Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Taxes and trade barriers
A couple of days ago I grandiously asserted that ending the deferral of corporate tax for foreign source income amounted to a trade barrier against which other countries, including particularly our "traditional allies," would retaliate. A couple of readers wondered whether I was right, and I responded in the comments. Well, the Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece this morning that explains the folly of the policy, including the trade issue, far more eloquently than I.
6 Comments:
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Wed May 06, 09:32:00 AM:
The epitaph on the Obama administration's grave 4 or 8 years from now will be: "the law of unintended consequences was a stone cold bitch"
By 
, at
Wed May 06, 10:00:00 AM:
hello... hapi blogging... have a nice day! just visiting here....
By , at
Wed May 06, 10:28:00 AM:
Since Obama didn't consult with our trading partners on an issue that will surely effect them all, can we officially dub him a unilateralist?
By , at
Wed May 06, 01:19:00 PM:
For an administration professing a globalist worldview, in favor of an integrated world economy, bilateralism and pragmatic leadership, this proposed policy stands out (along with the carbon tax) as a tremendous contradiction. Is this a case where the need for more tax money overcomes all principles?
By , at
Wed May 06, 01:49:00 PM:
The article really is good and hopefully the president reads it, this part especially:
"But even as a revenue raiser, this is likely to fail. Fewer companies will keep their headquarters in the U.S., especially small or mid-sized firms that can slip away without becoming a political target. Those companies that can't flee will sooner or later demand relief from Congress, which will be happy to create even more loopholes."Those companies that move HQ's to other countries are the backbone of the job creation engine of the American economy.
Why would anyone support this idea? What could possibly be good about it?
By Purple Avenger, at
Wed May 06, 05:36:00 PM:
Is this a case where the need for more tax money overcomes all principles?
Being a democrat is all that's necessary to overcome all principles.
