Point #4: A better approach could both increase revenue and encourage more investment
and innovation
Congress should be working on a tax reform that would genuinely improve the tax system—
increasing revenue while promoting economic growth wherever possible. I recently published a
paper as part of a broader project at The Hamilton Project that outlined the domestic components
of corporate reform that would achieve these goals (Furman 2020). In addition, addressing the
many ways that companies can still avoid taxes by shifting income and in some cases production
overseas should be a high priority.
The key insight motivating my proposal was that much of the economic efficiency associated
with the business tax code depends on the tax base and not on statutory tax rates. With a
reformed tax base that expands incentives for new investment as well as for R&D it is possible to
increase statutory tax rates in a way that raises more revenue from past investment decisions and
their future profit windfalls (i.e., the so-called “supernormal” return) while cutting the tax rate on
the portion of the return that businesses use in evaluating whether to make new investments or
undertake R&D (i.e., the so-called “normal” return). This is the opposite of the traditional tax
reform mantra to broaden the base and lower the rates. Instead, tax policy should improve the tax
base going forward, which would enable more efficient increases in tax rates.
My proposal has five elements: (i) allowing businesses to expense all of their investments in
equipment, structures, and intangibles while eliminating the net interest deduction; (ii) raising the
corporate rate to 28 percent; (iii) requiring large businesses to file as C corporations; (iv)
eliminating other corporate loopholes, including the so-called extenders; and (v) expanding the
research and experimentation tax credit. My paper was focused on the domestic aspects of
reform but the international aspects are also very important, with some specific proposals in
Clausing (2020) that are worth considering.
My proposal would encompass both business income that is currently taxed through the
corporate income tax as well as business income taxed through the individual income tax, which
is used for pass-through corporations like sole proprietors, partnerships, and S corporations.
Thus, the proposal addresses the taxation of business income broadly, and not just taxation of
C corporation income. Given the current ability of companies to choose which system they are
taxed under—an ability this proposal would remove—it is essential to consider business taxation
as a whole, and not just corporate tax reform by itself.
Using the model and parameters I developed with Barro, I estimated that the proposed reform
would increase the annualized GDP growth rate over the next decade by at least 0.2 percentage
point, increasing the long-run level of output in the economy by at least 5.8 percent (both relative
to current law).
In addition, if enacted in 2021 it would raise $300 billion in revenue from 2021
through 2030, not counting macroeconomic feedback, and $1.1 trillion with macroeconomic
This estimate just reflects changes in the cost of capital and associated changes in investment. It does not reflect
the fact that increases in R&D could also increase total factor productivity growth or the benefits that reducing the
debt-equity difference would have for macroeconomic stability and potentially the longer-run level of output as
well. As such, these growth estimates are a lower bound.