Biden's Proposed Corporate Tax Hike Will Punish the Average American
The president wants to raise the rate from 21 percent to 28 percent, despite it being well-established that this is the most economically-destructive method to raise government funds.

In the latest volley of policy proposals that seem more rooted in populist rhetoric than economic knowledge, President Joe Biden's budget plan to hike the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent strikes me as particularly misguided. This move, ostensibly aimed at ensuring a "fair share" of contributions from corporate America, is a glaring testament to a simplistic and all-too-common type of economic thinking that already hamstrings our nation's competitiveness, stifles innovation, and ultimately penalizes the average American worker and consumer.
Beyond the president's class warfare rhetoric, the lure of putting his hands on more revenue is one of the factors behind the proposal. Biden likes to pretend he is some sort of deficit cutter, but his administration is the mother of all big spenders. He's seeking $7.3 trillion for next year without acknowledging the insolvency of Social Security coming our way or addressing what happens when Congress makes the Republican tax cut permanent in 2025 for people earning less than $400,000 a year.
Unfortunately, no fiscally irresponsible budget is complete without soothing individual taxpayers by promising to tax corporations. Never mind that the burden of corporate income tax hikes isn't shouldered by corporations. Yes, corporations do write the checks to the IRS, but the economic weight will be partially or fully shifted to others, such as workers through lower wages, consumers through higher prices, or shareholders through lower returns on investment. That means that many taxpayers making less than that $400,000 will be shouldering the cost of the corporate tax hike.
It is worth expanding on the fact that much of a corporate tax increase will be shouldered specifically by workers. A recent Tax Foundation article, for instance, explained that "a study of corporate taxes in Germany found that workers bear about half of the tax burden in the form of lower wages, with low-skilled, young, and female employees disproportionately harmed."
Biden's planned tax hike would raise revenue for sure. Kyle Pomerleau at the American Enterprise Institute told me that it would raise roughly $1 trillion over a decade. However, it will do it in the most damaging way possible.
Indeed, it is well-established by the economic literature that increasing corporate taxes is the most economically-destructive method due to its impact on incentives to invest. Investments that were previously feasible at the lowest rate of capital are now out of reach. Firms forgo machinery, factories, and other equipment, reducing their capital stock. That in turn reduces productivity, output, and overtime wages.
The good news is that the reverse is also true. That's what the Republicans did in 2017 when they cut the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent while broadening the tax base. Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute recently noted that the move increased investments and wages as one would hope—and it also managed to boost federal corporate tax collections from $297 billion in 2017 to a projected $569 billion in 2024.
While this spike was attributed to temporary factors—the revenue is anticipated to decrease to $494 billion in 2025—it also reduced tax avoidance from firms who repatriated much of the revenue they used to keep abroad. Instead of avoiding higher tax rates, they invested more in America and boosted wages along the way.
In addition, for all the concerns about fairness expressed by the administration to justify its tax hike, the corporate tax is quite unfair. Profits are already subject to taxation at the individual level when distributed as dividends or realized as capital gains. Increasing the corporate tax rate will exacerbate the issue of double taxation, distorting investment decisions and reducing economic efficiency, not to mention encouraging aggressive planning for more tax avoidance.
Last, the administration's plan ignores one of its usual priorities: the fact that many U.S. companies must compete on the international stage. Raising the corporate income tax at home makes them less competitive abroad. According to the Cato Institute's Adam Michel, if Biden is successful in raising the corporate income tax to 28 percent, the U.S. would have the second-highest such rate among the market-oriented democracies that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. America would instantly become less attractive for multinational corporations and mobile capital.
In an era where economic literacy should guide policymaking, reverting to such tax hikes is a step backward—a misstep we can ill afford amid the delicate dance of post-pandemic recovery and an increasingly competitive global economy.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In an era where economic literacy should guide policymaking…
That leaves joe out of the equation.
And a number of commenters.
Hell, a number of writers. Considering that this is right there with his policy, on his campaign website, and they all voted for the asshole.
And, just to emphasize something only glossed over at the end there, European corporate tax rates average 20ish percent. Many countries as low as 10%, but generally you don’t find countries with higher than 28% corporate tax rates outside of the socialist adjacent countries in South America, or very small nations.
In other words, capital flight is a far greater risk here than even wage suppression and price hikes. Considering how much of the economy is bits and bytes, especially. You’ll never get companies to repatriate profits at 28% if they get a 12.5% rate from Ireland. Or even a 20% rate from Sweden or wherever.
I don't see a lot of US capital fleeing to Ireland.
You will if Stuck in California's scenario happens.
This ought to be so flippin' obvious that it wouldn't need to be said, like water is wet.
EVERYTHING a business lays out money for ends up being paid by its customers. Power bills, employees, buildings, input materials, and of course taxes.
Tax the corporations, my ass! It's just a different tax collector.
"EVERYTHING a business lays out money for ends up being paid by its customers. "
Or its investors. Where do you think businesses get the capital to get started? Economic doctoral dissertations are often about who actually pays particular taxes.
You have zero idea how business works. What’s next, are you going to tell me the government also pays the business for any loans it gives? That’s the logic you’re using.
The feature, not a bug.
Dems: "Give us more money."
Repubs: "No."
Dems: "Give us more money, or we'll shut the government down."
Repubs: "No."
Dems shut government down, but not really.
Dems: "Give us more money, or we'll stop sending out checks."
Repubs panic. "Okay!"
Tell me again why I should vote for the Republicans, please ...
So your reason for not voting for the Republicans is that they will eventually cave to the Democrats. Therefore, the solution is to give the Democrats complete control of the government. This makes sense, how?
Even worse, letting the uniparty kicks of yesteryear continie to win the GOP nomination to continue the behavior. Never advocate for the Paul's or Massie. Ironically he has complained about the freedom caucus members who don't bend the knee as causing chaos.
Doc's reason seems to be that Republicans don't acquiesce quickly enough.
Ah, the classic lesser of two evils argument.
The problem is you have to show that the individual Democrat is going to be worse than the individual Republican. Considering how few Republicans will stand up to the Democrats what is the functional difference in voting for a Republican who caves to Democrats instead of voting for the Democrat?
By not voting for the Repuplican you send the message that you want better Republicans to vote for. By voting for the Republican you are saying you are OK with Republicans that cave to Democrats.
Except for voting for Trump to beat Hillary and for Trump to beat Biden (that didn't work out), I voted for every L on every ballot I've voted since I was 18 (voted for Reagan's 2nd term). Hasn't gotten me anywhere.
Hell, Trump is the first person I've voted for that won since that Reagan vote.
Dems: “.”
Repubs: “There’s something different……..”
Dems: “.”
Repubs: “No, really. Something seems different. It’s quieter..”
Dems not around because people finally realized that to GET change you have to install people who are different, and that means you have to vote FOR them and not for useless ideologues who will never be elected as a protest vote and hope that enough people vote for actual people who can get elected who WILL change things.
Dems: “.”
Repubs panic. “Wait–the Dems are gone! They’re not going to screech at us for asking questions or investigate us for upholding our oaths! We’ll actually be able to DO something”
Tell me again why I should vote for the Republicans, please.
The republicans make a lot of promises that they don’t keep. But the reason they don’t keep them is not, usually, because they didn’t intend to. It’s because they’re usually fighting the entirety of the left AND the media to even get the simplest thing done at ANY level.
In fact, the reason you’re so annoyed that the GOP doesn’t get things done is because the media, after the elected left stymies something the GOP wants done, immediately starts the drumbeat of how the right doesn’t keep it’s promises.
And this works even on the most connected people–just take a look at Ann Coulter acting as if Trump deliberately refused to build that wall he promised.
You want them to do what they say they’re gonna do? Clear the path.
Vote for nothing BUT them. And get everyone you can to do the same.
You are assuming that most Republicans actually want anything significant to change when it comes to the size and scope of government. I'm far from convinced that is the case for more than a handful of Rs.
I do think that Rs are preferable in general. But not enough to make me want to vote for them. Not voting for Ds gets you half way there, at least.
Rs today are actually worse than Ds in terms of intrusive government. Ds do want to move the economy in certain directions but they do it in broad strokes. Rs want micromanaging of businesses and personal lives. Don't say gay. No abortions. No imports from China (unless the brand belongs to Ivanka Trump). NIMBY zoning. (Yeah, some Dems are into that, too, but it was suburban Republicans who eat up Trump's rhetoric against allowing the "wrong" people into their suburbs.) Farmers on the dole. And tariffs tariffs tariffs -- the worst form of corporate welfare.
I love how you leftards constantly defeat your own arguments trying to enlighten them. You all remind me of children with their hand in the cookie jar trying to blame their little sibling.
Seriously; No porn in grade school and abortion to States = 'actually worse'??? What a joke.
"It is worth expanding on the fact that much of a corporate tax increase will be shouldered specifically by workers."
The CBO agrees.
THE INCIDENCE OF THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX
“A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces.”
And it goes on to say
“Although economists are far from a consensus about exactly who bears how much of the burden of the corporate income tax, the existing studies highlight the significant types of economic mechanisms as well as the empirical estimates necessary for further quantifying the burdens. CBO’s review of the studies yields the following conclusions:
o The short-term burden of the corporate tax probably falls on stockholders or investors in general, but may fall on some more than on others, because not all investments are taxed at the same rate.
o The long-term burden of corporate or dividend taxation is unlikely to rest fully on corporate equity, because it will remain there only if marginal investment is not affected by those taxes. Most economists believe that the corporate tax system has some effect on investment decisions.
o In the very long term, the burden is likely to be shifted in part to labor, if the corporate tax dampens capital accumulation.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/3xx/doc304/corptax.pdf
"not all investments are taxed at the same rate."
That alone is another problem. Tax investment income like every other kind of income. Dollars are dollars.
The corporate income tax is far and away the least efficient tax, considering compliance costs vs revenues generated.
This is from an email I wrote back in 2012, so the numbers are not current and I'm disinclined at the moment to get updated numbers.
P.S. not advocating for income taxes at all. Just noting different levels of efficiency assuming the goal of taxation is to efficiently generate revenue, and that corporate taxes are pretty close to being the worst way in many dimensions.
--------------
Corporate income taxes account for about $250-$350B in annual revenue. Compliance costs for business to determine how much tax they owe is also estimated at about $200-$300B annually. In other words, it costs corporations about as much to determine how much they owe as they actually owe. Not to mention the inordinate amount of effort that goes into determining how to run the business when various tax considerations come into play (e.g. when to buy equipment, or hiring that 50th employee) instead of simply doing what's best for the business for business reasons rather than tax reasons.
And virtually all of these taxes and compliance costs get passed on directly to consumers/labor/shareholders. If we would simply recognize this fact—that corporate dollars end up in individual pockets—we could eliminate the corporate income tax code completely in favor of simply waiting until the dollars land in pockets. It is far easier and more efficient to tax capital gains and dividends earned by individuals than it is to collect the same taxes via the corporate tax code.
Eliminating the corporate income tax would provide a needed shot in the arm to the economy, as it would free up something like $500-600B annually (taxes plus compliance costs). It would probably keep some jobs from being shipped overseas too, by lowering the cost of doing business in the US relative to elsewhere. Not all jobs, to be sure, but there are certainly jobs where the elimination of corporate taxes represents the marginal difference making it better to move those jobs back home. A 0% corporate income tax rate would make the USA a very attractive place to HQ businesses in and we could expect to see multinationals moving their HQs to the US and bringing those high-paying HQ jobs with them.
Also, a vast amount of "corporate welfare" comes in the form of special tax breaks--eliminate the tax breaks and you eliminate the corporate welfare and the corrupting influence of millions of dollars of lobbyist money showered on politicians as they try to seek those special tax breaks.
The problem is that without a corporate income tax, a lot of well off folks will put all their assets into corporations so that they can benefit from the proceeds of their assets tax free.
When we finally got an income tax in 1913, the enactment of the tax was accompanied by a huge cut in tariffs. Unfortunately it is impossible to analyze other than a short term effect because World War I started less than one year later. But as convoluted as the income tax is, it is much better than tariffs, the worst form of corporate welfare ever.
IF you eliminate the corporate income tax, you need to replace the revenues. What other taxes would you raise.
Why not only tax business? As you said it all gets paid by the consumer anyway we could eliminate all other tax. Then people are not paying tax on top of tax on top of tax.
It also provides an opportunity for a business to undercut the competition by not passing on part or all of the tax they pay.
Why not tax just consumers. As you say they're paying for it anyways.
Two additional points:
1. Corporate taxes represent only about 12 percent of total government receipts. Increasing the corporate tax rate will have no material effect on reducing the deficit.
2. The corporate tax code gives the executive and legislative branches the power to pick winners and losers based on political policy goals.
12 percent is not nothing.
Worse in terms of picking winners and losers are the tariffs that income taxes effectively replaced.
You are correct that 12 percent isn't nothing. My point was that, at the margin, an increase in the tax rate would be insignificant.
“In the latest volley of policy proposals that seem more rooted in populist rhetoric than economic knowledge”
I wouldn’t call it populist, I’d call it the same semi-fascist bullshit that Democrats always push.
It's populist because it portrays a struggle between little people and corporate bigwigs who aren't paying thayer fayer shayer.
Yeah, no contradiction between "semi-fascist bullshit" and "populist". A lot of people really love their semi-fascist bullshit.
I’m not sure how raising taxes are "semi-fascist bullshit." Seems to me like Republicans are throwing the term “fascist” around as much or more than the progressive bedwetters did when Trump got elected, reducing its meaning to just “those guys I don’t like.”
It's not a very precise use of "fascist". Though demanding that corporations behave in certain ways or face legal/tax consequences is at least fascist adjacent. I'm just playing along with how people are using the word. I agree it gets thrown around too readily.
Demanding that businesses be able to be micromanaged by the government was precisely Mussolini's economic program. Today we see it in Ron DeSantis. Trump is pretty similar.
Most of the use of the term today would surprise Mussolini, though. I remember when Margaret Thatcher was called Fascist. Her economic policies were basically the polar opposite of Mussolini's. Fascist is basically whatever the Left wants to demonize.
We see the same thing coming from the Right with "Marxist", "Socialist", and "Communist". I am unaware of any actual socialist in public office in the US today. Even Bernie Sanders isn't one; he is really a European style Social Democrat; the only thing he wants to nationalize is health insurance (and maybe electric power generation -- he was mayor of a city that owned its electric utility). Worse is the "Cultural Marxism" meme -- Cultural Marxism isn't a thing at all. The Nutty Far Left and the Nutty Far Right are equally incapable of understanding basic terms from Political Science 101 and they both need to be ignored.
Well said
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
But the Fast Food Board in California is not fascism?
[wikipedia]
In 1929, Italy was hit hard by the Great Depression. The Italian economy, having just emerged from a period of monetary stabilization, was not ready for this shock and prices fell and production slowed. Unemployment rose from 300,787 in 1929 to 1,018,953 in 1933.[80] Trying to handle the crisis, the Fascist government nationalized the holdings of large banks which had accrued significant industrial securities.[81] The government also issued new securities to provide a source of credit for the banks and began enlisting the help of various cartels (consorzi) that had been created by Italian business leaders since 1922. The government offered recognition and support to these organizations in exchange for promises that they would manipulate prices in accordance with government priorities.[82]
A number of mixed entities were formed, called instituti or enti nazionali, whose purpose it was to bring together representatives of the government and of the major businesses. These representatives discussed economic policy and manipulated prices and wages so as to satisfy both the wishes of the government and the wishes of business. The government considered this arrangement to be a success and Italian Fascists soon began to pride themselves on this outcome, saying they had survived the Great Depression without infringing on private property. In 1934, the Fascist Minister of Agriculture said: "While nearly everywhere else private property was bearing the major burdens and suffering from the hardest blows of the depression, in Italy, thanks to the actions of this Fascist government, private property not only has been saved, but has also been strengthened"
More from Econlib:
Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.
To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation.
In the United States, beginning in 1933, the constellation of government interventions known as the New Deal had features suggestive of the corporate state. The National Industrial Recovery Act created code authorities and codes of practice that governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce. The National Labor Relations Act made the federal government the final arbiter in labor issues. The Agricultural Adjustment Act introduced central planning to farming. The object was to reduce competition and output in order to keep prices and incomes of particular groups from falling during the Great Depression.
It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.”
The “fair share” rhetoric, the do what we want or we’ll raise taxes/fine you/cancel you manipulation, etc. are pretty fascist adjacent, hence the semi Iput in front of it.
Honestly, the assholes in charge have gotten a lot more sophisticated with their command-control economy since Il Duce. Which I suppose would be more accurately described as corporatism.
I always took populist to at least be trying to appeal to the widest swath of the populace, but I could see the argument that class envy does.
I appreciate the dripping sarcasm at the end there.
The democrats will demand a tax hike.
The republicans will agree.
The tax goes into effect.
The MSM cheers.
More people become unemployed.
Our recession gets deeper.
Democrats and republicans then blame the recession on systematic racism, climate change and a shortage of unicorn hair.
Yup.
The ruling elitist vermin in power in our country are definitely going insane.
There is no recession, contrary to the desires of the MAGA Cult. The economy is doing quite well.
You're mistaken.
https://reason.com/2024/03/12/high-inflation-isnt-in-your-head/
Stop siding with the government and media in gaslighting us. You're being deceptive.
It's doing so well; Importing goods from other nations is all that's left.
There's a deeper issue going on when Americans think a consumer-only economy is 'doing quite well'.
Oh, I get it. If a bazillion dollar corporation is taxed more, it'll just pass on the "capital expense" onto the customers while busily trying to convince them corporations are their friends and that the government isn't.
Bait and switch.
The Ferenghi are the libertarians of the Star Trek universe.
Well said.
Read my reply below.
Taking on some other strategy puts the corporations out of business. Smaller ones suffer even more, and people end up with a loss of their jobs.
You don’t blame a dog for failing to fulfill a task after eating a rotten breakfast, you blame the food as the cause. Point your fingers at the government for their incompetence.
Down-to-earth logic is something Star Trek didn't always succeed at.
"the most economically-destructive method to raise government funds."
Wrong. Tariffs are.
The author is correct however in that "corporations" don't really pay the taxes; they pass the cost on to their customers. But we need a corporate income tax to prevent individuals from creating sham corporations in order to cheat on their individual taxes. About 90,000 IRS agents would be able to shut down the scammers, but the Republicans are pro-scam.
Above comment....
"It’s doing so well; Importing goods from other nations is all that’s left. There’s a deeper issue going on when Americans think a consumer-only economy is ‘doing quite well’."
While insisting all that Non-American production be tax-free.
I swear you leftards truly believe in your hearts that unicorn-farts produces everything and how 'Gov-Guns' distributes that magical unicorn-farts is the entire US economy. Holy crap your world is a full-on delusion of selfishness and greed.
So basically EVERY tax screws everyone but the wealthy. If we only taxed businesses, since they pass the cost on anyway, we could eliminate all personal tax.
So basically EVERY tax screws everyone but the government officials and their allies
FTFY
Some people don't seem to ever realize it's the *earned* 'product' (human resources) that has the real value not their monopoly fiat-money games in an attempt to STEAL everything.
MORE SLAVERY....
Continues to preach the Party of Slavery[D].