Free Trade distort corporate tax

Je ne sais pas, si vous souvenez du carnet que j’ai créé le :

Troisième facteur, la défiscalisation des entreprises.

Ce carnet expliquait comment la mondialisation permettait aux multinationales de faire du chantage fiscal aux pays.

Je vous l’invite à le relire.

Voici deux articles qui démontrent à quel point les pays ont de la difficulté à se sortir de ce chantage, c’est évident que si on réduit les impôts des sociétés, c’est la classe moyenne qui va écoper, raison de plus d’avoir libre-échange équitable.


Extrait de: America’s corporate tax nightmare, Financial Post, Terence Corcoran, February 23, 2011

High U.S. tax rates are distorting ­investment decisions

US Tops Corporate Tax rates

In his State of the Union address and in comments since, U.S. President Barack Obama has demonstrated a remarkable ability to talk around the corporate tax policy nightmare taking shape across America. Not only are U.S. corporate tax rates now essentially the highest in the world, other elements of U.S. tax policy are distorting investment decisions.

Much has been said about the fact that U.S. corporations are sitting on as much as US$2-trillion in cash.

But some new research suggests as much as US$1-trillion may be sitting on U.S. corporate books outside the United States, money that American businesses are reluctant to bring home to distribute or invest — because high U.S. corporate tax rates and rules discourage repatriation of foreign profits.

The President’s idea of corporate tax reform is to get out a shotgun and hunt down corporate loopholes that he and other Democrats claim are draining U.S. government coffers and undermining growth.

He was at it again last week, taking aim at his favourite corporate target: “We shouldn’t provide special treatment to the oil industry when they’ve been making huge profits,” he said, ignoring the fact that there are no special oil industry loopholes to be found. As for across-the-board cuts in U.S. corporate taxation, Mr. Obama said he wouldn’t sign on to any reductions in corporate tax rates until the existing loopholes are removed.

In Mr. Obama’s view, America needs high corporate tax rates to reduce astronomical deficits — a fiscal strategy that plays to the anti-corporate crowd that still seems to dominate the Obama adminstration. But here’s an idea: If the administration doesn’t like U.S. corporate interests influencing the debate, maybe they’ll take some guidance from a Canadian, Jack Mintz, head of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary.

In a paper released yesterday by the Cato Institute in Washington, Mr. Mintz produced the latest data on corporate taxation around the world. (À la suite de ce carnet).

For some countries, including Canada, the numbers look good. Since 2005, the marginal corporate tax rate on new capital investment has dropped by five  percentage points to 20.5%. In other countries, from Germany to Italy and Denmark, marginal corporate rates have been cut by as much as nine percentage points.

Vous voyez le chantage fiscal, si tu taxes trop, on va allez faire du business ailleurs, exemple la Chine entre autres.

As the nearby table shows, the result is an American disaster in the making. And as such, there is no reason for complacency in Canada. Even though Canadian corporate tax rates have dropped and are expected to continue to fall in coming years, the high U.S. corporate tax rate remains a threat to the health of the Canadian economy.

In a speech in Toronto yesterday, Mr. Mintz noted that Canada is part of a North American economic region that very much depends on U.S. economic expansion and success. Canada’s lower tax rate might provide a competitive advantage against the United States, but the gains from that advantage will be slim if the U.S. corporate tax rate remains outrageously uncompetitive with the rest of the world. “A poor economic environment in the United States can hurt Canada through trade. Canada and Mexico benefit from a competitive North American region.”

Un excellent point, même si le Canada réduit les taux d’impôts des sociétés, ça ne veut pas nécessairement dire que le Canada va en profiter, car notre principal client sont les États-Unis, et eux leurs taxes sont trop élevées.

If the U.S. fails to attract investment due to high marginal tax rates on corporate profits, Canada will lose out.

In political terms, Canadians should have as great an interest in pushing U.S. corporate tax reform as they have in lowering Canadian rates.

Bon Dieu ! du vrais lobbying de multinationale !

The perverseness of the U.S. high-tax regime was reinforced by a recent paper from the Sloan School of Management’s Michelle Hanlon. In the paper — The Real Effects of Accounting Rules: Evidence from Multinational Firms’ Investment Location and Profit Repatriation — Ms. Hanlon and others demonsrate that U.S. corporate tax rules and the world’s highest corporate tax rates shape U.S. corporate investment decisions.

The high marginal tax rate — almost 35% — is a problem in itself. But the United States is the only country in the world that taxes its corporations on the basis of world profits. Every dollar earned abroad must bear a 35% tax rate. If the profits are earned in Canada, the corporation would pay 20.5% to Canadian governments, but then be forced to pay 14.5% more when profits are distributed back to the United States.

To avoid paying that U.S. tax, corporations are allowed to defer payment and also keep the profits abroad, where the money continues to earn income at reduced foreign tax rates. The perverse effect is to promote cash hoarding by U.S. corporate interests abroad. Some say as much as US$1-trillion may be sitting offshore, tax deferred, as executives continue to make money without paying U.S. tax.

Mr. Obama may be hoping to get his hands on that cash storehouse to lower the U.S. deficit. But if he does, it would be a major blow to U.S. corporate balance sheets. As Jack Mintz suggests in his Cato report, closing loopholes isn’t the answer. “The aim of corporate tax reforms should be to create a system that has a competitive rate and is neutral between different business activities.” He called for a sharp drop in U.S. corporate rates of 10 percentage points — something that would be as good for Canadians as it would be for America.

Sauf, qu’il oublie qui va payer le manque à gagner,
 le pauvre peuple qui est déjà surtaxé.

Oui, Mme Alepin vous aviez drôlement raison, on peut très bien comprendre pourquoi votre entrevue a si mystérieusement été déclaré :

 

‘Non Grata’

 

Dans un monde fi­bre d'entraves économiques, les multinationales peuvent magasiner leur régime d'imposition et choisir le pays qui leur offre les taux d'imposition les plus avantageux.

 

Au fil des ans, cette dynamique a plongé les pays dans une concurrence féroce et a engendré une chute dramatique des taux d'imposi­tion applicables aux multinationales.

 

C’est la classe moyenne qui va écoper !

 

Cette crise, c’est la classe moyenne – celle des contribuables particuliers – qui la subira.

 

Car les gouvernements, dit-elle, ont les mains liées et sont incapables d’aller chercher ces milliards de dollars.

 

« Puisqu’on ne peut pas aller le chercher ce manque à gagner, les gouvernements sont pognés. Qui va payer ? Où va-t-on aller le chercher ? Pas chez les pauvres, ils ne paient pas d’impôts. Finalement c’est la classe moyenne qui va écoper, encore et plus que jamais », prédit-elle.


Extrait de : New Estimates of Effective Corporate Tax Rates on Business Investment, Duanjie Chen and Jack Mintz , Cato Institute,  February 2011

Effective corporate Tax

In his State of the Union address, President Obama discussed cutting America’s high corporate tax rate. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and congressional leaders are also interested in corporate tax reform.

Should Japan cut its corporate tax rate in April as planned, the U.S. statutory rate of about 40 percent—including federal and state taxes—will be the highest in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

This bulletin presents estimates of effective corporate tax rates on new capital investment for 83 countries. “Effective” tax rates take into account statutory rates plus tax-base items that affect taxes paid on new investment, such as depreciation deductions, inventory allowances, and interest deductions.

Effective corporate Tax World Wide

Our calculations also account for other taxes that affect investment, such as retail sales taxes on capital purchases and asset-based taxes.

We find that 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. Tax Rates on New Investment: The Global Picture Figure 1 summarizes our calculations of effective corporate tax rates on new business investment. The U.S. effective rate of 34.6 percent is far higher than the average of 33 OECD nations and the full group of 83 nations.

Only four countries had a higher effective corporate tax rate than the United States: Argentina, Chad, Brazil, and Uzbekistan. These countries are outliers in the global trend of cutting corporate tax rates to attract investment and promote economic growth.

The figure includes our estimates of the U.S. effective corporate tax rate under two options proposed by President Obama’s Fiscal Commission, headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. Unfortunately, the Bowles-Simpson reforms would make only modest progress in reducing the U.S. rate to competitive levels, as discussed below.

Many industrial and emerging countries have reduced their corporate tax rates over the last decade or so. The largest rate cuts were in Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Turkey, Egypt, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Lesotho, Mauritius, and Singapore.

America’s largest trading partner, Canada, cut its statutory corporate rate from 43 percent to 29 percent, which helped to bring down its effective rate from 44 percent to 21 percent, according to our calculations. Substantial cuts were also achieved in Australia, Belgium, China, Denmark, Finland, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. Taiwan cut its statutory rate from 25 percent to 17 percent in 2010, and now has an effective rate of just 10.9 percent.

A number of countries are initiating or phasing-in further corporate tax-rate cuts in coming years, including Australia, Canada, Ecuador, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In some countries, such as Israel and Japan, these are straight rate cuts. In other countries, such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom, rate cuts are being paired with base-broadening measures. When these reforms are in place, the average effective tax rate in 2014 will be 18.0 percent in the OECD and 17.4 percent among all 83 countries.

Table 1 shows our calculations of effective corporate tax rates for 83 countries. The calculations include both national and subnational corporate taxes in each country.


Vous comprenez maintenant, pourquoi je dis que le libre-échange est une utopie dysfonctionnelle.

Les deux intervenants qui prônent la mondialisation n’ont pas les mêmes buts

1.     Normalement le politicien est imputable à son peuple travaillant sur une limite géographique (province, États, pays).

2.    Tandis que le CEO de la multinationale est imputable aux actionnaires, donc maximisez le profit sur un terrain de jeu mondial.

Et oups, on a un sérieux problème,
une divergence d’objectif entre les deux.

Ø  Le premier veut faire travailler son peuple; 

Ø  Le second est maximiser son profit pour satisfaire les actionnaires.

On ne délocalise plus pour faire simplement du profit, mais pour faire le maximum de profit, on constate que des compagnies qui sont saines financièrement se délocalisent pour maximiser le rendement de leurs actionnaires.

Donc, les objectifs du libre-échange de nos deux protagonistes sont loin d’être harmonieux.

La mondialisation a créé cette nouvelle réalité économique, dans un monde libre d'entraves économiques, les multinationales magasinent leur régime d'imposition et choisir le pays qui leur offre les taux d'imposition la plus avantageuse. 

Au fil des ans, cette dynamique a plongé les pays dans une concurrence féroce et a engendré une chute dramatique des taux d'imposition applicables aux multinationales.

Donc, l'argent perçu en moins, c'est le peuple qui écope, c’est pour cette raison qu’il faut prôner libre-échange équitable.