I think I have found my favorite candidate for president.

Unfortunately, he’s not eligible, because he’s not an American. He is Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and not just because of his parents’ fine choice of first name.

The Tax Foundation reports:

On New Year’s Day, while Americans were sleeping off their hangovers, Canada achieved its goal of having the most business-friendly tax system of the Group of Seven (G-7) nations — which include, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.

On January 1^st, Canada’s federal corporate tax rate automatically fell to 15 percent from 16.5 percent as the last installment of a series of corporate rate cuts launched in 2006 by the administration of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. When Harper initiated his campaign, Canada’s overall corporate tax rate was 33.9 percent according to the OECD, third-lowest in the G-7. The federal corporate rate was 22 percent and the average provincial rate was 11.8 percent. Today, Canada now has an overall corporate tax rate of 25 percent, the lowest rate of the G-7 nations.

Harper’s opponents said the same thing that American politicians say when the subject of reducing business taxes come up — too much revenue will be lost, government needs the money more than individuals, blah, blah, blah. So imagine the surprise to find, according to The Globe and Mail:

Remarkably, the gradual lowering of the corporate tax rate appears to have resulted in little loss in corporate tax revenue (when compared with long-term, prerecession revenues). …

By 2010–2011, federal corporate tax revenue reached $30-billion, substantially more than the average of $25-billion in the last four years of the prior Liberal [Party] government: 2002 through 2005. Further, federal corporate tax revenue equalled 1.8 per cent of Canadian gross domestic product, a much higher percentage than the revenue produced during the recessionary years in the early 1990s. In tough-times 1992, for example, corporate revenue, with higher tax rates, fell to 1 per cent of GDP.

Economists predictably disagree on the economic importance of corporate tax rates, mostly on an ideological basis, but it makes good sense to keep this particular tax as low as possible. These taxes, after all, are a direct cost of doing business — and Canada’s corporate cuts ensure that this country will have a cross-border edge for the next two or three years at least. With a combined federal-state rate of 39.2 per cent, the United States has the second-highest rate in the world (after Japan, with 39.5 per cent).

Our 39.2-percent rate is only the federal rate. The actual rate is higher because of the added state corporate income taxes — 7.9 percent in Wisconsin’s case. When you add state rates, businesses pay from 39.2 percent (Nevada, South Dakota, Washington and Wyoming have no corporate income tax) to 49.19 percent (Pennsylvania), which gives the U.S. the highest, not second highest, corporate income taxes in the world. (Other states, such as Ohio, tax not corporate income, but gross receipts, which are still taxes businesses must pay — or, more accurately, businesses’ customers must pay.)

Canada is not the only country to get the idea of reducing business taxes:

Canada can only revel in its lowest-tax status for a few months because on April 1^st, Great Britain will lower its corporate rate to 25 percent from 26 percent. Britain’s rate is scheduled to fall even further to 23 percent by 2014. Over the past six years, the only G-7 nations that have not cut their corporate tax rate are France, Japan, and the United States. Japan and the U.S. have combined corporate rate over 39 percent. …

The drive by Canada and the U.K. to have the lowest corporate tax rates in the G-7 cannot be ignored. Canada is, after all, our largest trading partner, and the U.K. is our sixth-largest trading partner. Perhaps not so coincidentally, China — America’s second-largest trading partner — also has a corporate tax rate of 25 percent, nearly 15 percentage points lower than the U.S. rate.

Businesses use profits in one or more of three ways — reinvestment back into the business, increased compensation for employees, or dividends to shareholders (which comprise half of U.S. households). Any of those uses is better than giving the money to the government., particularly a government run by Democrats who see business as (1) a source of consequence-free tax revenue and/or (2) a necessary evil.