Show the Working

Reduce Corporation Tax and raise profit threshold

Reform UK · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Reduce Corporation Tax and raise profit threshold” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Tax & the money you keep — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

Cutting corporation tax and raising the profit threshold means business owners, especially SME owners, keep more of their profits — that is a direct gain in take-home money for over a million small firms. The catch is that ordinary employees only benefit if companies pass savings on as higher wages, which past evidence suggests is partial and slow.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: How much of the corporation tax saving is passed through to employees as higher wages versus retained by shareholders, and whether dynamic revenue recovery (investment/growth) offsets any need for compensating tax rises elsewhere.

Our reading: O11 asks about money in households' pockets. Corporation tax is paid by companies, but its incidence falls on business owners (as reduced profit available for dividends or reinvestment) and, partially, on workers (through wages). The policy has two direct O11 mechanisms. First, lifting the threshold to £100,000 removes CT entirely for over 1.2 million SME owners on modest profits; those owners are households, and this is a direct, immediate increase in the money their businesses retain — a genuine O11 improvement. Second, cutting the main rate from 25% to 20% (and later 15%) benefits larger profitable companies; some of this saving flows to shareholders, and potentially to employees via the wage channel evidenced by HMRC modelling. Both channels point in the same direction for O11: more money kept. The distributional picture matters: the direct beneficiaries are predominantly business owners and shareholders, not typical wage-earners. The wage pass-through is real but partial and lagged, and past rate cuts (2010–2016) did not straightforwardly raise wages at scale without other structural factors. The IFS and Tax Policy Associates flag very large fiscal costs (£14–40+ billion), which could eventually force compensating tax rises that would reverse the O11 gain — but that secondary effect belongs on O12, not here. On the evidence provided, the direction for O11 is improves for business owners and potentially for employees via wages, with moderate magnitude given the scale of firms affected and the size of the rate cuts. Confidence is moderate because the wage pass-through is projected, not certain, and the distributional spread is uneven.

Public finances & the next generation — Hurts

major · moderate confidence

Cutting corporation tax rates from 25% to 15% and lifting the profit threshold would cost tens of billions in lost revenue each year, and the policy's own costings appear to significantly understate that gap. Unless growth effects are much larger than historical evidence suggests, a substantial unfunded hole in public finances is the most likely result.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: How much of the revenue loss is genuinely offset by increased investment, wages, and corporate activity — historical UK evidence suggests partial but not full self-financing, and the IFS disputes Reform's own costing figures.

Our reading: The policy commits to a staged CT rate cut from 25% to 15% — a 10 percentage point reduction — plus a threshold lift that frees over 1.2 million SMEs. However, since 66% of liable companies already contribute only 4% of CT receipts, the main fiscal impact is the rate cut hitting larger firms. The revenue cost is large and disputed upward: Tax Policy Associates put the 25%-to-20% step alone at £14.2bn, and the IFS says Reform's own £18bn whole-package estimate is less than half the likely cost of just the 15% rate. That points to an unfunded gap potentially exceeding £20–30bn annually once fully phased in. The policy's implicit reliance on dynamic self-financing is not supported by the evidence provided. HMRC modelling (2013) suggests 45–60% of lost revenue could be recovered through economic activity — but the IFS notes that when CT was cut between 2010–2016, revenue held up largely because of base-broadening and sectoral recoveries, not because cuts paid for themselves. The OBR similarly attributed stability to tightened allowances. No comparable base-broadening or offsetting measures are stated in this policy. Absent the policy, CT continues to raise ~£80bn annually and the debt path is not materially worsened by the status quo. The marginal effect of this policy is a large, ongoing revenue shortfall. Even accepting partial self-financing at the top of HMRC's 2013 range (60%), a cut of this magnitude would leave tens of billions unfunded — financing current consumption (public services) through borrowing, worsening the long-run debt path. The combined picture — major understated costing, disputed self-financing, no stated offset measures — points to a major worsening of public finances on a long-term horizon.

Prosperity & living standards — Mixed picture

moderate · moderate confidence

Cutting corporation tax could boost business investment and productivity over the long run, but the fiscal cost is very large and disputed, and the evidence that headline rate cuts alone reliably deliver growth is mixed. The net effect on living standards depends heavily on whether revenue losses are offset elsewhere.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the revenue shortfall (IFS estimates far exceed the policy's own costing) would force spending cuts to public services or tax rises elsewhere that cancel out private-sector gains.

Our reading: The policy has two components with different O13 implications. First, lifting the profit threshold to £100,000 primarily frees smaller SMEs from a filing and payment burden. But the measurable baseline shows the vast majority of small companies already pay very little tax (66% pay under £10,000, contributing only 4% of receipts), so the direct stimulus to investment from this element is limited. Second, the headline rate cuts from 25% to 15% are the economically significant lever. HMRC's own 2013 modelling provides the best available evidence of a real positive supply-side effect: investment up 2.5–4.5%, GDP up 0.6–0.8% in the long run, with higher wages and consumption — genuine O13 gains. However, those gains are long-term and partial. Against them, the fiscal cost is very large and disputed: IFS analysis suggests the policy's own costing is less than half the likely true cost, and a cut to 20% alone could cost £14.2 billion. Prior UK CT cuts did not self-finance through dynamic effects alone; base-broadening and external factors were necessary. The OBR has also revised down investment estimates from CT reforms. Furthermore, the UK's ungenerous investment allowances mean the effective tax rate on investment may remain middling even after headline cuts, blunting the transmission mechanism. The net O13 verdict is therefore mixed: there is credible evidence of a real long-term investment and productivity benefit (the mechanism is not merely theoretical — HMRC modelled it at scale), but the large underfunded fiscal cost creates a genuine countervailing risk. If the shortfall forces public spending cuts — the IFS notes stated spending commitments are already underfunded — the drag on public capital, skills, and healthcare could offset private-sector gains. The near-term effect is negligible to mildly positive for SMEs directly relieved; the long-term effect is positive on investment but contingent on fiscal offset.

Inequality & fair shares — Hurts

moderate · moderate confidence

The headline rate cut from 25% to 15% primarily benefits the shareholders of large profitable companies, who are disproportionately wealthy, while the very large revenue cost risks crowding out the public services and transfers that narrow inequality. The SME threshold change helps smaller business owners but is dwarfed by the distributional impact of the main rate cut.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: How much of the CT cut flows through to workers as higher wages versus to shareholders as higher returns, and whether the fiscal gap is filled by spending cuts or other taxes that fall differently across the income distribution.

Our reading: The distributional impact of this policy on the gap between the richest and the rest is likely negative, for two reinforcing reasons. First, the structure of who pays CT means the main rate cut overwhelmingly benefits large profitable companies. The evidence shows that companies paying under £10,000 in CT collectively contribute only 4% of total receipts, meaning the vast bulk of the £14–40bn revenue giveaway flows to companies with large profits. The shareholders of such companies are concentrated among wealthier households. The SME threshold change benefits a broad base of smaller business owners, but this component is marginal relative to the main rate cut in fiscal terms. Second, the scale of the revenue cost — which independent analysts place far above the policy's own costing — creates a major fiscal gap. If this gap constrains public spending on services (health, education, transfers) that are progressive in their incidence, the net effect on the income and wealth distribution worsens further. The IFS has already noted that spending commitments within the same platform would not be nearly enough, suggesting the fiscal space for redistribution narrows materially. Dynamic effects (investment, wage spillovers, growth) could partially offset these distributional concerns, and HMRC modelling does show some recovery of revenues through economic activity. However, the IFS cautions that past CT cuts did not pay for themselves through the mechanism claimed; other factors drove revenue trends. The OBR has similarly revised down investment estimates from rate cuts. These dynamic offsets are therefore projected and uncertain, not established. E19 (TUC) is an advocacy source and has been down-weighted; the core distributional logic rests on the structural evidence about CT incidence and revenue concentration. The direction is 'worsens' at moderate magnitude, with moderate confidence given genuine uncertainty about the wage-versus-shareholder pass-through and the fiscal response.

Good work & fair pay — Mixed picture

minor · low confidence

Cutting corporation tax could give SMEs more cash to hire staff or raise wages, but the fiscal cost is large and disputed, and there's no guarantee the gains reach workers rather than owners or shareholders. The real-world wage and job effect is genuinely uncertain.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether businesses pass tax savings on to workers through higher wages and jobs, or retain them as profits — and whether public spending cuts needed to fund the tax reduction harm workers indirectly.

Our reading: The policy's primary mechanism for improving O4 is the supply-side channel: reduce the tax burden on businesses, especially SMEs, freeing up cash that could be reinvested in hiring, wages, or conditions. HMRC modelling from a comparable 2013 cut does project higher labour demand and wages, supporting a plausible improvement. The threshold lift genuinely targets very small businesses, many of which are already struggling to pay CT bills. However, several factors limit confidence in a positive verdict. First, the fiscal cost is very large and disputed — the IFS puts the cost of the rate cut alone well above the policy's own costings, raising the risk of compensating spending cuts that could harm public sector workers and services workers rely on. Second, the evidence that CT cuts translate into worker gains rather than owner/shareholder gains is contested; the IFS cautions that effective rates on investment may not fall as much as headline rates suggest, blunting the investment-and-hiring channel. Third, the majority of the tax relief by value flows to larger profitable firms rather than the smallest SMEs, since those under £10k of CT collectively account for only 4% of receipts. The upside — relieving cash-strapped SMEs, potential labour demand growth — and the downside — fiscal pressure that may lead to public spending reductions harming workers, and uncertain pass-through to wages — are both real but unresolved. On balance, the direction is mixed at minor magnitude, with effects felt only in the long term as investment and hiring decisions adjust. Confidence is low because the decisive parameter — how much of the tax saving reaches workers — is empirically contested and not resolved by the available evidence.

Compare all parties on tax & the money you keep →Compare all parties on public finances & the next generation →Compare all parties on prosperity & living standards →Compare all parties on inequality & fair shares →Compare all parties on good work & fair pay →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home