IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/yor/yorken/20-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How to better align the U.K.’s corporate tax structure with national objectives

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Spencer
  • Peter Smith
  • Paulo Santos Monteiro

Abstract

Successive Chancellors have been keen to lower corporation tax to help UK business and attract inward direct investment. Starting with Nigel Lawson in his budget of 1984, the mainstream corporation rate has been progressively lowered and tax breaks for investment and other expenditures progressively withdrawn. However, it is now clear that these reforms have had untoward effects. They removed a bias towards investment but left a strong bias towards debt finance, which was accentuated by Gordon Brown’s abolition of Advance Corporation Tax (ACT) in the 1997 Budget. They have favoured service industry at the expense of capital-intensive manufacturing industry and so added to the imbalances in the economy caused by globalisation. Moreover, the latest literature on economic growth, reviewed in the Appendix, suggests that effect of industrial investment on productivity has been seriously underestimated. That is because the conventional analysis upon which these reforms have been based, focuses on the return on investment for the individual firm and neglects the benefits for the wider economy and in particular the gains from knowledge spillovers. These spillovers largely stem from the complementarities between R&D, innovation and investment and the way that new ideas and practices spread from organisations that invest and innovate to others. This synergy means that supporting capital investment can have the same effect on long-run growth as subsidizing R&D. However, because capital is easier to monitor than the production of intangible knowledge, supporting investment is less vulnerable to agency problems and gaming. Although the fiscal system recognises the importance of innovation for economic growth by supporting R&D, this is an argument for subsidising investment as well as research. Moreover, support for investment would help ensure that UK innovations build factories and jobs here rather than overseas. Moreover, by favouring debt over equity, the corporate tax system discourages knowledge creation. That is because intangible assets such as knowledge and expertise are difficult to finance with a corporate tax and capital structure that is tilted towards debt. Proposals for the reform of corporate taxation have aimed at achieving tax neutrality by removing the bias towards debt finance. However, these proposals neglect important innovation externalities, which mean that we should also be tilting tax relief towards investment. We would do this by using savings from reducing debt interest relief to restore capital allowances on industrial plant and machinery, which the empirical evidence shows, plays a key role in the growth of a knowledge-based economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Spencer & Peter Smith & Paulo Santos Monteiro, 2020. "How to better align the U.K.’s corporate tax structure with national objectives," Discussion Papers 20/02, Department of Economics, University of York.
  • Handle: RePEc:yor:yorken:20/02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/economics/documents/discussionpapers/2020/2002.pdf
    File Function: Main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Fernández-Villaverde, Jesús, 2012. "Optimal Capital Versus Labor Taxation with Innovation-Led Growth," Scholarly Articles 27755236, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    2. Heitor Almeida & Murillo Campello, 2007. "Financial Constraints, Asset Tangibility, and Corporate Investment," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 20(5), pages 1429-1460, 2007 12.
    3. Dechezlepretre, Antoine & Einiö, Elias & Martin, Ralf & Nguyen, Kieu-Trang & Reenen, John Van, 2016. "Do tax incentives for research increase firm innovation? An RD design for R&D, patents and spillovers," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 66428, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1991. "Quality Ladders in the Theory of Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(1), pages 43-61.
    5. Antoine Dechezlepretre & Elias Einio & Ralf Martin & Kieu-Trang Nguyen & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Do tax incentives for research increase firm innovation? An RD design for R&D," GRI Working Papers 230, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    6. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    7. Philippe Aghion & Stephen Bond & Alexander Klemm & Ioana Marinescu, 2004. "Technology and Financial Structure: Are Innovative Firms Different?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 2(2-3), pages 277-288, 04/05.
    8. Stephen Bond & Dietmar Harhoff & John Van Reenen, 2010. "Investment, R&D and Financial Constraints in Britain and Germany," NBER Chapters, in: Contributions in Memory of Zvi Griliches, pages 433-460, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Nir Jaimovich & Sergio Rebelo, 2017. "Nonlinear Effects of Taxation on Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(1), pages 265-291.
    10. Myers, Stewart C. & Majluf, Nicholas S., 1984. "Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 187-221, June.
    11. Dong Lee & Han Shin & René M. Stulz, 2016. "Why Does Capital No Longer Flow More to the Industries with the Best Growth Opportunities?," NBER Working Papers 22924, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Sabrina T. Howell, 2017. "Financing Innovation: Evidence from R&D Grants," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1136-1164, April.
    13. Bonds, Stephen R. & Devereux, Michael P., 1995. "On the design of a neutral business tax under uncertainty," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 57-71, September.
    14. Ufuk Akcigit & Douglas Hanley & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2022. "Optimal Taxation and R&D Policies," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(2), pages 645-684, March.
    15. Chamley, Christophe, 1986. "Optimal Taxation of Capital Income in General Equilibrium with Infinite Lives," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(3), pages 607-622, May.
    16. J. Bradford De Long & Lawrence H. Summers, 1991. "Equipment Investment and Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(2), pages 445-502.
    17. Howitt, Peter & Aghion, Philippe, 1998. "Capital Accumulation and Innovation as Complementary Factors in Long-Run Growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 111-130, June.
    18. Stewart C. Myers & Nicholas S. Majluf, 1984. "Corporate Financing and Investment Decisions When Firms Have InformationThat Investors Do Not Have," NBER Working Papers 1396, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Judd, Kenneth L., 1985. "Redistributive taxation in a simple perfect foresight model," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 59-83, October.
    20. repec:adr:anecst:y:2005:i:79-80:p:17 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "Optimal Taxation and R&D Policies," 2015 Meeting Papers 1533, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Charles Delmotte, 2021. "Simple rules and the Political Economy of Income Taxation: the strengths of a uniform expense rule," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 323-339, December.
    2. Steve Raymond & Lukas Schmid & Anastasios Karantounias & Mariano Croce, 2017. "A Tax Plan for Endogenous Innovation," 2017 Meeting Papers 109, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    3. Chetty, Raj & Bell, Alex & Jaravel, Xavier & Petkova, Neviana & Van Reenen, John, 2019. "Do tax cuts produce more Einsteins? The impact of financial incentives vs. exposure to innovation on the supply of inventors," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 102606, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Fabian ten Kate & Petros Milionis, 2019. "Is capital taxation always harmful for economic growth?," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 26(4), pages 758-805, August.
    5. Sabrina T. Howell & Filippo Mezzanotti, 2019. "Financing Entrepreneurship through the Tax Code: Angel Investor Tax Credits," NBER Working Papers 26486, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Ufuk Akcigit & John Grigsby & Tom Nicholas & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2018. "Taxation and Innovation in the 20th Century," NBER Working Papers 24982, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Ping-ho Chen & Angus C. Chu & Hsun Chu & Ching-chong Lai, 2019. "Optimal Capital Taxation in an Economy with Innovation-Driven Growth," Working Papers 201913, University of Liverpool, Department of Economics.
    8. Alex Bell & Raj Chetty & Xavier Jaravel & Neviana Petkova & John Van Reenen, 2019. "Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 647-713.
    9. He, Yiqing & Ding, Xin & Yang, Chuchu, 2021. "Do environmental regulations and financial constraints stimulate corporate technological innovation? Evidence from China," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    10. Gregor Schwerhoff & Ottmar Edenhofer & Marc Fleurbaey, 2020. "Taxation Of Economic Rents," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(2), pages 398-423, April.
    11. Zeng, Jinli, 2003. "Reexamining the interaction between innovation and capital accumulation," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 541-560, December.
    12. Gianluca Benigno & Luca Fornaro, 2018. "Stagnation Traps," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(3), pages 1425-1470.
    13. Marco Cozzi, 2018. "Optimal Capital Taxation with Incomplete Markets and Schumpeterian Growth," Department Discussion Papers 1803, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    14. Capolupo, Rosa, 2009. "The New Growth Theories and Their Empirics after Twenty Years," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 3, pages 1-72.
    15. Jiang, Kangqi & Chen, Zhongfei & Rughoo, Aarti & Zhou, Mengling, 2022. "Internet finance and corporate investment: Evidence from China," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    16. Barbara Annicchiarico & Valentina Antonaroli & Alessandra Pelloni, 2022. "Optimal factor taxation in a scale free model of vertical innovation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(2), pages 794-830, April.
    17. Óscar Afonso & Ana Maria Bandeira & Manuela Magalhães, 2017. "Effect of the Tax System ON R&D Intensity, Growth, Wages and Consumption Share," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(4), pages 271-291, December.
    18. Chen, Ping-ho & Chu, Angus C. & Chu, Hsun & Lai, Ching-chong, 2017. "Short-run and long-run effects of capital taxation on innovation and economic growth," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 207-221.
    19. Bishnu, Monisankar & Ghate, Chetan & Gopalakrishnan, Pawan, 2016. "Factor income taxation, growth, and investment specific technological change," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 133-152.
    20. Milani, Sahar & Neumann, Rebecca, 2022. "R&D, patents, and financing constraints of the top global innovative firms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 546-567.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:yor:yorken:20/02. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Paul Hodgson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deyoruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.