Destructive vs Constructive Tax Reform

Miguel A. Martínez, Jr. photo

It was the legendary Chief Justice of the United States, John Marshall, who wrote the now famous phrase, “[T]he power to tax involves the power to destroy…”  He would likely repeat those words if he could read through the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, introduced this week by U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.  This legislation, if enacted, would direct the destructive power of the tax code on the global competitiveness of U.S.-based companies and, worst of all, on the U.S. economy.

Everyone acknowledges that our current tax system, last reformed in 1986, is broken.  It is a complex obstacle to investment and job creation in the U.S.  Fortunately, the bipartisan chairmen of the tax-writing committees in the U.S. House and Senate stand prepared to take on the naysayers and move forward with constructive efforts to modernize the U.S. tax code.  They’ve met with small business owners, entrepreneurs, innovators, and hard-working Americans to talk about ways to align the tax code with the U.S. economy.  Senator Levin’s bill, unfortunately, would not bring our tax code up to date.  Rather, it threatens to set the American economy back decades.   

Don’t let the populist appeal of the Levin bill’s title fool you.  His bill takes direct aim at law-abiding U.S. companies that are trying to compete with foreign companies that have the benefit of updated, modern tax systems.  

Under the guise of getting at tax havens, Senator Levin seeks to punish the responsible decisions that companies make in order to legally reduce their tax payments.  The problem is the tax code itself, not those who employ it.  For example, Sen. Levin dismisses valid and critically important tax rules such as “check-the-box” and “CFC look-through” as gimmicks.  But tax directors at American multinational businesses will tell you that, within the framework of the United States’ worldwide approach to taxation, these rules  were constructed to give them a fighting chance of competing with their global competitors which are not taxed on the money they earn outside their home countries.

The Levin bill also levies new taxes on “excess returns” from foreign customers, which actually punishes companies for being profitable.  Many IP-based companies earn high rates of return on their products because while they invest billions in research and development, the marginal cost of producing products like software is minimal.  The Levin bill condemns this business model with a broad brush and singles out these innovative companies for punitive new taxes.  These new taxes would disproportionately impact U.S. companies, putting them at a competitive disadvantage in global markets.

Constructive tax reform is not about attacking U.S. companies, but empowering them to succeed in the global marketplace and invest the fruits of their success here in the U.S. tax reform should be about working together to bring the U.S. tax code into the 21st century.  It should be about reducing the cost and complexity of the tax code.  It should be about drafting a tax code that has the potential to create a more competitive environment for business in the U.S. and more opportunities for growth and investment throughout the U.S. economy.

We believe there are three keys to creating a tax code that will do just that:

  • Lower the rate.  In 1986, the U.S. had one of the world’s lowest corporate tax rates, but today it is the highest among its global competitors;
  • Adopt a competitive, market-based tax system.  Of the 31 OECD countries, 25 use a market-based tax system; and,
  • Establish permanent tax incentives to promote R&D.  A robust and improved R&D tax credit would boost U.S. gross domestic product by $66 billion every year and create at least 162,000 new jobs. 

As we move forward in the tax reform debate, ITI will continue to work with Members of Congress to level the playing field so our nation and its businesses can compete in today’s global marketplace.  There are many ways to approach tax reform, but surely we can all agree on what the goals of tax reform should be:  new investment in America, new jobs throughout America,  and new economic opportunity across America. 

Maybe we can refresh Chief Justice Marshall’s point.  ”The power to tax involves the power to create.  It should be constructive, not destructive.”  It’s a lesson we hope that Sen. Levin will learn. 

Back
Share this post on:
10 comments
  • IRS Tax Forms Wed., May 21, 2:10 PM
    Great and nice blog. It's also very interesting. We also have a website about IRS TAX Forms . Please visit our website: http://irstaxforms.us/
  • Destrie Sun., December 22, 3:30 AM
    Sharp thgiinnk! Thanks for the answer.
  • Chiara Sat., December 21, 7:59 PM
    If her name is not on the account the bank is suseoppd to reject the deposit. Many banks will allow you to add someone as an authorized depositor. That way she can put money in but not take it out.Some banks have been lax about enforcing this rule but regulators have been clamping down on the practice of accepting mismatched funds so most are now playing by the rules now. http://lidqqmkqrh.com [url=http://yjnhio.com]yjnhio[/url] [link=http://wsrdrgz.com]wsrdrgz[/link]
  • Karolayn Sat., December 21, 5:09 AM
    You can, but you might run into problems. Due to the fact that your mtheors name may not be on your bank account, either the bank or the IRS might flag it as fraud and not deposit it into her account. What you can do, she can open up a greendot card and have her refund direct deposited into that card. They are available at Wal-Mart and most grocery stores. You will just get the information off of the direct deposit form on the greendot website and enter that into the bank account information when she e-files. This will save the hassle of not using your bank account and maybe having it bounced back.
  • Isabel Fri., December 20, 10:25 PM
    As I remember it was the Republicans who were tnriyg to tackle the Fannie Mae problem before it exploded in everyones face. The Dems would have no part of Fannie Mae regulation. Look what started the whole housing meltdown. That was about 2003 I beleive. You can find story easliy with a google search. When you say central banks, are you talking about the Reserve? Whats that going to do? They are a bank for banks. Not a savings and loan. http://lyxzmshas.com [url=http://mtwxow.com]mtwxow[/url] [link=http://qiqqxxnswqi.com]qiqqxxnswqi[/link]
  • Javier Fri., December 20, 5:45 PM
    April 24, 2012 Yes, because when you dgsein a website you can make all the changes that you want, you decide what type of website it is, and in simpler words you're in control. Its the same with your life. You decide how you want your life to be, just like a website. However it's a lot more difficult.
  • Eduardo Fri., December 20, 1:34 PM
    Address and return aderdss are fine. Some states give you a preprinted adhesive label to use on their returns. No biggee if you don't use it though.I do it every year http://ehmlovf.com [url=http://tckbnvavi.com]tckbnvavi[/url] [link=http://fizbpa.com]fizbpa[/link]
  • Fran Thu., December 19, 5:50 AM
    Thanks for the thoughts, Anon & GP!Anon: I haven't cemaprod by subfield. I would need a lot more data for meaningful comparisons along those lines. But I think you are right that part of the explanation might have to do with academic subculture differences -- whether those particular variables are the relevant ones, I'm not sure.GP: Thanks for the tip. The hypothesis you suggest is an interesting one -- though I'm not sure I see that trend in philosophy. Some of the oldest "peak" producers in philosophy were pre-20th-century (Reid, Leibniz, and Hobbes).
  • Hugo Wed., December 18, 9:47 AM
    True, society does not cause crime, but taurma in the form of all kinds of violence perpetuated on often young victims, does. The ACE study shows a direct link between adverse childhood experiences and adult anti-social behavior. Brain research evidences how the capacity to behave in a personally responsible manner is clearly undermined by early adverse experiences. Denying research data dangerously undermines the personal responsibility of policy makers. While rehabilitation and re-entry programs are important, protectingy and developing resiliency in the young and vulnerable through early childhood education and prevention programs will save more taxpayer dollars in the long run.
  • Deborah Mon., December 16, 6:26 PM
    The weather cnhnael is my staple (along with Headline News, VH1, History Channel, Life Time) when I was living in NYC....Miss them all as cable in HK sucks big time!
(HTML not permitted)
Captcha
* - Required