• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama Launches Foolish Assault on U.S. Companies

    In his remarks to Congress Tuesday night, President Obama repeated a liberal clarion call to eliminate a tax incentive for U.S. businesses to invest and move jobs overseas. Most Americans surely have no idea what he’s talking about. And most Americans would surely oppose any tax provision that would encourage American companies to ship jobs overseas. I would, too.

    But what’s he really talking about? He doesn’t say. But since we’ve heard this rhetoric dating back since before the Kennedy Administration, it seems safe to assume the President is referring again to a bugaboo called “deferral”. Before describing how this tax provision works, one simple fact suggests the reality differs fundamentally from the President’s rhetoric: Through the Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton Administrations, and through decades of Democratic control of the House and Senate, this tax provision has remained fundamentally unchanged. If it were really a tax subsidy to move jobs overseas, wouldn’t it have been repealed long ago?

    The premise of the attack on deferral is that when American companies invest abroad, they do so at the expense of investment at home. To be sure, there are isolated cases where this kind of investment displacement occurs. But overwhelmingly, American companies invest abroad because there are good opportunities overseas in addition to their investment opportunities at home, in much the same way that foreign companies invest in the United States because our economy, markets, and institutions create good opportunities for foreign investors.

    Recent research underscores this point. Not only does foreign investment by American companies not reduce their aggregate investment levels at home, foreign investments so increase the overall competitiveness of U.S. companies that they are then able to increase their domestic investment. Specifically, every $10 invested abroad by a U.S. multinational company increases investment at home on net by $2.60.

    The tax provision in question simply allows U.S. companies to pay tax on the earnings of their foreign subsidiaries when that income is brought home. As long as the income remains overseas, the payment of any U.S. income tax is deferred. From the taxpayer’s perspective, deferral is only relevant when the foreign subsidiary is in a relatively low-tax jurisdiction. The reason is that the taxpayer only owes U.S. tax to the extent the U.S. tax rate exceeds the foreign jurisdictions tax rate. So there is no residual U.S. tax on earnings in high-tax jurisdictions like Japan, the U.K., and Germany.

    The U.S. system of taxing foreign source income reflects a protectionist view that the U.S. should actively discourage U.S. investment abroad. In that sense, it is the income tax analog to erecting tariffs on imports, a backdoor form of protectionism. The effect of tax deferral is to mitigate somewhat the anti-competitive, distorting effects of U.S. tax policy. Eliminating deferral would not eliminate a tax subsidy to U.S. firms investing overseas as President Obama asserts; it would raise even higher the existing barriers to those investments. To U.S. companies trying to compete, there’s a world of difference.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to Obama Launches Foolish Assault on U.S. Companies

    1. tom kern says:

      Overseas investment with a return sounds great to me.When that return is met we can spend that return here on our own ,then wait to spend overseas again when that time comes. The cycle unravels nicely.

    2. E Paul Lian, Scottsd says:

      I guess my views on Obama were solidified several months ago during the "Joe the Plummer" fiasco. Candidate Obama, at the time, was bragging to Joe that he made far more than the $250,000 threshhold required to hit the top income tax brackets he would impose when elected President. My first reaction was bewilderment as Obama makes about $165,000 as a US Senator, plus some royalties for his book signings and speaking fees. I found it unusual that Obama would attempt to elevate himself to "rich guy" status. This guy is nothing more than another person who is at the public trough, trying to play a role he is ill equipped to play. His actions as President have done nothing to change my opinion. He's got access to the Corporate Checkbook & is having the time of his life spending like a baffoon and chastising corporate America for promoting their business missions. My circle of friends are waiting for Obama to fall flat on his face. I haven't seen one thing yet that is impressive.

    3. Lisa Hoffman says:

      You would think with the intellect that you would want one to be beleive that you have E Paul, that you would surely know that there is not a human on earth who would possibly unravel what your idol has made such chaos of in eight years within two months. Obama may fall on his face, but you have fallen on your face already and are above the inllect that you would like to hold to even know it.

    4. Barb -mn says:

      HUH?

      Anyway Lisa, if you truly love America and her: principles, values, STRENGTH, you would want to see him fall on his face.

      If you are young and went to public school, you may not know the truth or the true history of America. Please review the American Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and all you can on the history of America. You may understand.

      You may want to stop drinking that kool-aid and know the truth.

    5. Barb -mn says:

      HUH?

      Anyway Lisa, if you truly love America and her: principles, values, STRENGTH and FREEDOM, you would want to see him fall on his face.

      If you are young and went to public school, you may not know the truth or the true history of America. Please review the American Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and all you can on the history of America. You may understand.

      You may want to stop drinking that kool-aid and know the truth.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×