Subsidies are standing in the way of corporate tax reform

Yesterday, the government’s business tax working group released its discussion paper on possibilities for tax reform. The paper makes a case for a broader base and lower tax rate (the corporate tax is currently a flat rate of 30%), and notes that any cut could be funded by a variety of options: by reducing…

Wrwbs9n3-1344841256
There are economy-wide gains to be made from lowering the corporate tax rate, but businesses will need to make concessions of their own. Image from www.shutterstock.com

Yesterday, the government’s business tax working group released its discussion paper on possibilities for tax reform. The paper makes a case for a broader base and lower tax rate (the corporate tax is currently a flat rate of 30%), and notes that any cut could be funded by a variety of options: by reducing debt deductions for multinational companies; cutting depreciation write-offs for oil, gas, transport and agriculture; ending up-front deductions for mining exploration; and cutting back on the tax offset for R&D investment.

Special exemptions and deductions from taxation for some but not other businesses expenses are a form of subsidy. Removal of the special exemptions leads to a more neutral tax treatment of alternative investment options, resulting in a more productive mix of alternative investment options. An exception is if the special tax deduction or exemption provides offsetting compensation for external benefits to other firms of particular investments. In an approximate aggregate revenue neutral tax reform package, the revenue gain from a larger and more comprehensive business tax base can be used to fund a lower tax rate.

In the context of Australia as a small open economy, a lower tax rate will encourage a higher level of aggregate investment, less distortions to the mix of debt and equity financing of investment, and a reduced incentive for multinational companies to shift their taxable income from Australia to countries with lower statutory tax rates. In time, most of the benefits of a larger and more productive capital stock will be passed on into higher market wages and real take-home pay for Australian workers.

The Treasury Tax Expenditure Statement lists 112 special exemptions or deductions for selected businesses expenses relative to the norm of a comprehensive business income tax base. One set of items are accelerated depreciation for selected equipment, including statutory life caps less than the economic life for much transport equipment, and some investments in oil and gas (item B95), concessional depreciation deductions for buildings (B97), immediate write-off for small business investments less than $6000 (B108), and accelerated depreciation for some but far from all expenditures by primary producers on water, horticulture and utility connections (B82, B85, B86).

Accelerated depreciation brings forward the time at which investment expenses are claimed. In effect, the concession is a subsidy to the favoured investments not available to alternative investment options. For example, investment by a mining company is subsidised if it is placed in oil or gas rather than in coal and iron ore; investment by a small business is favoured if the item is valued at less than $6000 relative to a larger and more expensive piece of machinery. There is no logical reason to subsidise these forms of investment relative to alternative uses of limited investment funds. From the perspective of society wellbeing and national productivity, accelerated depreciation as a form of subsidy shifts investment from more valuable to less valuable projects.

The provision of special tax exemptions and deductions for investment options where a market failure can be argued is a different story. This case is illustrated by the 40% extra allowance for expenditure on R&D (items B105 and B106). Much R&D by the investing firm provides spillover benefits to other firms, but other firms do not pay the investing firm for these benefits.

The tax concession or subsidy is a crude way of providing compensation for the spillover benefits, and it encourages firms to increase investment in R&D to a level consistent with the best use of national resources. But one might argue whether other policy interventions such as direct subsidies – or a different tax concession rate – are more appropriate.

A more comprehensive tax base with less special exemptions and deductions provides a second set of benefits through the lower tax rate that it will fund. In the context of Australia as a net importer of international capital in a small open economy, a lower tax rate on business investment in Australia initially increases the after-tax return to overseas investors. Seeking the best after-tax return across the globe, international investors shift more funds to Australia until the extra investment drives down the pre-tax return to restore the initial after-tax return. The increase in capital means more and better machines, buildings and technology per Australian worker, and higher labour productivity.

But the reality is that multinational companies have opportunities to shift their taxable revenues to lower tax rate countries and to shift many of their debt, overhead and intellectual property expenses to higher tax rate countries. Further, tax authorities are always playing a catch-up game to minimise these profit-shifting strategies. A lower Australian business tax rate increases the incentive of multinationals to record their profits in Australia, and to shift their tax payments from overseas to Australia.

A lower Australian business tax rate has additional gains for the Australian economy. The lower rate reduces the current tax favoured treatment of debt investment over equity investment by international investors. In turn, the lower gearing ratio would increase the ability of firms to ride cyclical, seasonal and other business shocks.

Ultimately, as argued by Australia’s Future Tax System report of 2010 and the Mirrlees Report of 2010 in the UK, with supporting econometric evidence, most of the benefits of a lower Australian business tax rate are passed on to employees as higher wages. But this will take some years of decision changes and adjustment.

Join the conversation

9 Comments sorted by

  1. David Arthur

    n/a

    Thanks for this explanation, Prof Freebairn.

    The concept of decreasing overall tax rates via broadening of the tax base ie removal of special exemptions and rebates is well worth considering. ("In an approximate aggregate revenue neutral tax reform package, the revenue gain from a larger and more comprehensive business tax base can be used to fund a lower tax rate.")

    So, which business exemptions, rebates and subsidies will be the first to be withdrawn? How about those which encourage profligate…

    Read more
  2. Gavin R. Putland

    logged in via Twitter

    COMPANY TAX: THE ZERO OPTION

    What's better than cutting the company tax rate by a few percentage points? How about getting rid of company tax? - along with other imposts that feed into labour costs, destroying jobs and exports? Here's how:

    (i) Allow employers to keep the PAYG income tax that they withhold from employees and contractors, while the latter still get credit for the withheld tax as if it had been paid to the ATO on their grossed-up incomes. Thus personal income tax is not abolished…

    Read more
    1. David Arthur

      n/a

      In reply to Gavin R. Putland

      Not bad, but the assumption that there would be more jobs assumes rather more nobility on the part of corporate decision-makers who are motivated purely by the bottom line; if you can screw more work per unit labour, then have that unit funded out of the public purse when it burns out or breaks, all you need to do is get another such unit.

      I also have a problem with funding superannuation contributions out of public general revenue, since superannuation contributions vary depending on individual…

      Read more
    2. Gavin R. Putland

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to David Arthur

      Part of the benefit of restoring full employment is that employers can't afford to lose workers and therefore can't afford to burn them out or break them.

      I concede that if super contributions were funded out of general revenue, it would be hard to defend a system in which super contributions are proportional to earnings. But for the sake of a smooth transition (administratively and politically), the initial reform should retain that proportionality. Indeed we have a precedent in the form of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge, which is a tax, payable into consolidated revenue, out of which the Commonwealth makes super contributions when employers fail to do so. My point is that if we're going to have such a tax, it's better to impose it on consumption than on labour.

      report
    3. David Arthur

      n/a

      In reply to Gavin R. Putland

      Thanks Gavin.

      I can't quite see how the changes you propose would, of themselves, engender that full employment. Could you expand on this aspect of the proposal?

      Regarding the smoothness of transition, it seems to me that a flat contribution per worker would even simpler administratively, and would be much more politically palatable. "The 1%" aren't so-called because they would outnumber "the 99%".

      report
    4. Gavin R. Putland

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to David Arthur

      Sorry about the delayed response.

      The basic idea is to reduce the cost of labour as seen by employers, by removing taxes that cause the cost of hiring a worker to be greater than the worker's take-home pay. The cost of labour to employers can be reduced much further by tax reform than by any politically feasible reduction in wages and conditions; and the necessary tax reforms, unlike reductions in wages and conditions, can be accomplished at no cost to the workers.

      Also remember that if a tax…

      Read more
  3. James Haughton

    Social Policy Researcher

    Has the Business Tax Working Group put forward any solutions to deal with the incentive assymetries of reform - that is, the tendency of vested interests to scream like hell when their particular subsidy/bonus/tariff/perk is cut, while the benefits are so widespread and diffuse that they are met with silence, or at most muted appreciation? Unless we see groups like the Business Council of Australia giving loud support to such reforms (which they signally failed to do for a broad based mineral resource rent tax) they would seem to be doomed in the current climate.
    Rather than relying on Laffer-curve like positive returns from lower taxes, this article actually seems to make the argument that Australia would do best to aggressively pursue multilateral treaties against tax havens and transfer pricing. The current climate of hostility to the financial industry and increased regulation to stop transfers to criminal and terrorist groups seems ideally suited to pursue such a treaty.

    report
  4. George Naumovski

    Online Political Activist

    It is assumed that if the company tax rate is lowered, then companies would employ more people but in reality they will not!

    No matter what you do as in tax reforms and IR laws, businesses from giant corporations to little shops will always cry poor and demand more, basically wanting the “slave & master” rule!

    A fairer tax system needs to be implemented such as the RSPT and other super profits taxes such as taxing the bankers and other business elites where from all these tax cuts/subsidies and writes off they end up paying very little or nothing at all.

    report
  5. David Arthur

    n/a

    Here are some of tax system changes that could be used to decrease overall company tax rate.

    1) Cancel fossil fuel use subsidies.
    2) A fossil fuel consumption tax (FFCT) that includes a border adjustment for fuel used to import goods to Australia - because this would be a broad-based tax, it would allow for decreases in rates of other taxes in addition to company tax.
    3) A raw materials export tax, paid by exporters of raw materials that have not been value-added in Australia by raw material processing (eg bauxite exports would attract this tax, alumina exports would attract a lower intermediate tax, and exports of refined aluminium metal would be exempt from this tax).
    4) All over-award payments to employees, including bonuses would not be deductible for company tax assessment purposes.

    report