No, Obama didn’t actually say that. But I wonder how many people will read past the headlines—”Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent”—and see that the tax paid by corporations will go up, not down:
The plan would lower the nation’s corporate tax rate to 28 percent. At the same time, Obama wants to boost overall revenue from corporate taxation by banning numerous deductions and loopholes that save companies tens of billions of dollars a year on their tax bills.
In other words, the corporate tax rate will go down as the total amount of tax gleaned from corporations will go up (theoretically, anyway). Now, if Obama and the Democrats want to do that, it’s certainly well within their right to do so, if they have the votes to do it. Nor am I suggesting there is anything deceptive about it. I just wonder whether it’s clear to most people what it’s about.
For example, there’s the phrase “deductions and loopholes.” Somehow it always sounds as if there’s something shady about them, even though they’re perfectly legal, and tend to be put into the tax code in the first place to encourage some sort of result that’s deemed good at the time, either to the country or society or the economy or business as a whole. Some of them no doubt can be dispensed with without negative consequences, but I don’t have a clue which ones they are, and I wonder whether Tim Geithner knows either:
The president’s plan targets oil and gas companies for tax increases while promising special breaks for manufacturing companies.
And in a slap at U.S. multinational corporations that shelter profits overseas, Obama wants those firms to pay a minimum tax on their foreign earnings. He also wants to end tax breaks for companies that outsource and give new tax incentives to firms that move jobs back home.
Marguerite Higgins of the conservative Heritage Foundation argued that such a tax would hurt competition.
“Once again, Obama is going in precisely the wrong direction,” Higgins said in a statement. “Rather than in-sourcing jobs, he would outsource the headquarters and top management of U.S. multinational companies.”
The article also mentions this little tidbit [emphasis mine]:
Obama has not offered a detailed blueprint for overhauling the personal income tax code — also full of loopholes and deductions — other than calling for higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Such a blueprint is not expected to come before the November presidential election.
Here’s an example of the sort of thing that may be in store—the dividend tax:
Can you imagine?
You live in Hong Kong or Lisbon.
You were BORN there.
You decide to go into business.
You open a McDonalds franchise.
It is a decent success.
NOW Obama hits you with a tax because your business is owned by an American company.
Maybe you can change the name to MacDonalds or McDonals.
But bet your bottom dollar (or Euro) you will do something to get out from under this.
And maybe McDonalds will move offshore before you even have to make that difficult decision.
That’s still legal, right?
I would expect that they will have a US division and an international division. This is just another reason why US companies will move off shore to survive. These dim wits who vote for guys like Obama never realize that it is not the evil corporations who pay the tax. It is stock holders like my retired Aunt who depends on income from her investments to pay for her assisted living costs. Auntie, your income just took another dive under our estute president!
@Randy:
Randy, liberals usually score poorly when tested on economic matters. Numbers can’t be denied away with magical thinking.