Restricting companies from moving abroad is nosubstitute for corporate-tax reform
限制公司出境并不能成為公司稅改革的替代品
ECONOMIC refugees have traditionally lined up to getinto America. Lately, they have been lining up to leave. In the past few months, half a dozenbiggish companies have announced plans to merge with foreign partners and in the processmove their corporate homes abroad. The motive is simple: corporate taxes are lower inIreland, Britain and, for that matter, almost everywhere else than they are in America.
In Washington, DC, policymakers have reacted with indignation. Jack Lew, the treasurysecretary, has questioned the companies'patriotism and called on Congress to outlaw suchtransactions. His fellow Democrats are eager to oblige, and some Republicans are willing tolisten.
The proposals are misguided. Tightening the rules on corporate “inversions”, as these movesare called, does nothing to deal with the reason why so many firms want to leave: America hasthe rich world's most dysfunctional corporate-tax system. It needs fundamental reform,not new complications.
America's corporate tax has two horrible flaws. The first is the tax rate, which at 35% is thehighest among the 34 mostly rich-country members of the OECD. Yet it raises less revenuethan the OECD average thanks to myriad loopholes and tax breaks aimed at everything frommachinery investment to NASCAR race tracks. Last year these breaks cost $150 billion inforgone revenue, more than half of what America collected in total corporate taxes.
The second flaw is that America levies tax on a company's income no matter where in the worldit is earned. In contrast, every other large rich country taxes only income earned within itsborders. Here, too, America's system is absurdly ineffective at collecting money. Firms do nothave to pay tax on foreign profits until they bring them back home. Not surprisingly, many donot: American multinationals have some $2 trillion sitting on their foreign units'balance-sheets,and growing.
All this imposes big costs on the economy. The high rate discourages investment and loopholesdistort it, because decisions are driven by tax considerations rather than a project's economicmerits. The tax rate companies actually pay varies wildly, depending on their type of businessand the creativity of their lawyers: some pay close to zero, others the full 35%.
Twenty years ago inversions were rare. But as other countries chopped their rates andAmerica's stayed the same, the incentive to flee grew. Until a decade ago Bermuda and othertax havens were the destination of choice, until Congress banned inversions where less than20% of the company changed hands. Democrats have proposed expanding that prohibitionto any transaction where less than 50% of the company changes hands—so an Americancompany that bought a smaller foreign firm could not reincorporate abroad if its originalshareholders remained in charge. Such a ban would be at best a temporary palliative. AnAmerican company paying higher taxes than its foreign competitors has a powerful incentive tofind a way around the rules. Consultants are already coming up with dodges in case thisproposal becomes law.
The real solution is to lower the corporate rate, eliminate tax breaks and move America froma worldwide system to a territorial one. Barack Obama has proposed a reform that cuts therate to 28% but keeps the worldwide reach. Dave Camp, a Republican congressman, hasplumped for 25%, the OECD average, and a shift to a territorial system, instead.
It should be possible to bridge the differences. But both sides have tied the subject to otherissues. Mr Obama insists that corporate-tax reform must also raise more money to spend onthings like public infrastructure, which the Republicans oppose; they, in turn, want to packageit with cuts in personal tax rates, which Mr Obama is loth to accept. Thus, nothing happens.
The two sides should drop their conditions and hammer out a stand-alone corporate-taxreform that reduces the rate and broadens the base. Until then, expect the line-up ofcorporate migrants to grow.