(06-13-2016 11:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Pam certainly has a point of view on things, there's no denying that. That doesn't make any of the facts that she cites in her testimony untrue. And given her credentials that I posted, I'm guessing she's probably a lot more authoritative source on tax matters than you are, regardless of whether you have forgotten more about taxes than Hambone ever knew (which I tend to doubt, but I won't go there).

K

I'll call that game.

(06-13-2016 11:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 11:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 11:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I disagree with the premise that either our tax code drives away business or that an analysis is based largely on the code itself.
I'm rejecting the foundation of your line.

OK, how can it not drive away business? We have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world and are one of only two countries (with Eritrea) that taxes worldwide income. How can that ever be anything but a negative factor in evaluating destinations for investment? How can, "Come to the US and pay more taxes," ever be a positive factor in a business investment decision?

Nobody pays the given rate.

Because they move operations overseas and pay the lower rate there.

I took a look at the 30 companies that make up the Dow, thinking that was a good representative sample of multinationals. As a group, their effective tax rate was 27%, compared to the 35% statutory rate. The entire 8% difference was what they saved by having overseas operations taxed at lower overseas rates. There were other factors, a few of them had R&D credits that amounted to 1% or 2%, but in the end those other factors all pretty much netted to zero.