Treasury Department Working On Corporate Tax Reform, Geithner Says

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is working on a comprehensive proposal for corporate tax reform, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Tuesday.

Geithner told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee that the proposal will be pro-investment and "revenue neutral," so that a cut in the corporate tax rate would have to be offset by new revenue.

He did not say whether the administration will introduce the plan in the form of a legislative proposal or when it would be unveiled.

President Barack Obama and lawmakers have been exploring an overhaul of the tax code, which all sides agree is exceedingly complex and lengthy at more than a million words.

Obama has talked about trimming the top marginal corporate rate, which at 35 percent is among the steepest in the industrialized world.

Geithner has told lawmakers that his goal would be to get the corporate rate closer to that of major U.S. trading partners, around the high 20-percent level.

(Reporting by David Lawder, Rachelle Younglai and Kim Dixon; Editing by Andrea Ricci)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Comments

[liberalandloveit]

03:01 PM on 04/07/2011

"Revenue neutral" = continue Bush tax cuts permanently.

[sensimilla]

01:13 PM on 04/07/2011

To G$ fanboys such as Timmy, revenue neutral means citizens will get screwed with HIGHER taxes, while corporations (esp multinationals) will have LOWER taxes.

We should be INCREASING corporate taxes while closing loopholes.

[sensimilla]

01:10 PM on 04/07/2011

how about they RAISE corporate taxrates AND close the loopholes AND bring in 100's of billions more in revenue AND up capital gains to 25%?

Corporate tax rates are at their lowest (by far!) in US history. Time for corps to pay their fair share.

[TheTightwireGuy]

09:52 PM on 04/06/2011

I am highly leery about the idea of reforming corporate taxes that is touted as "pro-investment" unless it structural motivates corporations to increase domestic employment AND the level of lower and middle class wages relative to other corporate expenditures. Otherwise, it will likely have the effect of creating a "tax holiday loophole" for US corporations to exploit in their drive to repatriate their foreign-designated earnings.

I have developed an outline for reforming federal corporate tax policy that addresses this issue. Here is the link:

http://cxgassociates.com/?p=13

Let me know what you think.

[Dosadi]

09:52 PM on 04/06/2011

Sounds like Tiimy has been doing that conservative math again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfgX0fyNeLc

[Dosadi]

09:49 PM on 04/06/2011

If it is revenue neutral then it is not worth the time and money to create or implement it.

[JavaSavant]

02:39 PM on 04/06/2011

I don't care if they reduce it, as long as they close all the loopholes. Iif they set it at 20% and then make the big corporations pay all of it, just like small business have to, we will still come out ahead.

[AZreb]

11:58 AM on 04/06/2011

And will this "new revenue" magically appear?

[VoteThemAllOut]

11:26 AM on 04/06/2011

I've called for it before and will call for it again - it's time to scrap all existing tax codes and replace them with a simple 'flat tax' that does NOT include any deductions for anything or anyone.

If a person or a corporation has income or revenue, they will pay X-percentage on that amount, no deductions allowed. So if GE does $5+ billion in profits, they would not pay taxes on that amount, they will pay taxes on the $100 - 200 billions of revenue that generated the $5 billion in profits.

[sensimilla]

01:12 PM on 04/07/2011

problem with that is double taxation. Should i pay fed taxes on money i paid to the state in sales, property, income taxes? If i can't deduct it, that's a problem. What about charitable contributions, or mortgage interest, or children deductions?

[VoteThemAllOut]

02:33 PM on 04/07/2011

By the way, like your name - sebsimilla.

As far as double taxation:
- money that you pay to the state as 'sales tax' is already taxed by the fed gov before you get it to spend?
- as far as property taxes and mortgage interest, why should those who do not own property or have mortgage suppliment (make-up the difference between what you pay now vrs non-deductions) for the operation of the fereral goverment?
- as far as child deductions, why should those who do not children suppliment (make-up the difference between what you pay now vrs non-deductions) for the operation of the fereral goverment?

As a business owner, I would lose the ability to get a car and reduce my taxable income by its cost. The same would be true for trips to attend major expositions in Las Vegas, Florida in the winter, etc. Right now, those who do not have a business are supplimenting my taxes because of these types of deductions I can and do take.

[altohone]

10:18 AM on 04/06/2011

Revenue neutral means a continuation of the shift of the burden on to the middle class. Corporations need to pay a fair share, not the paltry percentage they do now.
Geithner is defending inequality.

[AZreb]

12:26 PM on 04/06/2011

Nothing that Timmy has done or said has given us any reason to trust him. As a friend said, "I wouldn't believe him if his tongue was certified."

[glacy]

08:31 AM on 04/06/2011

If corporations (GE, Oil companies, etc.) paid taxes that should be paid to the U.S. government we wouldn't have near the debt problems we have. Instead the tax burden is laid on the American worker who is either under paid or unemployed. The results are obvious.

So, how do you destroy the federal government? Starve it of income. Corporate strategy job #1.

[Joe Falco]

07:56 AM on 04/06/2011

THis is a continuation of Reagan's VOODOO Economics. Fuzzy math can't disguise the fact that trickle down from the rich doesn't work. Hasn't worked. Will not work.

[schatsie]

07:18 AM on 04/06/2011

In other words, little business people get ready to take it in the shorts so that Timmy will have a future in banking....