 | Canada | 19 | 12.3 | 31.32 | 2.5 |
| 6 | Germany | 15.83 | 14.4 | 30.18 | 1.3 |
| 7 | New Zealand | 30 |
| 30 | 3.3 |
| 8 | Spain | 30 |
| 30 | 2.2 |
| 9 | Australia | 30 |
| 30 | N/A |
| 10 | Luxembourg | 21.84 | 6.75 | 28.59 | 5.4 |
| 11 | UK | 28 |
| 28 | 2.8 |
| 12 | Mexico | 28 |
| 28 | N/A |
| 13 | Norway | 28 |
| 28 | 8.2 |
| 14 | Italy | 27.5 |
| 27.5 | 3.1 |
| 15 | Portugal | 25 | 1.5 | 26.5 | N/A |
| 16 | Sweden | 26.3 |
| 26.3 | 2.8 |
| 17 | Finland | 26 |
| 26 | 2.0 |
| 18 | Netherlands | 25.5 |
| 25.5 | N/A |
| 19 | Austria | 25 |
| 25 | 1.7 |
| 20 | Denmark | 25 |
| 25 | 2.4 |
| 21 | Greece | 25 |
| 25 | 0.0 |
| 22 | Korea | 22 | 2.5 | 24.2 | 3.7 |
| 23 | Switzerland | 8.50 | 14.47 | 21.17 | 3.4 |
| 24 | Czech Republic | 20 |
| 20 | 3.7 |
| 25 | Hungary | 20 |
| 20 | 2.2 |
| 26 | Turkey | 20 |
| 20 | 1.9 |
| 27 | Poland | 19 |
| 19 | N/A |
| 28 | Slovak Rep. | 19 |
| 19 | 2.8 |
| 29 | Iceland | 15 |
| 15 | 1.1 |
| 30 | Ireland | 12.5 |
| 12.5 | 2.4 |
So, paradoxically, raising rates would have the effect of lowering revenues. Alex Brill and Kevin Hassett do a more rigorous analysis and find that revenue is maximized at about a 26 percent federal rate - a full 9 points lower than the current U.S. rate of 35 percent.
The reason is that capital is mobile, and increasingly so. Corporate decision makers have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value, which is achieved by maximizing sales (making customers happy, both here and abroad) while minimizing costs, including tax costs. When a company chooses to move operations to, say, Switzerland, it is because there is a better mix of tax costs, social benefits, and business opportunities. America is simply losing on this front, and the tragedy is that it could be changed very quickly by lowering the statutory rate.
Join the Tax Foundation's fight for sound tax policy Go
The Tax Policy Blog is the official weblog of the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization that has monitored tax policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937. Our economists welcome your feedback. If you would like to send an e-mail to the author of a blog post, please click on that person's name to locate his or her e-mail address or visit our staff page here.
In yesterday's House hearing, the Treasury Inspector-General was asked if he could list which organizations had been targeted by the IRS for delayed approval or harassing questions. He replied that he could not make that...
Recently, Governor Cuomo and the Oneida Indian tribe announced a settlement that would end an ongoing dispute over cigarette taxes between New York and the tribe. Under the terms of the settlement, the Oneida will be...