Georgia for FairTax | Free eBook Sep. 2014 | Page 16

FairTax Overview 40 35 Corporate Income Tax Rates in the OECD 30 Percentage 25 20 15 10 5 Switzerland Ireland Germany Canada Chile Czech Republic Hungary Poland Slovak Republic Greece Iceland Slovenia Turkey Estonia Luxembourg Korea Israel Austria Denmark Portugal Netherlands Finland United Kingdom Sweden Italy New Zealand Norway Australia Japan Mexico Spain Belgium France United States 0 Source : 2011 OECD Tax Database According to World Bank rankings, the U.S.' relative ranking on the "total tax cost" imposed on businesses has gone from bad to worse, falling from 118th in 2010 to 124th in 2011. The total tax cost expressed as a percent of before-tax profits is 46.8%.5 The U.S. effective corporate tax rate on new investment was 34.6 percent in 2010, which was the highest rate in the OECD and the fifth-highest rate among 83 countries. The average OECD rate was 18.6 percent, and the average rate for 83 countries was 17.7 percent.6 How did we arrive at this point? We arrived here because it appears that Congress would rather trade influence in doling out special interests tax breaks that reduce the tax base and raise marginal rates than hear the chorus of economists. In 1990, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average statutory combined corporate tax rate was 41.1 percent, higher than the U.S.’ rate of 38.7 percent. But while other nations have been racing over the past few decades to slash corporate tax rates to welcome multinational corporations, the U.S. has stagnated. Lowering marginal tax rates is part of a revolution in economic policy that swept the globe during the last two decades of the twentieth century. More than fifty nations significantly reduced their highest marginal tax rates on individual income. The U.S. sat on the sidelines. 5 The World Bank, Paying Taxes in 2011: The Global Picture, Table 4. Chen, D. and Mintz, J. "New Estimates of Effective Corporate Tax Rates on Business Investment." Tax and Budget Bulletin, No. 64, February 2011. 6 Page 16 of 4