UK Corporation Tax Cuts Explained

This post may contain affiliate links. If you make a purchase through these links, we may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.

It’s a debate that never seems to go away, echoing through the halls of Westminster and popping up on the evening news. One side says, “Cut taxes on big businesses, and everyone will be better off!” They paint a picture of a booming Britain, with shiny new offices, more jobs, and money flowing like a river. The other side shakes its head, warning, “Cut their taxes, and you’re just making the rich richer while our schools and hospitals crumble!” They see a future of crumbling public services and a wider gap between the haves and have-nots.

So, who’s right?

It’s one of the biggest questions in modern economics, and the answer isn’t as simple as a slogan on a campaign poster. What really happens when a government decides to let the biggest companies keep more of their profits? Does it unleash a wave of prosperity that lifts all boats, or does it simply drain the public purse for the benefit of a few?

Forget the jargon and the political spin. Let’s unravel this properly. We’ll look at the big idea behind the tax cuts, see how it has played out here in the UK, and figure out what it actually means for you, your job, and your local community. Get ready for a journey into the engine room of the British economy.

First Things First: What on Earth is Corporation Tax?

Before we dive in, let’s get our heads around the key player in this story: corporation tax.

Think of it like income tax, but for companies instead of people. When you get your payslip, the government takes a slice of your earnings as income tax. In the same way, when a big company like Tesco, BP, or Barclays makes a profit at the end of the year, the government takes a slice of that profit. That slice is the corporation tax.

It’s important to remember it’s a tax on profits, not on the total amount of money a company makes (which is called revenue).

A Simple Analogy: Imagine you run a bakery. You sell £100,000 worth of bread and cakes in a year. That’s your revenue. But you had to pay for flour, sugar, electricity, and your staff, which cost you £70,000. Your profit is the £30,000 left over. Corporation tax is a percentage of that £30,000, not the whole £100,000.

This tax is a huge source of income for the government. The money raised helps pay for everything we rely on as a country: the NHS, our schools, the police, fixing potholes, and the armed forces. So, any decision to change it is a very big deal.

The Big Idea: Why Would a Government Want to Cut This Tax?

On the face of it, it seems odd. Why would the government willingly take less money from the richest companies? The argument in favour of cutting corporation tax rests on a powerful and attractive idea often called supply-side economics, or more famously, “trickle-down economics.”

Here’s the theory, step by step:

More Cash for Companies: If the government lowers the corporation tax rate from, say, 25% to 19%, big companies instantly have more money left over from their profits.
The Investment Spark: With this extra cash, the theory goes, companies won’t just sit on it. They’ll invest it to grow their business. They might build a new factory in Sunderland, invest in cutting-edge research in Cambridge, or upgrade all their computer systems.
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: This new investment creates jobs. The new factory needs builders and assembly line workers. The research lab needs scientists and technicians. The computer upgrade needs IT experts.
Higher Wages: With more companies competing to hire people, they might have to offer better wages to attract the best talent. This means more money in ordinary people’s pockets.
The Ripple Effect: When people have more jobs and better pay, they spend more money. They go out for meals, buy new cars, and go on holidays. This boosts other businesses, creating even more jobs and growth. The economy gets a shot in the arm.
Britain Becomes a Magnet: A low corporation tax rate also makes the UK look like a brilliant place for international companies to set up shop. A giant American tech firm or a German car manufacturer might choose to build its European headquarters in Manchester instead of Frankfurt, bringing even more investment and top-tier jobs to Britain.

Essentially, the argument is that a tax cut for big business isn’t a giveaway; it’s a clever investment in the whole economy. The pie gets bigger for everyone.

The Famous Laffer Curve: A Simple Idea on a Napkin

A key part of this thinking is the Laffer Curve, an idea famously sketched on a napkin by economist Arthur Laffer. It suggests a simple, powerful relationship between tax rates and tax revenue.

Imagine the government is a baker selling doughnuts.

If you set the tax rate at 0%, you collect no money. (Free doughnuts!)
If you set the tax rate at 100%, you also collect no money, because nobody would bother to work or run a business if the government took every penny of their profit. (The baker closes shop because there’s no point.)

The sweet spot, Laffer argued, is somewhere in the middle. He claimed that if tax rates are too high, they discourage people and businesses from working and investing, so the government actually collects less money. By cutting the tax rate, you could encourage so much more economic activity that the government’s total tax take would actually increase.

This is the golden promise of corporation tax cuts: a healthier economy and potentially more money for public services in the long run. It’s a very tempting idea for any politician.

A Trip Down Memory Lane: Britain’s Tumultuous Tax Tale

To understand where we are now, we need to look at where we’ve been. The UK’s corporation tax rate has been on a rollercoaster ride for decades.

The Post-War Years: Back in the 1950s and 60s, corporation tax rates were high, often over 40% and sometimes topping 50%. The thinking was that businesses that did well in the UK should contribute a hefty amount to rebuilding the country and funding the new welfare state.
The Thatcher Revolution (1980s): Margaret Thatcher’s government, and particularly her Chancellor Nigel Lawson, were big believers in the supply-side theory. They argued that high taxes were strangling British enterprise. In a series of bold moves, they slashed the main rate of corporation tax from 52% in 1982 all the way down to 35% by 1988. This was a seismic shift designed to make Britain more competitive.
New Labour’s Approach (1997-2010): When Tony Blair and Gordon Brown came to power, they didn’t reverse the trend. They broadly accepted the idea that Britain needed competitive business taxes. They continued to cut the main rate, bringing it down to 30% and then to 28%.
The Osborne Era (2010-2016): This is when the policy went into overdrive. Chancellor George Osborne made cutting corporation tax a centrepiece of his economic plan. His goal was to create the “most competitive tax system in the G20.” Between 2010 and 2016, he chopped the rate from 28% down to just 20%, with further cuts planned.
The Truss Experiment (2022): In her brief but explosive time as Prime Minister, Liz Truss and her Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng tried to double down. They announced they would not only cancel a planned rise in corporation tax but would also consider cutting it further. Their “mini-budget” was a pure, undiluted bet on the Laffer Curve theory. The financial markets took fright, the pound plummeted, and the policy was reversed within weeks in a spectacular political implosion.
Today: After the Truss fiasco, the government went ahead with the planned rise. The main rate of UK corporation tax now stands at 25% for companies with profits over £250,000. For smaller companies, the rate is lower, at 19%. This puts the UK somewhere in the middle of the pack compared to other major economies.

This history shows a clear trend for over 40 years: a relentless drive downwards, based on the belief that a lower rate is a better rate. But has it actually delivered on its promises?

The Great Debate: Does It Actually Work?

This is where things get really messy. Economists, politicians, and business leaders are fiercely divided on whether cutting corporation tax actually works as advertised. Let’s look at the evidence for and against.

The “For” Camp: Arguments That Tax Cuts Are a Powerful Tonic

Supporters of lower corporation tax point to several key pieces of evidence.

It Attracts Foreign Cash

This is perhaps the strongest argument. Global companies have a choice about where to base their operations. A low tax rate can be a powerful lure.

The Classic Example: Ireland. Our neighbour has had a rock-bottom corporation tax rate of 12.5% for years. The result? A huge number of the world’s biggest tech and pharmaceutical companies, like Apple, Google, Facebook (Meta), and Pfizer, have made Ireland their European home. This has created thousands of high-skilled, well-paid jobs and transformed the Irish economy. Supporters say: “We need a slice of that pie for Britain!”

It Can Encourage Investment

When companies have more money, they have more to spend. While the evidence can be debated, there are periods where tax cuts have coincided with rises in business investment. The idea is that even if only a fraction of the tax cut is spent on new buildings, machinery, and research, that’s still a net positive for the economy that wouldn’t have happened otherwise.

It Stops Companies from Leaving

In a globalised world, British companies can, and sometimes do, move their headquarters abroad to a country with lower taxes. This is known as “inversion.” By keeping our tax rate competitive, the argument goes, we keep British champions like AstraZeneca and Diageo headquartered here in the UK, protecting jobs and ensuring their top-level decisions are made in Britain.

The “Against” Camp: Arguments That Tax Cuts Are a Costly Gamble

Sceptics, however, argue that the reality is far less rosy. They claim the promised benefits often fail to appear, while the costs are very real.

The Money Doesn’t “Trickle Down” – It Gushes Up

This is the central criticism. Instead of investing their tax savings in new factories and jobs, critics say many companies do two other things instead:

Share Buybacks: The company uses the extra cash to buy back its own shares from the stock market. This reduces the number of shares in circulation, which pushes up the price of the remaining ones. It’s a great way to make shareholders richer, but it doesn’t create a single new job.
Dividend Payments: The company hands the cash directly to its shareholders as a bonus payout, known as a dividend. Again, this rewards investors (who are often wealthy individuals or pension funds) but doesn’t necessarily translate into investment in the real economy.

Analogy: It’s like a parent giving their teenager £20 to buy books for their A-Levels, but the teenager spends it on video games instead. The money has been spent, but not in the way that was intended to help their future.

Studies from organisations like the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) have often found it hard to draw a straight, strong line between corporation tax cuts and a surge in investment. Business investment in the UK was disappointingly weak for much of the 2010s, precisely when corporation tax was being slashed.

It Blows a Hole in the National Budget

This is a simple matter of arithmetic. A lower tax rate means less money coming into the Treasury, at least in the short term. Each percentage point cut from the main rate of corporation tax costs the government billions of pounds per year.

That money has to be found from somewhere. It means either:

Cutting public spending: Less money for the NHS, leading to longer waiting lists. Less money for schools, leading to bigger class sizes. Less money for local councils, leading to fewer libraries and bin collections.
Increasing other taxes: Raising VAT, National Insurance, or income tax, which directly hits ordinary families.
Borrowing more: This adds to the national debt, and the interest payments on that debt are a dead weight on the economy for generations to come.

Critics argue that the promised Laffer Curve effect—where tax cuts lead to more revenue—rarely happens in practice for corporation tax. The OBR, the UK’s independent economic forecaster, consistently projects that cutting corporation tax will lead to the government having less money, not more.

It Fuels a “Race to the Bottom”

When the UK cuts its tax rate, other countries feel pressured to cut theirs to stay competitive. This can lead to a global “race to the bottom,” where every country tries to undercut the others, gradually eroding the tax base for governments everywhere. This is why there has been a major recent international effort, led by the OECD, to establish a global minimum corporation tax rate of 15%, to try and put a floor on this competition.

It Can Make Inequality Worse

If the main beneficiaries of tax cuts are company shareholders and top executives (through bonuses linked to profit), while public services that benefit everyone are cut, it can lead to a wider gap between the richest and the rest of society. The rewards flow to the owners of capital, not to the workers.

Case Study: The Osborne Experiment (2010-2016)

The period when George Osborne was Chancellor is the perfect real-world test case for the UK. He cut the main rate of corporation tax from 28% to 20%. So, what happened?

Did it boost investment? Not really. Business investment remained stubbornly low for years after the 2008 financial crisis and didn’t boom in the way supporters had hoped. Many other factors, like Brexit uncertainty and the state of the global economy, seemed to be more important for business decisions than the tax rate.
Did it attract foreign companies? Yes, to some extent. The UK remained a popular destination for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). However, it’s hard to separate the effect of the tax rate from other advantages the UK has, like the English language, a skilled workforce, and its time zone.
What was the cost? The cuts in corporation tax revenue were a major contributor to the government’s budget deficit. This was one of the reasons used to justify the deep “austerity” cuts to public services that defined this period.

The verdict on the Osborne experiment is mixed, but it certainly wasn’t the silver bullet for the economy that was promised.

What Does All This Mean for You and Me?

This isn’t just a theoretical debate for economists in ivory towers. The level of corporation tax has real, tangible effects on our daily lives.

Your Job: The dream is that tax cuts lead to a company building a new office in your town, creating jobs. The reality is that for most people, the link is very indirect. A company’s decision to hire or fire is usually driven by customer demand and the general health of the economy, not the corporation tax rate alone.
Your Wages: The theory says wages should go up as companies invest and grow. But the evidence from the last decade in the UK is that wage growth has been very weak, even as corporation tax fell. The extra profits often went to shareholders, not into pay packets.
Your Public Services: This is the most direct impact. A £10 billion reduction in corporation tax revenue is £10 billion that can’t be spent on hiring more nurses, teachers, or police officers. The state of your local A&E, the size of your child’s class, and the quality of your roads are all directly linked to the amount of tax the government can collect.
Your Pension: This is a more complex one. Many of us have our pension savings invested in the stock market. When companies pay out higher dividends (thanks to tax cuts), the value of those pension pots can grow. So, you might indirectly benefit, but this has to be weighed against the potential cuts to public services you rely on today.

So, What’s the Verdict?

After looking at all the evidence, it’s clear that cutting corporation tax is not a magic wand. The idea that you can slash the rate and sit back while a wave of prosperity washes over the country is, sadly, a fantasy.

The reality is a series of complex trade-offs.

A lower tax rate might attract some extra investment from overseas and persuade some UK firms to stay here. But the effect is often smaller than promised.
A lower tax rate definitely means the government has less money to spend in the short-to-medium term. This creates tough, painful choices about what to cut or which other taxes to raise.
The benefits, when they do appear, often flow to shareholders, while the costs—in the form of squeezed public services—are felt by everyone.

The most sensible conclusion is that the corporation tax rate is just one tool in the government’s economic toolbox. Its effectiveness depends entirely on how and when it’s used. A modest tax cut during a global boom might have a different effect than a huge one during a period of uncertainty.

Ultimately, deciding the right level for corporation tax isn’t just a question of economics; it’s a question of values. What kind of country do we want to be? Do we prioritise being the most attractive location for global capital, even if it means less funding for public services? Or do we believe that the biggest and most profitable companies should pay a larger share to support the society that helps them succeed?

There’s no easy answer. But by understanding the real mechanics behind the slogans, we can all have a more informed say in that crucial debate.

The Great Corporation Tax Conundrum: What Really Happens When We Cut Taxes for Big Companies?

First Things First: What on Earth is Corporation Tax?

The Big Idea: Why Would a Government Want to Cut This Tax?

The Famous Laffer Curve: A Simple Idea on a Napkin

A Trip Down Memory Lane: Britain’s Tumultuous Tax Tale

The Great Debate: Does It Actually Work?