Outsourcing: Carrot or Stick Response?
March 16, 2007
Representative Charlie Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, released a statement expressing concern about the fact that Halliburton moved its corporate headquarters to Dubai. In his statement he partially blamed the tax code, saying that this was:
“…another sad example of American companies increasingly moving off-shore. I am troubled by the continued outsourcing of jobs and am eager to find out how the tax code can be strengthened to encourage American companies to reinvest here rather than abroad.”
Senator John Kerry made similar comments earlier this year during floor remarks after he introduced S.96. That bill would, according to Senator Kerry, repeal deferral of U.S. corporate tax on foreign source income, which would have the impact of increasing corporate tax for those U.S. corporations who have foreign subsidiaries and, he hopes, make it less likely that U.S. companies would expand overseas.
Two prominent Democrats have stated their belief that the design of the U.S. corporate tax system is leading to a measurable decrease in U.S. investment. The question, then, is what to do about it? Should the U.S. punish companies who invest overseas or reward those who locate here?
A surprising answer comes from some ideological cousins in Europe, where governments are eschewing the stick in favor of the carrot. Center-left governments there (Spain for example) have chosen to fight off-shoring by reducing corporate tax rates and broadening the corporate tax base.
As a result, companies are more likely to expand in Europe and, not surprisingly, corporate revenues are also up. This is consistent with our finding in a 2005 Special Report.
It’s also consistent with the findings of Martin Sullivan. He talked about this issue in depth during a podcast interview last year, where he expressed his belief that Democrats are going to adopt the carrot approach eventually. Why?
Because, like their European cousins, they will not be able to avoid the competitive pressures and, furthermore, they are soon going to realize that lowering the corporate rate and broadening the corporate base are the only way to maintain the viability of corporate taxation in the global economy. Lowering the rate makes a country more attractive to investment and broadening the base actually eliminates opportunities for tax planning.
A protectionist response that takes the stick to U.S. companies for investing overseas (i.e. repealing deferral, limiting foreign tax credits, and the like) is the wrong way to enhance competitiveness in the global economy. Lawmakers who want to do something about outsourcing should use the carrot approach and first look to reduce the U.S. marginal corporate tax rate, which is the second highest in the world.
Was this page helpful to you?
The Tax Foundation works hard to provide insightful tax policy analysis. Our work depends on support from members of the public like you. Would you consider contributing to our work?Contribute to the Tax Foundation
Let us know how we can better serve you!
We work hard to make our analysis as useful as possible. Would you consider telling us more about how we can do better?Give Us Feedback