making the corporate tax rate (and discounted rates for repatriating offshore cash) competitive than the rest of the global economy will most certainly result in some amazing benefits.
basically if you are for the tax cuts...you can argue positives all day long.
if you are against the tax cuts...you can argue the negatives all day long.
just like any other major piece of legislation (or any political stance for that matter)
Here is a peer reviewed paper on tax rates.
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/deliver...4025064031116017084079116085075029074&EXT=pdf
Here is the conclusion.
We believe that this study indicates that U.S.-based multinationals
do not face a tax-induced competitive disadvantage in competing
against EU-based multinationals. Even though the U.S. statutory rate
is ten percentage points higher than the average corporate statutory
rate in the European Union, the effective U.S. corporate tax rate is
the same or lower than the effective EU corporate tax rate for the
largest U.S. and EU multinationals.
Presumably, the reason for this result is that while the EU countries
have a lower statutory rate, their tax base is larger because it has
fewer exceptions. In fact, a comparison of the controlled foreign corp-
poration (CFC) rules of the United States (subpart F) and the major
EU jurisdictions (the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and France)
indicates that the EU CFC rules tend to be tougher than subpart F
because (1) they take into account the ETR in the source country in
deciding whether to tax income from a CFC,
43
and (2) they take into
account whether the CFC has a real presence in the source country.
44
Under the EU rules, for example, a bank earning interest income in a
tax haven is likely to be subject to current tax because the ETR in the
haven is low, and the bank does not have a real presence in the ha-
ven.
45
Under subpart F the income will likely qualify for the active
financing exception.
46
In addition, the European Union does not have
anything like the U.S. rules that enable U.S. multinationals to shift
profits from high-tax to low-tax CFCs without incurring a U.S. tax cost
(check-the-box and § 954(c)(6)).
47
This conclusion suggests that the United States can in fact reduce its
corporate tax rate to the EU average in a revenue neutral fashion
without affecting the competitiveness of U.S.-based multinationals,
since such a move would simply result in a tax regime that is more
similar to that faced by EU companies. Specifically, as many observ-
ers have recommended, it should be possible to abolish deferral alto-
gether if the U.S. rate were reduced sufficiently. Such a move would
have tremendous simplification potential since it would be possible to
get rid of both subpart F and outbound transfer pricing enforcement,
and it would eliminate the “lock out” problem as well (since repatria-
tions would not be taxed). Alternatively, it should be possible to
amend subpart F to take the source country rate into account, so that
an effective source rate that is below 90% of the U.S. statutory rate
would result in a subpart F inclusion, while reducing the U.S. statutory
rate. Such a move, while not as radically simplifying as abolishing
deferral, will significantly reduce the pressure on outbound transfer
pricing while not resulting in a competitive disadvantage to U.S.-based
multinationals or inducing more profit shifting from the United States
to low-taxed offshore locations, like the current rules do.
Me again
Our marginal rates are high , but our effective rates are right in line. This allows some companies to be screwed if they have to pay the higher rate and some companies to get away like bandits. Wouldn't it have been nice if they brought down the top rate and got rid of loop holes to make this revenue neutral.......like they promised.
