Politics & Policy

Two Cheers for Corporate Tax Cuts

(Pixabay)
On the whole, the tax cut bill helps workers. It’s just not massive tax cuts to multinational corporations that do it.

Overall, the Republican tax-cut bill has been good for Americans. That is why I voted for it. But it could have been even better for American workers and their families.

The central reason why it wasn’t is that in the new economy, it isn’t enough to just cut taxes; you have to cut the right ones.

During the tax-cut debate, when the rival priorities of committing fully to a 20 percent corporate income-tax rate or allowing full and immediate expensing for all business investments emerged, it was the former that won out. This choice may seem small, but it speaks volumes about where supply-side priorities were, and where they could have been.

Full expensing is a tax cut for businesses planning to make new investments in the United States, while a corporate income-tax rate cut is an across-the-board windfall for capital, no matter its use. By allowing businesses to deduct their capital investments, full expensing better increases the value of investments that are tied to American labor, while a corporate income-tax rate cut increases the return to capital regardless of its country of origin or whether it will create American jobs.

The comparison is instructive because it shows how the tax bill might have put less focus on cutting the statutory corporate tax rate, but been at least equally focused on investment, wages, and the American worker. The two are not the same. Similarly, the amendment Senator Mike Lee (R., Utah) and I offered would have shifted the bill’s focus toward the immediate take-home pay of working-class families with children.

Both approaches are rooted in skepticism about the belief that no-strings-attached corporate tax cuts are always in the best interest of American workers and families.

This concern is especially valid given the realities of the 21st century. Big companies today aren’t what they were in the old economy. The cash windfall of a corporate tax cut can drive investment in multinational corporations’ foreign supply chains just as easily as it can to go to American factories and warehouses. And stock buybacks, by increasing the share value of foreign shareholders and driving new investment to its most productive use regardless of where or what that use might be, isn’t guaranteed to go fully to Americans’ paychecks. When this happens, it can encourage arbitrage, not American productivity.

We in the conservative movement need to stop viewing big companies like they’re all General Motors in the 1950s.

We in the conservative movement need to stop viewing big companies like they’re all General Motors in the 1950s. 

Likewise, not all new investment is created equal when it comes to boosting wages. Increasing technological advancement makes investment more likely to go into automated machines. And without a more balanced system of international trade, the jobs created to make these machines and design new artificial intelligence and robots will be made overseas, not here.

An updated framework for supply-side tax cuts would apply President Ronald Reagan’s great aphorism: Trust, but verify. We need an internationally competitive corporate tax rate, but the gains from corporate tax cuts should be geared to benefit Americans as much as possible.

Putting a little bit less priority on a blank-check corporate tax-rate cut, in order to increase the purchasing power and stability of working-class families by increasing the child tax credit, would have been a better guarantee for American families, as I said during the tax bill’s debate.

Targeting corporate tax cuts at new investment in the United States, instead of mere stock-market presence, would be a better guarantee for high-growth American companies and their workers. A territorial tax system that limits the ability of multinationals to arbitrage in low-tax foreign countries would be a better guarantee for reducing the American trade deficit.

Conservative principles still work. But they need to be applied to the characteristics of a new and very different economy. Globalization and technology have already disrupted the lives of millions of working Americans. Advances in automation and artificial intelligence are only going to exacerbate these trends. If conservatism is going to be relevant and attractive in the new economy, it needs to understand how much our economy has changed and address the opportunities and the challenges created by these developments.

Marco Rubio, the senior U.S. senator from Florida, is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Elizabeth Warren Is Not Honest

If you want to run for office, political consultants will hammer away at one point: Tell stories. People respond to stories. We’ve been a story-telling species since our fur-clad ancestors gathered around campfires. Don’t cite statistics. No one can remember statistics. Make it human. Make it relatable. ... Read More
National Review

Farewell

Today is my last day at National Review. It's an incredibly bittersweet moment. While I've only worked full-time since May, 2015, I've contributed posts and pieces for over fifteen years. NR was the first national platform to publish my work, and now -- thousands of posts and more than a million words later -- I ... Read More
Economy & Business

Andrew Yang, Snake Oil Salesman

Andrew Yang, the tech entrepreneur and gadfly, has definitely cleared the bar for a successful cause candidate. Not only has he exceeded expectations for his polling and fundraising, not only has he developed a cult following, not only has he got people talking about his signature idea, the universal basic ... Read More
Culture

Feminists Have Turned on Pornography

Since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the feminist movement has sought to condemn traditional sexual ethics as repressive, misogynistic, and intolerant. As the 2010s come to a close, it might be fair to say that mainstream culture has reached the logical endpoint of this philosophy. Whereas older Americans ... Read More
White House

The Impeachment Defense That Doesn’t Work

If we’ve learned anything from the last couple of weeks, it’s that the “perfect phone call” defense of Trump and Ukraine doesn’t work. As Andy and I discussed on his podcast this week, the “perfect” defense allows the Democrats to score easy points by establishing that people in the administration ... Read More
Elections

Democrats Think They Can Win without You

A  few days ago, Ericka Anderson, an old friend of National Review, popped up in the pages of the New York Times lamenting that “the Democratic presidential field neglects abundant pools of potential Democrat converts, leaving persuadable audiences — like independents and Trump-averse, anti-abortion ... Read More