Skip to main content

corporate taxes
Richard Rubin at Bloomberg reports:
The largest U.S.-based companies expanded their untaxed offshore stockpiles by $183 billion in the past year, increasing such holdings by 14.4 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. [...]

The build-up of offshore profits—totaling $1.46 trillion for the 83 companies examined—is increasing because of incentives in the U.S. tax code for booking profits offshore and leaving them there. The stockpiles complicate attempts to overhaul the tax system as lawmakers look for ways to bring the money home and discourage profit shifting. [...]

A report last year by analysts at JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) estimated that all U.S.-based companies had $1.7 trillion in accumulated offshore profits. In the data compiled by Bloomberg, 83 companies had about 75 percent of last year’s total, which suggests that the total for all companies now exceeds $1.9 trillion.

The reason for this, corporations and their apologists explain, is the supposedly excessive U.S. corporate tax rate compared with other developed nations. If they bring their overseas profits home, they say, they have to pay more than they think they should in taxes. More than what foreign rivals pay. But what they think they should pay and what is reasonable for them to pay are two different matters.

Groups like the Business Roundtable claim the U.S. corporate rate is the highest among those developed nations. But that's not so. While the statutory rate of 35 percent is high, the effective rate, what actually gets collected, is quite low comparatively speaking. In fact, the effective rate slipped to a four-decade low in fiscal 2011, just 12.1 percent. And, as the charts above show, the United States not only taxes corporations less than other nations, it also raises less revenue from corporate taxes.

Ignoring the fact of the actual tax situation, or rather twisting the truth about it, the corporations accumulating the vast overseas hoard say they have a "solution." It's called "territorial" taxation. Simply put, in its purest form, such a system would put profits earned overseas permanently out of the reach of the U.S. Treasury. The corporations would then be incentivized to bring their profits home to invest in America instead of stashing them in the Caymans.

Malarkey, as Vice President Joe Biden would say. What really would happen is that corporations would do all in their accountants' power to juggle and jiggle their earnings reports to claim that profits generated in the United States have actually been generated overseas. A cynic might call that "laundering." Pure territorial taxation would also encourage corporations to ship more jobs offshore so they could actually make more profits overseas. Please continue reading below the fold to read about corporate hoarding and taxation.

There is little doubt that companies are already moving large amounts of their profits overseas already. The Congressional Research Service issued a report in January stating:

Consistent with the findings of existing research, the analysis presented here appear to show that significant shares of profits are being reported in tax preferred countries and that these shares are disproportionate to the location of the firm’s business activity as indicated by where they hire workers and make investments. For example, American companies reported earning 43% of overseas profits in Bermuda, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland in 2008, while hiring 4% of their foreign workforce and making 7% of their foreign investments in those economies. In comparison, the traditional economies of Australia, Canada, Germany, Mexico and the United Kingdom accounted for 14% of American MNCs overseas’ profits, but 40% of foreign hired labor and 34% of foreign investment. This report also shows that the discrepancy between where profits are reported and where hiring and investment occurs, as examples of business activity, has increased over time.
You may remember that the Romney-Ryan campaign backed such a plan. Joe Biden spoke out vociferously against it. But the Obama administration is at least open to the idea now, or rather some hybrid form that doesn't allow repatriated overseas profits to go completely untaxed:
A White House official on Thursday [Jan. 31] said Obama is eager to "pursue corporate tax reform that lowers the rate ... but does not believe that a pure territorial system is the best way to achieve this goal."
So, instead of cutting the tax rate on overseas profits to zero, it might be cut to 20 percent or even to that 12 percent that is now the effective rate. All this is set against an effort by Republicans and many Democrats to lower the overall statutory corporate tax rate on U.S.-generated profits to 28 percent or 25 percent form the current 35 percent.

Wherever the overall corporate rate for future earnings might be set, there's also talk about setting a special tax rate to get that hoard of nearly $2 trillion repatriated. Rubin notes that Republican Rep. Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Republican Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, have developed a plan that would tax the accumulated profits at 5.25 percent, allowing corporations eight years to pay up. This rate would apply whether or not they bring the profits home. Other elected officials, including Democrats such as Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, also want to see overseas profits repatriated at a lower rate but under provisions for keeping them from shifting new profits overseas.

Lucky for the plutocrats that they don't have to depend only on themselves to do all the tedious work of redistributing the nation's wealth upward.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Economics on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:35 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I have a sickening feeling that the wants of (8+ / 0-)

    these stellar patriots will be wrapped in Grand Bargain ermine.

  •  We desperately need a funds parking tax. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nils o, Capt Crunch

    It's painfully obvious, particularly to the companies arguing for a lower tax rate, tha tthey pay less in taxes than they would elsewhere in the industrialized world.  They are just angling for lower tax rates in the US because they can, and because they have the power to do so.  That's the only reason they're parking overseas profits in holding countries like the Caymans.

    Well, such parking is toxic to our economy.  It's against the national interest; because it's impinging upon defense spencding, it's also a national security threat.  It's flatly anti-American.

    We need to tax parked cash at a painful rate - say 50% per year.  Use it or lose it.  And if they don't pay, nationalize their operations until the tax is paid.  Confiscate.  That's how it works with the rest of us.

    The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

    by TheOrchid on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:53:40 AM PST

    •  How do we collect funds that aren't moving? n/t (0+ / 0-)

      We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

      by hannah on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 10:23:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ask the Netherlands and other countries that have (7+ / 0-)

        wealth taxes. It can be done. Companies have records of the money they have sitting off-shore. Use it or lose it. Why aren't shareholders up-in-arms? All that income should be plowed back into dividends or re-investment opportunities.

        You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

        by ontheleftcoast on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 10:31:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd think it would be reinvested. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          if its just sitting in an investment account, the income is getting taxed.  the only way to avoid taxation on the income from the profit is to reinvest it in operations.

          •  Bull (5+ / 0-)

            75% of Apple's "overseas investments" is cash. Pure, unadulterated, cash. Roughly 70 billion the last time I saw a number. They're not investing it, they're hoarding it like Scrooge McDuck. As far as I can tell all the tech giants, Google, Cisco, etc. are doing the same thing. Selling their goods overseas and claiming "permanent reinvestment" exemptions on cash. They're taking advantage of a loophole you could sail the USS Enterprise thru and it needs to be closed and that income (and it's taxes) repatriated.

            You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

            by ontheleftcoast on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 12:10:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The good news is that Americans do have (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              howd, TomFromNJ

              some expertise in how to move vast amounts of cash around the globe:

              The US flew nearly $12bn in shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, then distributed the cash with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent.
              link

              So, scale that up only 6x, and all those $$s can safely be returned home (although * some * shrinkage is to be expected, I suppose).

        •  ontheleftcoast - the cash can be re-invested (0+ / 0-)

          just not in the US. The offshore cash makes investing in the US very difficult. If the corporation is looking at investment alternatives it can use 100 cent dollars to invest anywhere in the world, except the US or use 65 cent dollars to invest in the US. The difference is so significant that few US opportunities would ever make the cut. The cash isn't coming back to the US unless there is a tax holiday.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 03:05:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Play me a song on a tiny violin (0+ / 0-)

            They are NOT investing the cash, they're sitting on it. If we had a Congress willing to fight for tax revenues they'd just close the ridiculous loophole on "permanent investment" and make it come back by taxing them on their global earnings, not just what they're willing to claim they've made.

            You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

            by ontheleftcoast on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 03:10:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually the funds are invested in securities (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              they are not keeping stacks of $100 bills in the supply room.

              The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

              by nextstep on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 03:50:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's liquid assets. Cash, stocks, bonds, etc. (0+ / 0-)

                And they actually do have literal piles of cash -- some of these companies move billions thru currency exchange markets. Shuffling the money around endlessly to make money from the money. The tax provision was supposed to be for "permanent assets" buildings, employees, equipment. Not financial instruments to play accounting tricks.

                You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

                by ontheleftcoast on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 03:59:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Companies will then just change their country (0+ / 0-)

      of incorporation as others have already been doing.

      It makes no sense for what taxes corporations pay in the US should change based upon where they are incorporated.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 02:46:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Orchid - the US is one of the very few (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nextstep, LiberalBadger

      countries who try and collect taxes on a worldwide basis. Most of the G20 uses a territorial system where companies only pay tax in each country based on the profits in that specific country and don't try to collect taxes on a world wide basis. Our current system makes investing in the US uneconomic for US based multinationals.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 03:09:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  you'd have to change the bilateral agreements too (0+ / 0-)

        So the deal for companies and "natural" persons from the US are that they are taxed in the US on their worldwide income.  I believe that Switzerland is the same as well - but we are one of a few.  But the deal with those other countries is that if I pay their taxes, then I don't have to pay US taxes.  I get a foreign taxes paid credit.  If we moved to territorial taxation - like the rest of the world - and eliminated those bilateral agreements - you don't get credit for those taxes paid - then I don't really see the problem.

        Personally the jobs and investment may or may not go in the same countries that your sales go.  There really is no reason that that has to coorelate so I kinda think that this whole study is dumb.

  •  So if the marginal rate is 35% and the effective (3+ / 0-)

    is only 13-15%, how do you plan to close the gap?

    Further, is the discrepancy as large in other countries?

    Currently, the businesses that get fucked on taxes are the ones that don't avail themselves of the sort of tax shenanigans we see in larger firms.

    Eliminating the gap between nominal and effective would give a big boost to businesses that dont' engage in aggressive tax avoidance.

    •  When the tax rate gets lowered... (7+ / 0-)

      ...to 25%-28%, and the loopholes are closed (hahaha) so that the new figure IS the effective rate, you can bet your savings that it won't be long before the corporate megaphones are again bellyaching that they are paying too much. Their ultimate goal is zero, just as the goal for much of the right wing is a flat tax. They keep edging as the "left," like people engaged in a losing tug of war, steadily lose ground on the matter. Instead of digging in our heels defensively, we need to be arguing for movement in the opposite direction.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 10:06:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think with the financial tools available, (0+ / 0-)

        and with the global connectedness of the worlds economy, expecting to collect taxes above global levels is a pipedream at best.

        You aren't ever going to get more taxes from these people or these businesses, so the question needs to be (IMHO) less "How can we get more taxes?" and more "How can we write tax laws that everyone pays their taxes equally (not flat tax, but eliminating tax avoidance as an effective strategy)"

        If nominal and effective rates were the same, it would be a very large boost to businesses that don't play the tax games.

    •  The effective tax rate calculation is seriously (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      flawed in the above chart.

      If factors out legitimate tax costs such as option expensing (which just shifts the tax liability from the company to the employee for no net loss in tax revenue), some types of depreciation, and includes profits made outside the country (while not including these profits for other countries) and other technical matters.

      The failure of our tax code is very deep in other ways that have effect of lowering employment, lowering wages and reducing GDP growth while also being ineffective in tax revenues.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 02:55:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And yet the people suffer. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, weinerschnauzer

    Let my people go!

    Seriously. We need to put a bullet in the head (double-tap) of the zombie called supply-side economics.

    One method: make the following household numbers

    - effective corporate tax rate
    - % corporation paying no taxes
    - % corporations taking refunds

    One of the major differences between Democrats and Republicans is that the former have the moral imagination to see the moral dimension of financial affairs, while the latter do not. Pragmatists are the exception.

    by Words In Action on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 10:15:06 AM PST

  •  excellent reporting - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LinSea

    the last sentence included. Thanks for the work you put into this. I wished my bosses would actually read this.

  •  They keep screaming about the tax RATE (0+ / 0-)

    because talking heads want Americans to believe that other countries' tax laws are the same as U.S., such that the taxable income is the same in every country.  It's not.  IE. other countries may have lower rates, but higher taxable income base.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 10:16:51 AM PST

  •  Taxes insure that the dollars keep moving (0+ / 0-)

    through the economy. As the issuer of currency, Washington could just issue new dollars for whatever it needs to buy. But that would only encourage the hoarders and make it more difficult to track relative value.
    A stagnating currency is as bad as having none. We also don't want a shadow economy such as has grown to 40% of GDP in Greece.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 10:21:15 AM PST

  •  It's called "transfer pricing" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, TomFromNJ
    What really would happen is that corporations would do all in their accountants' power to juggle and jiggle their earnings reports to claim that profits generated in the United States have actually been generated overseas. A cynic might call that "laundering."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...
    a profit allocation method used to attribute a corporation's net profit or loss before tax to tax jurisdictions

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 10:21:47 AM PST

  •  Instead Of Bribing The Plutocrats To Bring Their (0+ / 0-)

    obscene profits home to tax, the government should be PUNISHING them if they don't bring their fat profits home. I'm thinking of a punitive wealth tax for allowing profits to languish overseas - make it less expensive for the 1% to pay either dividend/capital gains/ or income taxes on those profits. To let them know they are serious, the government should have a special division in the IRS to chase and prosecute the overseas tax haven crowd.  As usual, Obama has it wrong about lowering corporate tax rates - a corporate tax cut will increase the deficit, reward the 1% who are corporate America's biggest shareholders, and indirectly offset the puny increase in marginal income tax rates on those making more than $400,000 that just passed Congress. Time to light a fire under Obama's ass on this one.

    •  Re: "a special division in the IRS..." (0+ / 0-)

      "...to chase and prosecute the overseas tax haven crowd."

      And it would be only a matter of days before the Republicans would cut any funding for it making that division worthless.

      Which makes me wonder why the House seems to get a de facto line item veto on any activity that the Executive branch uses in a way that Republicans don't like. "Oh we don't like that provision of the law so any funding we approve cannot be used for enforcement of that."

  •  I Forgot To Mention In My Post Above, Corporate (0+ / 0-)

    share of tax revenues, as a percent of GDP, has been steadily dropping over the past 50 years. It is time to REVERSE that trend  - a corporate tax cut will lower corporate tax revenues collected even more, and shift more of the tax burden onto individual taxpayers. I would like to see closing of ALL corporate tax loopholes, a wealth tax for overseas profits, elimination of corporate welfare subsidies (especially for oil, agribusiness, and pharmaceutical industries), and NO CHANGE in the corporate income tax rate. If we do those things, THEN we will see corporations start to pay their fair share again (as we saw in the 1950's).

  •  Excellent post. (0+ / 0-)

    Just another scam by corporations.  You;re right.  If they got the terratorial taxation all of a sudden all their profist would be earned overseas through accounting and legal games.

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 01:38:05 PM PST

  •  Tax rate vs. military spending (0+ / 0-)

    I am not an economist and don't know how to express the ratios, but I would be interested in a numerical relationship between tax rate and military spending.

    The theory is that if this country wants the biggest, baddest military in the world (the history of the world), it stands to reason that the tax rates will be equally as big.  

    What about the non-security items in the budget?  How do we compare to others regarding infrastructure spending to tax rates or health care outcomes (not just costs)?

    The tax rate is always expressed as a percentage of GDP.  I'm wondering if there is another way.

    Economists...jump right in.

  •  Wish somebody would tell these assholes... (0+ / 0-)

    ...You've got exactly 6 months to "repatriate" these profits.  After that, the tax rate doubles.

    Long past time to play serious hardball with these assholes.

    :::sigh:::

    A girl can dream...

    "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

    by Marjmar on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 01:44:20 PM PST

  •  Corps keep their money in whatever currency & loc (0+ / 0-)

    ...is most profitable, some day by day. The issue seems more systemic than just tax rates. It's at least a little related to the absence of a public interest in how this nation handles globalization and foreign assets. Sure there can be incremental fixes here and there but the fundamental change has to come by establishing a legal public interest hierarchically prioritized above narrow concerns with private gains - not necessarily "more" but first and foremost for doing business in the US. Maye "do no harm" is a good start...

  •  Where's Greece in that List. (0+ / 0-)

    Probably not a comparison Faux News wants it's viewers to Witness.

    Notice: This Comment © 2013 ROGNM

    by ROGNM on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 01:59:41 PM PST

  •  To give context for Norway. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shrike, nextstep

    They have their state owned Statoil which runs their oil fields. It's essentially a money tree for the country. Which is why the % is higher than even other european countries with higher tax rates.

    "Buying Horizon Milk to support organic farming is like purchasing an English muffin in an effort to prop up the British economy." -Windowdog

    by Windowdog on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 02:02:39 PM PST

  •  I have a billiant solution for repatriation. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    walk2live

    Let any company repatriate income tax free equal to the amount their US hourly payroll grows.

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 02:06:15 PM PST

  •  So -- What's the deal with Germany? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    Germany is often touted as an example we should follow, but...according that that chart, the effective corporate tax rate in Germany is just over half that of the US.

    Makes me wonder what, exactly, that means.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 02:15:36 PM PST

    •  Germany has tax policies much better suited for (0+ / 0-)

      International trade than the US.  They are able to have the largest share of GDP of net exports, they do this while being relatively poor in natural resources.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:02:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why arn't other nations taxing this money? (0+ / 0-)

    The money is not in the US, so one would assume that it is someplace else, why isn't these other "high tax" nations taxing it then?

    Or has it been taxed over there and now they don't want to pay more on top of that?

    Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

    by DrillSgtK on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 02:16:23 PM PST

    •  DrillSgtK - other countries do tax it (0+ / 0-)

      The cash balances are after paying taxes in the country where the profits are earned. To bring the cash back to the US a company will have to pay the difference between what was paid and the US rate.  

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 03:16:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The ones really getting screwed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, howd

    Are the mid-sized corporations that have no overseas footprint, and no team of accountants & lawyers to help them play the system.

    I'd like to see the rate lowered, and the code simplified so companies actually pay that rate... as has been proposed by many others.

    Trouble is that the companies in power like the status quo... they just want to take their money back here tax free.

    lastly I'd just say that I don't really blame these corporations. Morality & patriotism aren't in the corporate charter. Their sole purpose is to maximize shareholder value, and that's it. Until that is changed, little else will change.

    Freedom isn't free. So quit whining and pay your taxes.

    by walk2live on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 02:28:19 PM PST

    •  walk2live - you are right (0+ / 0-)

      The officers and directors of public companies have a fiduciary duty to minimize the worldwide taxes paid and as you note to maximize long term shareholder value. The companies will follow the code, so we have to change the laws. The current laws favor investment outside the US because the offshore cash can be used as 100 cent dollars. If the cash is brought back to the US it becomes 65 cent dollars.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 04:30:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So you'd like to... (0+ / 0-)

      ... bring back the corporate death penalty?

      I'd be all for that. It used to be that the government got something in return for allowing a corporation to be formed. Failure to live up to that bargain and the corporation was dissolved by the state. It hasn't happened in decades. Nowadays the only thing the government gets in return for allowing a corporation to exist is a kick in the teeth. The corporations have become nothing more than leeches on the public commons that give virtually nothing back for what they use.

  •  Meteor, diary should mention that the US is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smartalex, VClib

    an international outlier in taxing profits made in other countries. Other countries don't cause this problem of funds trapped outside the US economy.

    This US policy hurts US jobs, lowers US wages and reduces US GDP growth.  When a company looks at investing $1 million of these outside the US funds that could employ people in the US or outside the US, it only takes $1 million if done in other countries but it will take $1 million plus $500,000 in US taxes if people from the US, are hired.

    Territorial Systems Are the Norm
    Most countries have a territorial system. Among G-7 countries, only the U.S. has a worldwide tax system. Among OECD nations, 26 have territorial systems including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Eight OECD nations have worldwide systems, including the U.S., Greece, Ireland, South Korea, and Mexico. The other OECD nations with worldwide tax systems have top tax rates far below the top U.S. corporate tax rate.
    See http://www.rpc.senate.gov/...

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 02:42:25 PM PST

    •  Wrong, Wrong and Wrong (0+ / 0-)

      Well according to this paper at the Center on Budget and Policy Priority (CBPP), a territorial tax will do the exact opposite:

      First, a territorial system would create greater incentives for U.S.-based multinationals to invest and book profits overseas rather than at home.

      Second, by encouraging capital to flow overseas, a territorial system would risk reducing wages at home.

      Third, a territorial tax system would risk higher budget deficits by draining revenues from the corporate income tax

      Fourth, a territorial system would risk higher taxes on smaller businesses and domestic businesses

      The points CBPP make seem common sense to me.  If you implement a Territorial System corporations are just going to set up operations in the lowest tax country not invest in the US.    

      Poor man wants to be rich. Rich man wants to king. And the king ain't satisifed until he rules everything. B.Springsteen

      by howd on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 04:55:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Over the past 20 years developed countries have (0+ / 0-)

        moved from Global tax to territorial tax with the US being a laggard in this direction with no countries going in the other direction.  The territorial tax system is what the most successful counties in international trade do.  Do you think that all the other countries have gotten this wrong and the US is the only one to get it right?

        All the problems that your quote cites are already present under global tax, it just discourages employing people in the US.

        I have worked in international business for over 25 years and have seen the foolishness of this tax policy up close.  

        But this foolish policy of Global tax is really more of an annoyance than a serious problem for US business, as it just means there are fewer attractive opportunites to invest and employ in the US, and they should invest,  grow and employ outside the US and when the timing is right, re-incorporate in some other country.

        It is however a very big problem for US workers through higher unemployment, lower wages and lower GDP growth.

        I have discussed this overseas tax policy with a senior executive who has personally spoken to senior Democrats in Washington.  Many of these Democrats agreed with the economics and tax factors in my comments.  However these same Democrats said they could not support the change as it would be seen as pro-business.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:44:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  BILL & Melinda Gates Microsoft Corp Pays 0 Tax$ (0+ / 0-)

    If Billionaire$ Bill Gates & Melinda Gates funnel their U.S. Tax$ through their Bill & Melinda Gates Elite Entitlement tax~free Foundation and their Microsoft Corp Pays $0 in USA Tax$ every year,who's on first or can even afford a first?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site