While there seems to be growing agreement in Washington that the U.S. needs to cut its tax rate on corporations, there is (surprise) no consensus at all on how to pay for this. One way: Raise taxes on capital gains and dividends.    This idea was one element of the broad tax reforms proposed last year by the chairs of [...]

A terrific story the other day by Jesse Drucker at Bloomberg got me thinking: Would it really matter very much if the U.S. cut its corporate tax rate from the current 35 percent to 25 percent? While that idea has growing support in Congress, it may be a classic case of closing the barn door [...]

Marty Sullivan of Tax Notes magazine has documented the location of profits of U.S. pharmaceutical companies for years. Each article he writes contains eye-popping figures. Last week’s was no different. In the March 8 issue, Marty used annual reports to chart the before-tax profits of seven large U.S. drug companies over the last decade or so. Here’s the story: between 1997 and 2008, foreign profits of Abbot Laboratories, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Pfizer, and Scherling-Plough quadrupled from about $9 billion to $37 billion. Over the same period, their U.S. profits fell by a third from $17 billion to $11 billion. Bottom line: the share of U.S. pharmaceuticals’ profits earned abroad has grown dramatically—from about one-third in the late 1990s to nearly four-fifths in 2008.

Tax experts will argue about nearly anything. But on one issue, there is something approaching a consensus: Corporate tax rates in the U.S. are too high. Where all that harmony turns dissonant, however, is over the matter of what to do about it. Cutting the corporate rate, it turns out, raises all sorts of complex technical problems, to say nothing of being a political nightmare.

President Obama took aim at multinational corporations last May at a press conference on international tax policy. I’ll leave out the details here, lest I put you to sleep or explode your brain. Let’s just say that the current system is a mess that drastically needs fundamental reform.
Economists describe two contrasting “pure” approaches to taxing the income U.S. companies earn abroad. A “worldwide” approach would apply our domestic tax rules to all income (with a foreign tax credit to protect against double-taxation). In theory, that system would tax U.S. business income the same, whether it’s earned at home or overseas, so firms shouldn’t care where they invest. In contrast, under a “territorial” or “dividend exemption” system, the U.S. wouldn’t tax active business income earned overseas; American firms would pay only the taxes of the country where they earn income, just like any non-U.S. business operating there. In theory, that puts U.S. businesses that invest abroad on equal tax footing with foreign firms.

International tax gives me a migraine, but President Obama’s new effort to tax overseas income has the wonkosphere buzzing, so I can’t resist adding to the cacophony.
First, some of what Obama is proposing will be very useful. Some may be counterproductive. But whatever it is, it is not tax reform. I wish Obama would stop degrading the concept of reform by using the phrase to describe what is mostly a tax increase on multinational businesses. Tax reform implies a coherent structure for raising revenue. This is a complex package of international tax changes, but I don't see the all-important internal logic that makes it reform.