The corporate tax cuts are dead; long live tax reform
2.1
The committee welcomes the government's decision not to proceed with the
second stage of the enterprise tax plan.
2.2
Evidence provided to this inquiry, extensive debate in the Senate
chamber, and wider discourse in the public arena, did not clearly articulate
how a reduction in the corporate tax rate would directly lead to higher wages
and better economic outcomes for the majority of the Australian population.
Indeed, the case for corporate tax cuts made by the government and its
advocates, including the Business Council of Australia (BCA) and its members, was
tenuous at best and did not convince the Senate crossbench or the general
public that it should be supported.
2.3
Professor Peter Swan considered the link between corporate tax cuts and
wage increases was not clearly established:
The plan to reduce corporate taxes and therefore indirectly
through capital deepening investment leading to higher demand for labour and
higher wages is an extremely roundabout process and in my view is unlikely to
happen to any great extent in this instance.[1]
2.4
Dr Richard Denniss from The Australia Institute supported this
conclusion:
If the purpose of paying higher wages is to spend
shareholders' money as carefully as you can to attract the staff you need to
make as much profit as you can, then why, when you could get a windfall gain in
the form of lower taxes, would you take your shareholders' money and sprinkle
it over your workforce after you've spent ten years of not doing that?[2]
2.5
The BCA could not provide the committee with any demonstrable evidence
that corporate tax cuts would boost gross national income and wages for
non-executive employees. Mr Warwick Smith from Per Capita Australia noted that
the BCA did not use academics to support the case for tax cuts:
They don't cite academics because the academics are saying,
'Well, you know, we can cut taxes, and, yes, there's an incentive for greater
investment, but there's currently a disconnect between labour productivity and
wage outcomes. Historically, we have had a pretty strong relationship between
labour productivity and wages, but in recent years that relationship has
broken, so we might get investment and we might increase labour productivity,
but, on recent data, it's likely that that will result simply in greater
profits rather than a flow-through, necessarily, to wages.'[3]
2.6
Further, many of the corporations that signed the BCA Commitment and
attended the public hearings could not readily give examples of actual investments
that would potentially go ahead with the reduced corporate tax rate that
otherwise would not have met the investment criteria required to proceed.
2.7
Arguments were made by some stakeholders that Australia needs to reduce
the corporate tax rate to remain an internationally competitive destination for
capital investment. However, while corporate tax rates are an important factor,
the committee heard from numerous stakeholders, including companies which
signed the BCA Commitment, that a variety of other factors—including a
developed economy, stable government and educated workforce—were also
considered when large multinationals make investment decisions between options
in different countries. The Tax Justice Network Australia cited the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD's) perspective on foreign
direct investment (FDI):
According to the OECD there is broad agreement that a low
host country tax level cannot compensate for a generally weak or unattractive
FDI environment...Several large OECD countries with relatively high tax rates are
very successful in attracting FDI, suggesting that market size, non-tax factors
and taxable location-specific profits are particularly important in attracting
FDI.[4]
2.8
Several stakeholders examined the effect of and motivations for reducing
the corporate tax rate in the United States. Ms Emma Dawson from Per Capita
Australia commented on the effect of the tax cuts in the United States:
The US is often cited as an example of why we should cut
corporate taxes, but there's very little evidence coming out of the US that
those tax cuts have flowed through to wage growth at all.[5]
2.9
Similarly, Mr David Richardson from The Australia Institute also pointed
to evidence from the United States that indicated increases in company
profitability primarily went towards stock buybacks and dividend increases:
This inquiry is being held in the shadow of the US company
tax cuts, and now we're starting to see some results from those. The promises
of investment, employment and wage increases haven't turned out the way they
were promised; instead, we've seen massive expenditure on share buybacks and
increases in dividends...[6]
2.10
Mr Warwick Smith from Per Capita Australia also highlighted some unique company
behaviour underlying the push for a corporate tax cut in the United States:
...an important factor in US corporate tax cuts is the fact
that there are many US companies who have huge piles of cash sitting in
offshore tax havens. Part of the motive for reducing the tax [rate] there was
to repatriate some of that cash. It's just not the case here [in Australia]; we
don't have the same situation.[7]
2.11
Importantly, any reduction in the corporate tax rate would directly reduce
government revenue and put into jeopardy any projected budget surplus over the
forward estimates. Successive budgets over the last five years have
consistently projected a budget surplus without ever achieving such an outcome.
Consequently, broad based corporate tax cuts which largely benefit foreign
investors do not represent a fiscally prudent approach to economic management when
net government debt has yet to peak. Ms Danielle Wood from the Grattan
Institute contended that:
...reducing tax revenue during a period when the budget is
still in deficit...will create further pressures. Sustained budget
deficits...[limit] our capacity for future borrowings and for governments to
respond to adverse economic shocks.[8]
2.12
Greater productivity benefits, and associated wage increases, are more likely
to come from targeted measures to boost investment—such as research and
development incentives and capital deepening—rather than broad corporate tax
cuts. The Grattan Institute noted that targeted approaches could also have a
smaller impact on the budget:
These schemes are cheaper than a company tax cut because they
only subsidise new investment, they do not provide a windfall gain on
historical investments.[9]
2.13
The committee notes that following the stalling of the government's 2015 Re: think tax reform consultation process, subsequent tax reform
proposals—involving corporate income tax, personal income tax and
superannuation for example—have not been adequately explained or presented by
the government in the context of a broader tax reform agenda. Ms Wood from the
Grattan Institute noted that the final report for the review into Australia's
Future Tax System (the Henry Review):
...had a whole lot of broader recommendations about how you
change the tax mix in order to grow the size of the economy. We [The Grattan
Institute] certainly would be a lot more comfortable in a world where you are
talking about that kind of tax reform package as opposed to pulling a single
lever.[10]
2.14
Instead of considering the corporate tax cuts in isolation, what
Australia needs is a comprehensive and integrated plan to reform the tax and
transfer system in way that will grow the economy while also addressing rising
inequality. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is cited by The
Australia Institute as cautioning against the narrow pursuit of economic
growth:
...it would be a mistake to focus on growth and let inequality
take care of itself, not only because inequality may be ethically undesirable
but also because the resulting growth may be low and unsustainable.[11]
2.15
Similarly, Dr Shumi Akhtar from the University of Sydney Business School
argued that:
A thorough investigation of how the tax system interacts with
and affects its micro and macroeconomic systems (e.g. through education,
housing affordability, healthcare, infrastructure improvement, research
innovation and education, employment, climate, immigration, etc), financial
system (e.g. foreign trade and foreign direct investment) and inequality
(gender pay gap, ethnicity/cultural pay gap, homelessness, tax policy on immigrants
who left their capital in their home country, tax policy on retirees/pensioners
etc) is sorely needed before making a conclusion as all of these factors
contribute to economic growth...[12]
2.16
In conclusion, the Commitment to the Senate by the BCA was non-binding
and did not provide any degree of confidence that the benefits of corporate tax
cuts would be shared with non-executive employees through higher wages. The
committee is surprised that it has taken the government so long to realise that
the general public are not in favour of giving significant tax cuts to
multinationals and foreign investors. Even the Governor of the Reserve Bank of
Australia considered that it would be a mistake to lower corporate tax rates if
it comes at the expense of higher budget deficits.[13]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page