With the midterm elections quickly approaching, the incumbent congress has much to be concerned about. With low approval ratings and the population demanding some kind of tax reform, the new crop of political talent could dethrone many of this administration's congressional superstars.
A few months back, The New York Times published an excellent story by David Leonhardt concerning the American corporate tax system and the potential for its reform in the near future. Among the arguments in the short article is the remarkable variation in the corporate tax rates for businesses in various sectors. Companies with quickly portable items, such as concentrate used to make sugary beverages, can easily move operations to low-tax territories. Those with intangible assets like software production can structure their accounting so that profits are reported in low-tax jurisdictions.
New data conducted by financial study firm S&P Capital IQ (and discussed by the New York Times),disclosed the speculated tax rate (including federal, state, local, and foreign taxes) of the following companies are: Amazon.com, 6 percent; Boeing, 7 percent; Apple, 14 percent; General Electric, 16 percent; Google, 17 percent; eBay, 19 percent; and FedEx, 23 percent. These tax rates are incredibly low considering that the nominal U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent, which doesn't take into account state or local taxes.
In contrast, businesses with brick-and-mortar operations, frequently merchants, pay higher total tax rates: Wal-Mart, 31 percent; CVS, Best Buy, the Gap, and Whole Foods all ended up with tax rates around 35 and 40 percent. Exxon Mobil, due largely to tough foreign tax rates, paid 37 percent. Small businesses that lack global operations are unable to acquire a preferential tax rate by transmitting revenues to a low-tax territory, although they can of course pick to incorporate in a specific U.S. state to minimize taxes.
The trouble with the variation in what should be a definite corporate tax rate is that the tax code is effectively choosing losers and winners as opposed to leaving that choice to the free market. There is no ready reason for why the producers of soft drinks should be taxed at a lower rate than the soft drink vendor. There is considerable consensus throughout the political board that the nominal corporate tax rate needs to be reduced (perhaps to 25 percent) and particular reductions and tax credits done away with; although, whether that change should be revenue-neutral is going to be the topic of much debate.
While both parties support a new tax code amongst congressional leaders, lobbyists could possible complicate issues. A coalition of company teams called Let's Invest for Tomorrow (LIFT), which includes huge names such as Caterpillar, Coco-Cola, and Proctor & Gamble, wants to move the U.S. to a "territorial" tax system. Under this type of system, the U.S. would tax just the part of a company's profits that is received as a result of U.S. operations. Under the current "worldwide" system of taxation, the U.S. only imposes taxes U.S.-based companies on their global earnings but then grants them a tax credit for taxes paid to foreign governments.
The trouble with LIFT's proposition is that it enables large companies to easily move their operations to low-tax foreign territories, while less powerful U.S.-based companies pay greater rates. Of course, sound arguments about policy can be made for lower tax rates, however it is antithetical to progressive tax to tax big, U.S.-based multinational businesses at lower rates than smaller sized ones with specifically domestic operations, especially when international businesses greatly rely on advantages provided by the U.S. (a court system with well established legal precedents and a large, regulated safeties market, for example). The story understands that a compromise is possible; the U.S. may potentially utilize a territorial system but enforce a minimum tax on American businesses. So if a U.S.-based soda-maker relocates their operation to another continent and pays a 3% tax rate, the U.S. might enforce a tax on the company's profits to the point that it pays a pointed out minimum rate (for instance, 15 percent) on its global profits. Congress has suggested that the reform could be a vital part of 2014's plan.
Dallas Builder Mark Molthan Discusses Platinum Series and the Use of Color in Interior Design
Colors have an obvious impact on the way that we think, act and feel. This is why it's important to include color generously in any interior designing project. With just a few shades of the right color, you can really bring out the personality that's hiding in your living space!
Twenty Sometings, it's Time You Started Saving Some Real Money
Millenials may be the worst people at saving money, which is a shame considering that they are the demographic that needs savings the most. With the job market as bleak as it is now, there is very little financial certainty for people who are fresh out of college. But with a little bit of preparation, the transition into financial autonomy might just be a little bit easier.
Halliburton Legal Dispute Could Take a Detour to Supreme Court
The oil services titan, Halliburton Co., has been embroiled in a Class-Action Lawsuit that has been brought to its feet by Erica P. John Fund. The dispute is based on the allegations that Halliburton over-reported its earnings, and is backed by the majority of Halliburton's shareholders. In response, Halliburton is making last-minute attempts to overrule the legislation that allows its shareholders to assimilate so easily, and bring serious legal heat to the Oil Company.
