iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

David Cay Johnston: A Corporate Tax Code For A Different Century

Corporate Taxes

First Posted: 01/13/2012 2:56 pm Updated: 01/14/2012 10:10 am


(Repeating for wider distribution.)

NEW YORK, Jan 13 (David Cay Johnston, Reuters) - Big business is lobbying for a major cut in the corporate income tax rate, and both President Barack Obama and key congressional leaders are on their side. But the evidence that a rate cut will boost the economy is weak. What's needed is comprehensive reform that includes a simpler, fairer and more transparent corporate tax code. But more on that later.

Consider what President George W. Bush's Treasury Department said in a report in 2007: big countries, such as the United States, receive far less economic benefit from lower corporate tax rates than smaller countries do. For large countries, cutting corporate tax rates "would result partly in increased capital inflow and partly in lower world interest rates." http://link.reuters.com/hem95s

While other large countries have cut their corporate tax rates since then, lowering the U.S. rate would just encourage other countries to go even lower. Since we are cutting spending in the very areas that build wealth - education, infrastructure and research - a corporate tax rate cut would increase the pressure for further cuts in those areas, making us poorer.

The RATE Coalition, a group of 23 businesses and two trade associations, is among leading advocates for a cut in the corporate income tax rate from the current 35 percent. But it also wants that cut to be a part of fundamental reform.


A cut of 10 percentage points would increase economic output by 1 to 2 percentage points, the coalition says on its website, citing a study by economists Roger H. Gordon of the University of California San Diego and Young Lee of Hanyang University in Seoul. But Gordon told me that while the paper shows that "lower corporate tax rates are associated with more rapid economic growth," that point comes with a caveat.

"We found these results only ... for non-OECD (poorer) countries," he emailed - there was no statistical relationship between lower corporate tax rates and faster economic growth among OECD countries, a coalition of 34 modern states spanning the globe and including the United States.

LITTLE DIFFERENCE

Ten of the RATE members have made detailed tax disclosures to shareholders, allowing Citizens for Tax Justice to compare their tax rates on profits earned in the United States to their rates on overseas profits. Its recent study showed that five of the 10 RATE members paid higher rates on their U.S. profits than on their foreign profits in 2008 through 2010. The other five paid lower U.S. tax rates. http://link.reuters.com/pef65s

Add up the figures from all 10 companies and their average U.S. tax rate was just 0.88 percentage points higher than their non-U.S. rate. That is not much of a difference, either to the companies or the U.S. economy.

The RATE Coalition has two chairs, one from each party, each with strong Washington ties. Its spokeswoman offered Democrat Elaine Kamarck, a public policy lecturer at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, to answer questions. Kamarck said that the enduring economic doldrums and election year politics this year "almost inevitably lead to a big tax reform debate in 2013."

"We see an interesting political consensus," she said. Corporations want lower rates, the government needs more revenue and since the 1986 Tax Reform Act the corporate tax laws have become overgrown with favors, especially for multinational companies. Getting lower rates, she said, has to include removing many favors to level the playing field so profits are taxed evenly, not more for some industries and less for others as today.

Significantly, the RATE coalition, one of several corporate coalitions competing to shape changes in tax law next year, includes associations of retailers and railroads, both of whose tax issues are almost entirely domestic. Some of its members have spoken against the proposed tax holiday for bringing home untaxed overseas profits. The coalition does not oppose any repatriation deal for multinational companies, but says such a deal should be debated only in the context of fundamental reform.

Kamarck said she agreed with one of the major themes of this column - which is that our tax code was built for the national, industrial, wage economy of the 20th Century, creating problems for the global, services, digital economy of the 21st Century.

So why is the RATE Coalition not first promoting fundamental reform, a tabula rasa approach, and only then talking of tax rate cuts? That, she said, is just not politically doable in the next two years. Let's hope she is wrong. Washington has done it before, in 1986. Why not again?

(Editing by Eddie Evans and Howard Goller)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
(Repeating for wider distribution.) NEW YORK, Jan 13 (David Cay Johnston, Reuters) - Big business is lobbying for a major cut in the corporate income tax rate, and both President Barack Oba...
(Repeating for wider distribution.) NEW YORK, Jan 13 (David Cay Johnston, Reuters) - Big business is lobbying for a major cut in the corporate income tax rate, and both President Barack Oba...
Filed by Reuters  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 164
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Terri Skau
Se... sotto una splendida luna piena...
04:03 PM on 01/16/2012
Therefore, any presumed authority which the IRS assumes by quoting section 6321, 6331, 6332 through 34, has no lawful force or effect upon me, a private American Citizen, who is not now nor ever has been involved in any excise taxable activity, the fact of which I have informed the IRS in all previous correspondence between the IRS and me.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Terri Skau
Se... sotto una splendida luna piena...
04:03 PM on 01/16/2012
Official source for United States laws is Statutes at Large and United States Code is only prima facie evidence of such laws.” Royer’s v. United States (1959, CA 3 Pa.) 265 F 2d 615, 59-1 USTC § 9371, 3 AFTR 2d 1137. Title 26 and Title 27 have not been enacted into positive law, therefore, have no force or effect of law upon me as a private American Citizen. Furthermore, 1 USC § 112 further confirms that the United States Statutes at Large shall be legal evidence of laws. In addition, “Unless Congress affirmatively enacts title of United States Code into law, that title is only ‘prima facie’ evidence of the law.” Preston v. Heckler, 734 F 2d 1359, (1984, CA 9 Alaska). “…that the Code establishes ‘prima facie’ the laws of the United States, the very meaning of ‘prima facie’ being that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.” Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423 (1943); United States v. Welden, 377 U.S. 95 (1964). Therefore, reference must be made to the Statutes at Large, and the Statutes at Large only allow liens or levies on the excise taxable activities involving cotton or distilled spirits.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Terri Skau
Se... sotto una splendida luna piena...
04:02 PM on 01/16/2012
No corporation is required to abide by any unlawful order, especially, one from an unlawful, fraudulent agency, acting under color of law. Further, as stated above, since the IRS has absolutely NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY, because its actual status is that of a rogue, private collection agency, acting for the financial interests of the private Federal Reserve Bank. The IRS is not authorized, as a lawful federal agency, by congress, nor did congress ever vote Titles 26 and 27 into positive law, thus, it can convey no lawful authority, under, color of those titles, to any entity, to act against me, my property or that of any other American Citizen. In fact, pursuant to 1 USCS § 204, “United States Code is not enacted as statute, nor can it be construed as such, it being only prima facie statement of statute law.” Murrell v. Western Union Tel. Co. (1947, CA 5 Fla) 160 F 2d 787.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spinotter11
Spinning through life and trying to understand it.
10:21 AM on 01/17/2012
And yet how many thousands of people have been jailed for tax evasion? The law has some force.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Terri Skau
Se... sotto una splendida luna piena...
10:35 AM on 01/17/2012
With all of these cases which I have cited and Titles 26 & 27 under scrutiny you have a very good case.
photo
donk970
Hard working member of the 99%
02:58 PM on 01/16/2012
The problem is that just cutting corporate tax rates, like the GOP would like to do, won't translate into lower unemployment or better wages for the working class. These tax cuts will go straight into the pockets of the shareholders and the CEO.
nothingchanges
too soon old, too late smart
12:03 PM on 01/16/2012
According to many of our Presidential wannabe's, Corporations are People.

If that's the case, the solution is simple.

Corporations should pay the EXACT same tax rates that people do.

It's only fair.
11:23 AM on 01/16/2012
All taxes ultimately are taxes on individuals. Taxes on corporations just result in higher taxes on the buyers of their products. While a zero tax rate on corporations would be a good idea, many sham corporations would result to hide individuals from taxes. The real problem with the current tax code is that it rewards failure and punishes success. The right answer is to eliminate the corporate income tax and replace it with a corporate cash flow tax. Corporations would continue to pay state and local taxes and their contribution to the Payroll Tax, but would no longer receive either a benefit or penalty from the income tax.
photo
donk970
Hard working member of the 99%
03:02 PM on 01/16/2012
We should have a zero corporate tax rate but a much higher individual tax rate and a heavy tariff on non-US labor. This would encourage employing Americans and reinvesting profits into the company. You can't cut corporate taxes and expect them to do anything but what they always do which is put the extra money into the pockets of stock holders and CEO's.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Ppossom
His life is full
04:54 PM on 01/16/2012
You assume that corporations have absolute control over pricing their product. The argument is specious.
photo
Jaladeno
A Nihilist ain't just someone on a river in Egypt
01:37 PM on 01/15/2012
If corporations are people, too, then why don't they pay individual rates?
12:50 PM on 01/15/2012
Go ahead and lower the corporate tax rate, but make publicly traded companies pay taxes based on GAAP income. Much less tax code and the public auditor does the audit work with review by the IRS. Plus you would have the tension between keeping the income number lower because of tax liability and keeping income higher to satisfy stockholders.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
new beginning
Practice random acts of kindness-change the world
09:34 AM on 01/15/2012
Here is an interesting yahoo article about $30 BILLION in tax breaks to major corporations that are on "autopilot" to be rubber stamped as part of the 'payroll cut" legislation. It seems that once you get your "break" approved once, that it never gets looked at again.

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-tax-breaks-autopilot-little-debate-130822677--spt.html

Anyone see a problem with preferential treatment for certain businesses in the tax code?

If you do, the time to talk to your rep. is NOW before this gets shoved through. Again.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Terri Skau
Se... sotto una splendida luna piena...
03:57 PM on 01/16/2012
"The Internal Revenue Service was never authorized by Congress." - Public Notice - Media Bypass, March, 1997 - An unconstitutional act is enforced by an unauthorized agency.
Withholding taxes, an emergency measure initiated only for World War II, are still collected.
Income taxes pay only Federal Reserve debt and IRS expenses. "Income taxes do not fund any government function." - Page 12, President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, January 15, 1984 - Library of Congress.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
new beginning
Practice random acts of kindness-change the world
05:00 PM on 01/16/2012
If income taxes don't fund any government function, then what funds government functions?
09:30 AM on 01/15/2012
The "Congressional Cartel" has been bought and sold by big business - we all know that. Our Democracy is no more and, sadly, the majority of the population has no voice. Cut the rate to 25% and take away all those lucrative loopholes and subsidies same goes for the elite individuals running this Country. Over the last 30 years we have been blindsided by a corrupt system that has killed the middle class and grown a kind of "royalty" that goes against the grain. Everything they do is for their benefit from wars, to out sourcing to healthcare to education. I wish we could just wipe the slate clean and re-elect all elected positions and do away with the money and greed in politics.
photo
K August
Research Alec Exposed
09:21 AM on 01/15/2012
Sure give them their tax break but remove ALL the special ones they've managed to buy via lobbying since the 1986 Tax Reform Act and make sure they can't keep adding new loopholes and special favors after all of them are gone and closed up.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
efmo
Oh no, my micro-bio is empty!
02:00 PM on 01/17/2012
What will happen is the middle class/working class/working poor will lose most of their tax "benefits" in the name of fairness and tax reform, a few corporate loopholes will be closed to show "everyone" is sharing the pain & within a very short time, those loopholes will be back in action for the very wealthy & corporations (all in the name of creating jobs.) Revenues will continue to drop necessitating the total elimination of social programs and/or "privatizing" them - along with every other public good which means a very few will continute to benefit from their manipulation of tax revenues while the vast majority will have the privilege of paying higher income taxes and higher prices for everything that's been privatized (incl. roads, parks.) Any currently provided public good that can't be privatized to make a profit will just be eliminated.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
dadw5boys
Disabled Vietnam Vet
08:26 AM on 01/15/2012
Blows my mind trying to understand how Romney can plan to create Jobs when all he has done is profit from failed businesses. I am still worndering if he took the retrirement funds of the businesses he took over and left those Employees without a dime after years of work.
I have never seen a person who only tears things down build anything it is not in their nature or skill set.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Michaela19801
Dante's Inferno aka GOP
08:42 AM on 01/15/2012
GOP speak for "create jobs" is more tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.

Notice they did not say where the jobs would be. China.

Just look at his tax plan. Millionaires and higher get a 15% tax cut.
50k to 250 get a 2 % tax cut

Those making under 30k get a 60% increase in taxes.
RSGmusic
Instrumental music is great
09:00 AM on 01/15/2012
You do notice there are no legal pledges or contracts as to the amount of jobs.

BIg oil unlimited drilling perminate jobs will be very few with benefits.

Regs cut

write to work in all states on secret ballots

He so far has not release his tax forms long an itemized

I have retired from big oit coproration, there plans is to reduce the workforce by automations of computers and high tech production machines or robots and limit or eliminate pensions.
shessomoney
Liberal Elite-Made In U.S.A.
10:05 AM on 01/15/2012
He also raided the pension funds of these companies and the tax payers, who insure these funds, had to pay the benefits.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
dadw5boys
Disabled Vietnam Vet
10:51 AM on 01/15/2012
that is what I figured he did just never saw anything in print
11:27 PM on 01/14/2012
While I agree with the author that we need tax reform eliminating loopholes, the following statements are misleading:

"While other large countries have cut their corporate tax rates since then, lowering the U.S. rate would just encourage other countries to go even lower. Since we are cutting spending in the very areas that build wealth - education, infrastructure and research - a corporate tax rate cut would increase the pressure for further cuts in those areas, making us poorer."

First we should have a corporate tax rate commensurate with those countries with whom we compete. The idea that we cannot do that simply because they will lower their rates is laughable. We are competing for investment with other countries and have to have competitive tax rates.

Government spending on education, infrastructure and research do not build wealth that much in the US. Our educational system is broken and we spend more than most advanced industrialized and get very little from it. We need fundamental reform, not more spending at this point. Infrastructure spending only enhances wealth if it is new or creates avenues for new commerce. If it is simply make roads smoother (like most of the recent stimulus spending) it will not create wealth.

If we cut spending to 2008 levels we would cut 3/4 of the deficit and we were hardly that bad off then. So we should cut corporate tax rates to compete because it will not negatively impact economic growth, but enhance it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Century21Thinker
12:25 AM on 01/15/2012
Thoughtful.
10:30 AM on 01/15/2012
Thank you.
photo
General Washington
In the future, I return as Geddy Lee
05:52 AM on 01/15/2012
We already do have a corporate tax rate commensurate with other countries. According to the OECD's own research, we have either the lowest - or among the lowest - effective corporate tax rates in the world. And there is nothing laughable about other countries lowering their tax rates to undercut us. It's straightforward economics.

Government spending on education? Which government? The federal, the state, or the local? For, at the local level (where most of the spending originates) the distribution of that spending is most unequal and in many areas inadequate. Such as when you have one district spending $20K per student and another spending $2K per student, which does - in fact - occur. (I have no disagreement about the effect of making roads smoother however.)

If we cut spending to 2008 levels, and do what the previous Administration did in using emergency funding for the wars, then sure we can reduce spending, without actually reducing spending. And, of course, we can have negative net job growth for another decade as well.

As for being hardly that bad off in 2008, speak for yourself...
11:02 AM on 01/15/2012
HuffPo bloggers must not have jobs in business because they keep making the false argument that effective tax rates count when deciding where to invest. I build business cases for companies deciding to build plant/equipment and stated tax rates are used in the calculation because tax breaks are not guaranteed, require a lot of work and time (ie money) to get, and are not permanent (so they are discounted over a shorter period of time). If you have a choice between an 18% rate and an 18% rate with a lot of work to get the tax breaks and they only last five years you will go with the former every time.

Government spending on education in the US is the highest in the industrialized world on a per pupil basis. Most of it is done at the state level determined by local communities on how much they can and want to spend. Most states augment spending in poorer districts. Disparity is not the issue because people with money will spend it any way they like. The issue is will spending more money with the current system yield greater benefits and I say a resounding NO.

For example. Chicago with among the worst schools in the country spends $15,875 per pupil while suburban districts that are much wealthier spend the same or less. Private school averages are much less at $8.849, but yielding much higher results. We need to reform the system not spend more money.
11:13 AM on 01/15/2012
One last comment. Going to 2008 levels of spending as a starting point is a rational course of action because the population of the country has not changed that much and it was before all the (failed) stimulus spending so it represents a better budget than the ones that followed.

The wars of which you speak are not as onerous on the budget as you suggest. I know that for libs they get irrational about the wars and want to discredit them at all costs, but you need to look at the numbers rationally we are going to fix the problem.

Iraq and Afghanistan cost between $1.3 - 3.0T since they began over 10 years ago. That is about $130-300B per year. Our federal budget is $3.8T so the wars represent only about 3 - 8%, hardly enough to crater us economically. Also, much of the cost was in personnel that would have been incurred even if there were no wars because the soliders would have been sitting in Germany or a base in the US (we have an all volunteer army). So stopping the wars will have less benefit than even I gave above.

I cannot speak for you personnally and how well off you were in 2008, but the country cannot make policy on the basis of your life.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:19 PM on 01/14/2012
When the Americans most able to pay their fair share of taxes refuse that citizenship duty, the self-governing feature disappears and is replaced by autocracy ( rule of the few or indispensable individual supported by the few). When top level leaders desert a representative democracy, the organization collapses
11:33 PM on 01/14/2012
Americans are paying their fair share of taxes except for tax fraud and no one (except maybe you?) is alleging that much tax fraud. Paying or not paying a fair share of taxes does not cause "self governing" to disappear because it does not take away voters right to vote. Whether or not someone else pays their fair share of taxes or not does not stop me from voting.

Who is deserting a representative democracy? We all still have the right to vote and no elected representatives are deserting our democracy.

You are clearly overstating you case.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Social Construct
Go left, young man.
01:42 AM on 01/15/2012
On the surface you provide an adequate argument. However, at deeper levels, both above comments carry valid weight. What is the price, or responsibility, of a politically empowered elite compared with an arguably less empowered average, general population within the structural confines of a democratic representative form of government? If it were as simple of proposition as you submit, then the thoughts of thinkers from Aristotle to John Rawls, with every Western societal thinker in between them, are exercises in wasteful rhetoric and semantics. We may as well live in Hobbes' mythical state of nature and not waste time examining the human condition.
lqw
Justmyopinion
08:30 AM on 01/15/2012
47% pay zero in federal income tax. How is that "fair" ?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
J T K
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
07:31 AM on 01/15/2012
The fact that liberals want the wealthy to pay more than their fair share weakens the argument that they should pay their fair share. Taxes specifically aimed at the wealthy are misguided and this whole idea of progressive taxation (beyond having lower taxes for the extremely poor) drives home this point. I think the rich should pay their fair share but so too do I think that they shouldn't be punished for having wealth, whether it be by inheritence or earnings.

What we need is a flat tax with a big caveat. Give everyone the first $45,000 in income for free, treat all money gained as income including cap gains, and then tax everything after that at 25%, no exceptions, no credits, no loopholes. It would be an entirely fair system and one that would cushion the poor while taxing high incomes for each dollar without exception.

Both sides would hate it because neither could away with not paying anymore and it would stop the government from using the tax code as a tool for "social change" because no incentives would mean no tax credits at all including education and work credits. The right would scream about the end to corporate subsidies and the left would scream about not being able to incentivize people to make good choices, go to school, work hard, and all that through tax code bullying. That's what makes it such a good idea though.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
tacevad
American SS Card Carrying Socialist
11:15 PM on 01/14/2012
August 30th, 1935, Revenue Act (Wealth Tax Act ) passed.

* Increased the surtax rate on individual incomes over $50,000, the estate tax on individual estates over $40,000 and graduated steeply taxes on individual incomes over $1 million until the rate was 75% in excess of $5 million.
* Decreased the small corporation tax rate to 12% while increasing the corporate tax, on incomes above $15,000 to 15%.

adjusted for inflation these are the way out of the financial mess that 75 years of tinkering with the tax codes have caused. no deductions no special deals let's go back to what worked to pay off the War debt and rebuild Europe in the process. This time it is War debt and rebuilding America that is needed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Century21Thinker
12:29 AM on 01/15/2012
You failed to point out that promptly after they enacted that tax
the economy turned south back into deep depression which
only corrected with the arsenal of defense started pumping out war supplies for our allies.
photo
General Washington
In the future, I return as Geddy Lee
05:44 AM on 01/15/2012
If you're referring to the recession of 1937, you are wrong.

The recession of 1937 (which started in the middle of that year) was caused by the contraction of government spending on programs and assistance which, until then, had kept people employed and able to spend money to gradually restart the economy.

The recession was ended by mid-1938 when the Roosevelt Administration realized its mistake, and he re-instituted the funding to several programs.

And, by the way, industrial defense spending didn't start in earnest until 1942, long after the recession within the Depression had ended.

The Lend/Lease program didn't have an effect as we gave the British old - and already existing - supplies (apart from food and raw materials).