Last updated on: 7/13/2017 2:13:51 PM PST


Does Lowering the Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate Create Jobs?

What do you think? Share your pro or con views and help us foster civil, intelligent discussion on important social issues. If you're looking to attack, harass, demean, or impersonate others, please go elsewhere. Read the rules on submitting comments at ProCon.org. Please note that the pro and con comments and thumbs up/down votes reflect the views of ProCon.org readers and not necessarily of ProCon.org or society in general. Remember to enter your email address so we can notify you if your comment gets posted. Thank you!

PRO (yes) Comments (5)

1,250 characters left

Notify me by email when someone replies to my comments
Also sign up for our free e-newsletters

Sort by: Best | Newest | Oldest

  • +5 +11 -6 Will Grocke Aug. 14, 2013
    "Many of the arguments against cutting corporate tax rates will reference historic rates and results; unfortunately the world economy has changed drastically in the past decade due to the U.S. decline and the Chinese growth. A more fair comparison would be to compare the U.S. to countries which have the growing economies we aspire to have and in all cases you will find our corporate tax rate is higher."
    1250 characters left
    • +1 +1 0 Liddabird Jul. 16, 2016
      "Where tax rates are progressive, rather than flat, the marginal rate is not the actual tax rate, but the highest rate on the uppermost tier of income. And, because of exemptions and deductions (skillfully applied through the legal departments of most businesses), not all income is subject to taxation. China's growth and development has mirrored our economic progress during the fledgling Industrial Period, and most of our industry has been relocated there because of our free-trade policies which allow imported goods into the US with few restrictions, thus driving wages down here as domestic companies struggle to compete. Cutting taxes on US companies is a temporary fix for the real problem--our inability to produce goods as "efficiently" as China. Tariffs and import duties, although traditionally employed to level the playing fields of domestic economies, are almost nonexistent in today's global marketplace. The Trans-Pacific Partnership will reduce barriers between countries even further. It's easy to see how China is winning this game because their companies provide poor salaries, few benefits and virtually no environmental standards. Yes, we COULD be like China, but then what?"
  • +1 +5 -4 Roger Borgen Nov. 11, 2015
    "Increasing or decreasing corporate taxes should be based on who, individually, bears the burden of those changes. Is it consumers, workers or owners? That is essential to determining the wisdom of corporate tax changes, but difficult to ascertain satisfactorily. The best approach would be to eliminate all corporate taxes and attribute corporate profits and losses to the shareholders, in the same manner as in the case of all other business entities, such as sole proprietorships, partnerships and LLCs. If the resulting total tax revenues fell short or exceeded expectations, individual rates could be adjusted to achieve the desired results with full knowledge of which taxpayers would bear the burden."
    1250 characters left
  • 0 +1 -1 Tim grenell Dec. 30, 2016
    "All businesses that use american patents pay taxes to the usa no matter where they are located"
    1250 characters left
  • -1 +2 -3 omer abdullah Mar. 29, 2016
    "it will benefit people that want make their own businesses because there will a lot of money because they don't need to pay a high amount of tax"
    1250 characters left
  • -1 +6 -7 Ken Magnuson Jun. 26, 2014
    "Lowering tax rates will definitely increase profitability and thereby boost business and increase the number of jobs available. In fact, abolishing taxes will increase the number of jobs even more. If we eliminate all taxes, corporate, income, sales, property, and so on, we can maximize the number of jobs available to Americans. Unfortunately, we would have to eliminate all government to do that. Lowering taxes sounds innocuous and very desirable, until you start thinking about what you would have to do without in order to cope with that income reduction."
    1250 characters left

CON (no) Comments (6)


1,250 characters left

Notify me by email when someone replies to my comments
Also sign up for our free e-newsletters

Sort by: Best | Newest | Oldest

  • +7 +7 0 Ellen Massaro Jul. 16, 2016
    "Just spelling out the controversy is a cop-out. There are statistics which demonstrate that investment in common resources when it costs less (when interest rates are low) provides jobs at relatively low cost (since fewer workers are in demand), and this helps cushion the impact of a stressed economy on both workers and smaller businesses, traditionally the least able to weather recessions. While large corporations and investors--both major political donors--benefit during times of economic stress due to consolidation and hedge bets, small independent businesses (recognized as the backbone of American business) feel the pinch and adapt by laying off. As a result of the Great Depression,, we saw how government can prime the economic pump by providing jobs when companies cannot afford to, and spending on infrastructure and social safety nets can act as baffles for the rough economic waters. There is a reason FDR was elected to $ TERMS. Presenting this issue as if it is a bona fide controversy is disingenuous. Also, global warming is real, and cigarettes cause cancer."
    1250 characters left
  • +6 +9 -3 Common Sense Oct. 22, 2014
    "The last time we had no deficit was under Bill Clinton, who raised taxes. This was after the Internet and other modern commerce innovations were in place, creating our modern economy. The solution to tax evasion is not to lower tax rates, but to close the loopholes. Last time I checked, Japanese companies like Sony and Nintendo are doing quite well despite the almost 40% effective tax rate."
    1250 characters left
  • +4 +11 -7 Not buying it Aug. 6, 2013
    "Some debates are tough. This one is not. Lowering taxes means more profit for shareholders and not more jobs for the rest of us. Anyone who believes the contrary is either a big business Republican or naïve. Businesses pay lower actual taxes than the posted rates thanks to loopholes and then they want the posted rates lowered and the loopholes widened. Don't believe the BS about job creation."
    1250 characters left
  • +3 +5 -2 omer albdullah Mar. 29, 2016
    "if they charge less taxes from the american citizens then there won't be enough money to pay the workers and there won't be any jobs available"
    1250 characters left
  • +2 +5 -3 Mr. Circumspect Dec. 10, 2015
    "Corporate taxes are really paid for by consumers, and are simply transferred to the IRS. Lower taxes means more money left in corporations for R&D, increase hiring, increase salaries, support for employee education, tuition assistance for employee's children, etc. Also, lower taxes could mean lower prices, which makes products more competitive. Once you really understand who really pays the taxes, you will begin to lobby for lower corporate taxes."
    1250 characters left
    • +1 +1 0 Ellen Massaro Jul. 16, 2016
      "No wise business hires because they CAN; they hire because they NEED to. Likewise, they provide benefits when it's necessary to compete for workers. Yes, there are a few who actively invest in their work forces (e.g., Costco, Google, etc.), but because most companies are publicly traded, and have a duty to maximize stock price by keeping "overhead" (benefits such as tuition assistance, expanded healthcare and pensions) low. With the exception of companies like Koch Industries, low corporate taxes just raises the profitability for investors (the political job-makers)."
  • -3 0 -3 Timgrenell Dec. 30, 2016
    "American citizens that innovate should not pay taxes
    Always have countries pay for american services
    Make all forign cars pay extra dr tax"
    1250 characters left