The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The US should reform its Corporate Tax

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,318 times Debate No: 54417
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




The Debate

In this debate, I will argue that the American corporate tax rate should be reformed and lowered in order to benefit the economy and the government.


Round 1: Acceptance only
Round 2: Present arguments
Round 3: Refute opponent's arguments
Round 4: Make final cases/refutations and conclusion



All of the following arguments are made supposing thet the US in question is the United States of America
The United States of America should absolutely not reform its corporate tax rate beacause the current tax rate provides 9% of all of the total USA gouvernment revenue. The proposed tax reform would obviously lower that, for lowering it would not alter the ammount of companies that have reside in the USA or have their assets there or very little so, for the USA coprorate taxes could not rival those of other countries and dependencies such as the British Virgin Islands or Panama beacause lowering the corporate tax to that level would cripple the economy given that the American economy is much larger than that of those places. Lowering the corporate tax to lower rates would not work for these countries would still have the advantage and very few more companies would put their seats there and at the very most this would maintain USA corporate tax revenue the same as it is now.
Regarding loopholes, the law should not be corrected beacause that would require changing the whole US tax code. These reforms would take years to pass beacause said text is a very extensive one and it would cause massive political problems in the USA for this would be subject to much disagreement for the two parties and by that time companies will have found loopholes in the new texts and they would have to start over.
Debate Round No. 1


Really? You can't read the rules of the debate? (sigh)

Well, here's my case.

Laffer Curve

During the late 1970s, economist Arthur Laffer gave his name to the Laffer curve. The concept has existed before. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon came up with the the hypothesis of scientific taxation that lower rates generates higher revenues for the federal government. When the rate is higher, economic expansion and production is discouraged. In this case we are talking about the wealth of businesses who will grow less with a higher rate because they have to move more capital to taxation. When the tax rate is small, more capital is used on the business itself. The business grows and there is more corporate profits. More profits means more revenue for the corporation and that means more revenue for the federal government through a lower tax rate.

Laffer curve

Companies Move Overseas

Pfizer, the largest drug maker in the US, recently announced that it is moving its legal address to the UK because of the lower corporate tax rate. It is likely other businesses will the follow. The UK corporate tax rate is set to approach 20% by 2015. The current US corporate tax rate is 35% and that is a 15% difference for their profits. The US needs to lower its corporate tax rate in order to keep more businesses and gain more for the United States. As simple 10% cut from 35% to 25% puts on level with other nations. This will increase the competition of the American economy. At the same time, eliminating loopholes allows us to get more revenue from them.


1. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." The Heritage Foundation.
2. Giobanetti, Tom. "As Capital Flees, England is Texas, and the U.S. is California." RealClearMarkets.


If the USA corporate taxes were reformed not only would competition be hindered but severely hurt as the bigger companies would be more empowered and would have more money to invest and that would hinder small companies who would be crushed by this new weight that would be the lowered tax rates of the bigger companies and thus smaller companies would be hindered by these new huge assets. The bigger companies would have much more investment power and the smaller companies would have a little bit more, but these rates would be unrivaled by those of the bigger companies.
Moreover it would be quite unlikely for foreign companies to go to the US, for still a 20% corporate tax rate, although slightly lower than the EU average (21.34) would not be very attractive since that would require that the companies from the EU, whom I guess might be some potential targets of the movement move their legal residences to the US and that would exclude them from the EU subsidies. It would be very unlikely for target companies to be from the third world since the tax rates there are already pretty low or at the very least the tax codes are full of loopholes.
Debate Round No. 2


You provide no sources to prove that small businesses would be hindered by bigger businesses. Probably because it is not economically probable as entrepreneurs are always rising up to the occasion and becoming successful people. If anything, the expansion of large businesses means more competition between themselves, more expansion which means more jobs, and more production which means higher profits for them which in turn leads to higher corporate tax revenue as illustrated by the Laffer curve. Big business never goes unrivaled. There is always competition in a vast and large marketplace.

Subsidies are not good because that is crony capitalism. Also, remember that WE want businesses here for our own county and for our own economy. We want to eliminate deductions and put in a lower rate because businesses want higher profits, not lower ones. By creating business friendly environment in the USA we fix that problem. I have already sourced how it would be good for the government and the economy, so I have the facts out there. You still need to prove your points or else your case risks falling apart.


daltonslaw forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Forfeit = win


I give up.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by daltonslaw 7 years ago
Sorry for not really respecting the rules I'm kind of new to this page also I would like to note that I am pro-reform and I'm doing this for argument's sake.
Posted by 1Historygenius 7 years ago
Actually as a conservative I'm for that, I'm just arguing for reforming and lowering because I think that is more of a political reality.
Posted by Wylted 7 years ago
Ok, would you be okay with arguing to reform corporate tax so it's lower if I argue that no it should be eliminated?
Posted by Wylted 7 years ago
I wish I had time to debate this. I would argue that it should be eliminated. Oh well maybe next time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Subutai 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.