Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Wed Feb 22, 2012, 10:48 AM Feb 2012

5 Key Facts About The Obama Administration’s Corporate Tax Overhaul

5 Key Facts About The Obama Administration’s Corporate Tax Overhaul

By Pat Garofalo

The Obama administration today is unveiling an overhaul of the corporate tax code, proposing to lower the top corporate income tax rate while eliminating a host of deductions and loopholes. The plan will be formally unveiled later today, but here are some of the important facts released already:

– The administration is proposing a top corporate income tax rate of 28 percent, lowered from its current 35 percent.

– The top tax rate for domestic manufacturers would be 25 percent.

– The plan would implement a minimum tax on overseas profits, as President Obama proposed in his most recent State of the Union address. The minimum tax would limit the ability of corporations to exploit low-tax havens like the Cayman Islands. The U.S. currently loses more to corporate profit shifting than it spends on several federal agencies.

– The plan would pay for the rate reduction by eliminating credits, loopholes, and deductions, including those for the oil and gas industries. Obama’s budget already proposed eliminating 12 tax breaks to oil, gas, and coal companies, saving $41 billion over 10 years.

The plan would raise $200-$300 billion, depending on which baseline is used, as it would pay for the extension of a host of tax credits — such as the R&D tax credit — that are usually extended without pay-fors. As the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein explained, “their definition of revenue neutral is closer to what the corporate tax code actually says, but it’s about $200 billion above the Joint Tax Committee’s baseline.”

The U.S. already has the second lowest effective corporate tax rate in the world, and is raising historically low amounts of revenue from the corporate income tax. In fact, corporate tax revenue is at a 40 year low, according to the Congressional Budget Office, even though corporate profits have rebounded to their pre-recession heights. And the U.S. effective corporate tax rate is low compared to other developed economies, while U.S. corporations are taxed less than their foreign rivals, as these charts show:

<...>

However, despite these numbers, the plan does not aim for an increase in revenue, above that which would allow for the extension of some credits to be paid for. “Everyone agrees on the basic principle of lowering rates in exchange for eliminating loopholes,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “However, I think it is important that the target be some increase in tax revenue.” Otherwise, the burden of deficit reduction will fall upon middle-class and low-income Americans and the services upon which they depend.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/22/429997/5-facts-corporate-tax-obama/

I agree with Dean Baker, an increase in revenue has to be the goal.




14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
5 Key Facts About The Obama Administration’s Corporate Tax Overhaul (Original Post) ProSense Feb 2012 OP
Leave the rate where it is, close all the loopholes and collect the damn tax! Scuba Feb 2012 #1
NAILED IT !!!! russspeakeasy Feb 2012 #4
Hear! Hear! The present effective corporate tax is a travesty and disgrace, symtomatic indepat Feb 2012 #11
i also agree the goal should be raising revenue Enrique Feb 2012 #2
Here's ProSense Feb 2012 #3
"little to no tax" is relative Enrique Feb 2012 #6
There ProSense Feb 2012 #8
they could end up paying even less Enrique Feb 2012 #9
Just what we need, more Trickle Down. Octafish Feb 2012 #5
If ProSense Feb 2012 #7
I also agree with Dean Baker. JDPriestly Feb 2012 #10
I think ProSense Feb 2012 #12
Though I tend to agree with those who point out that as long JDPriestly Feb 2012 #13
not big enough Enrique Feb 2012 #14

indepat

(20,899 posts)
11. Hear! Hear! The present effective corporate tax is a travesty and disgrace, symtomatic
Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:49 PM
Feb 2012

of a corrupt and venal government unwilling to impose an equitable tax burden on those most able to pay sufficient to cover its operating expenses, service its debt, and meet its other obligations.

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
2. i also agree the goal should be raising revenue
Wed Feb 22, 2012, 11:11 AM
Feb 2012

and it makes zero sense that any tax reform wouldn't do that. What about the freaking deficit everyone's so preoccupied about?

And who will be surprised if the tax reform that actually gets passed results in lowered tax revenue from corporations?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
3. Here's
Wed Feb 22, 2012, 11:17 AM
Feb 2012

what I don't understand: If most corporations are paying little to no tax, how will enforcing this rate result in no new revenue?

The key to this should be strong enforcement, and that must be built into any reform. Enforcing a 28 percent to 35 percent tax rate and closing loopholes should result in increased revenue.

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
6. "little to no tax" is relative
Wed Feb 22, 2012, 11:33 AM
Feb 2012

in absolute numbers they pay $250 billion. You and I both agree that tax reform should aim to increase that revenue. According to this article, it won't. In my opinion, the reform could easily end up decreasing it.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
8. There
Wed Feb 22, 2012, 11:38 AM
Feb 2012
"little to no tax" is relative in absolute numbers they pay $250 billion. You and I both agree that tax reform should aim to increase that revenue. According to this article, it won't. In my opinion, the reform could easily end up decreasing it.

...are major corporations paying zero (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=338432). In fact, with the loopholes, some of them are making money off the government.

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
9. they could end up paying even less
Wed Feb 22, 2012, 12:40 PM
Feb 2012

they're paying $250 billion now, what will it be if/when this reform goes through?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
5. Just what we need, more Trickle Down.
Wed Feb 22, 2012, 11:24 AM
Feb 2012

Gee. Corporate Rate was 50-percent when Pruneface took office.

And back then, corporate America paid their taxes.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
7. If
Wed Feb 22, 2012, 11:36 AM
Feb 2012

"Just what we need, more Trickle Down."

...there are corporations paying zero income tax, enforcing 28 percent isn't "trickle down."

30 Major Corporations Paid No Income Taxes In The Last Three Years, While Making $160 Billion
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/03/360185/30-corporations-no-taxes/

I mean, only about three industries are paying above 28 percent, and most are paying less than 20 percent.


JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
10. I also agree with Dean Baker.
Wed Feb 22, 2012, 02:04 PM
Feb 2012

Why revise the tax code if it does not result in more revenue?

It costs something just to revise the code.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
12. I think
Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:49 PM
Feb 2012

closing the loopholes will have a big impact, even though the revenue is minimal compared to getting these companies to actual pay taxes. It simply can't be one or the other.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
13. Though I tend to agree with those who point out that as long
Thu Feb 23, 2012, 10:46 PM
Feb 2012

as for-profit corporations can spend limitless amounts of money on lobbying and on campaign contributions, the loopholes will be reinstated with a vengeance.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»5 Key Facts About The Oba...