THE PLANK JANUARY 29, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
It's received little discussion so far, but part of the stimulus plan would reduce taxes on corporate overseas earnings "repatriated" to the United States, from 35 percent to 5.25 percent. Supporters, including Senators Barbara Boxer and John Ensign, say such a dramatic reduction could bring tens of billions back home, boosting jobs and expanding tax coffers.
The problem is, at least in terms of jobs, that we've already tried this--and it doesn't work. In 2004 Congress passed the ""Jobs Creation Act," which reduced taxes on overseas earnings for 2005. The result? Though the one-year break brought over $500 billion back home, according to BusinessWeek,
One thing is clear, however: The money piling in from abroad as the
result of the Jobs Creation Act has done little to actually spur
hiring. In fact, six of the 10 companies repatriating the biggest
totals are axing workers in the U.S. They include HP, which announced
July 19 that it would cut its head count by 14,500 in the U.S. and
abroad, and Pfizer, which has said it will shutter 20 factories with
undisclosed U.S. job losses to lower costs by $4 billion by 2008.
But, hey, second time's a charm, right? (h/t to Lee Drutman.)
--Clay Risen
6 comments
This is a ridiculous provision but it is a part of the something-for-everyone smorgasboard approach to a stimulus package that putatively will garner broad support. So much for that concept after not one House Republican voted for that chamber's bill.
- liberal reformer
January 29, 2009 at 6:42pm
Why not just levy a tax on all the rest of us that goes striaght into the CEOs bank account?
gw
- iambiguous
January 29, 2009 at 7:13pm
George, I think that's the most insightful thing I've seen you contribute.
- janus
January 29, 2009 at 9:06pm
janus said:
George, I think that's the most insightful thing I've seen you contribute
george:
Thanks. It's my first post since the exorcism.
gw
- iambiguous
January 30, 2009 at 12:12am
The thrust of Riesen's post -- including the selective quote from Business Week -- is wron.
Today, with a 35% tax on repatriated earnings, virtually no money earned abroad is repatriated and thus virtually no taxes are received.
The proposal would generate more than $25 billion in taxes -- not a bad thing considering the huge deficits. But more importantly (assuming my projection that the repatriation would be equal to 2005 is correct) it would increase the cash available to corporate America by $475 billion -- an amount equal to more than half of the total in the two/three year stimulus package. Some of the money will just go into banks, which will help ease the credit crisis, and the rest will be spent in some form or other (capital improvements, repairs, buying other businesses, R&D, etc.), generating employment by reducing layoffs and increasing productivity or by creating capital gains, in turn to be reinvested, etc., etc.
In short, a huge boost to the stimulus package and a tax windfall to the federal and state governments.
In short, repatriation of the net would be
- PeteBeck
January 30, 2009 at 11:24am
Uh... It's not "part" of the Senate stimulus plan. It was an amendment that failed, and therefore is NOT part of the stimulus plan.
- prendergast
February 5, 2009 at 6:55pm