Obama Weekly Address: Companies Which Flee High Taxes Are Un-patriotic

Another Saturday, more populism attacks. Interestingly, he does suggest a Good Idea amongst his populist rhetoric

Weekly Address: Closing Corporate Tax Loopholes

In this week’s address, the President continued his call for our nation to rally around an economic patriotism that says rather than protecting wasteful tax loopholes for a few at the top, we should be investing in things like education and job training that grow the economy for everybody. The President highlighted the need to close one of the most unfair tax loopholes that allows companies to avoid paying taxes here at home by shifting their residence for tax purposes out of the country. The President has put forth a budget that does just that, and he has called for business tax reform that makes investment in the United States attractive, and creates incentives for companies to invest and create jobs here at home. And while he will continue to make the case for tax reform, the President is calling on Congress to take action and close this loophole now.

Wait, he put forth a budget that includes this? Would that be the budget that Harry Reid (D-Nevada), Majority Leader of the Democrat controlled Senate refused to even bring to the floor for a vote? And that all but 2 Democrats rejected in a House vote, which was called a stunt by Democrats? And was submitted late, yet again?

But there’s another trend that threatens to undermine the progress you’ve helped make. Even as corporate profits are as high as ever, a small but growing group of big corporations are fleeing the country to get out of paying taxes. They’re keeping most of their business inside the United States, but they’re basically renouncing their citizenship and declaring that they’re based somewhere else, just to avoid paying their fair share.

Says the guy who takes advantage of every tax loophole, to use his own words, to avoid paying his full rate.

I want to be clear: this is only a few big corporations so far. The vast majority of American businesses pay their taxes right here in the United States. But when some companies cherrypick their taxes, it damages the country’s finances. It adds to the deficit. It makes it harder to invest in the things that will keep America strong, and it sticks you with the tab for what they stash offshore. Right now, a loophole in our tax laws makes this totally legal – and I think that’s totally wrong. You don’t get to pick which rules you play by, or which tax rate you pay, and neither should these companies.

There is so much in that statement to fisk I’m not sure where to start. He’s possibly the last person in the country to discuss adding to the deficit. His investments have often been monumental failures.

And then there’s the part about getting to pick the rules you play by…oh, wait, he means Other People can’t pick, because Obama sure does this on a constant basis, even changing the rules which have no latitude within them.

The best way to level the playing field is through tax reform that lowers the corporate tax rate, closes wasteful loopholes, and simplifies the tax code for everybody. But stopping companies from renouncing their citizenship just to get out of paying their fair share of taxes is something that cannot wait. That’s why, in my budget earlier this year, I proposed closing this unpatriotic tax loophole for good. Democrats in Congress have advanced proposals that would do the same thing. A couple Republicans have indicated they want to address this too, and I hope more join us.

The first sentence is fantastic. This is something Republicans have been trying to do for quite some time. Unfortunately, every piece of legislation the Republican led House has passed along these lines has featured a majority of Democrats voting against it, and, in a few cases, has featured a veto threat from Obama. And none of them ever get taken up by the Democrat Senate.

I’ve yet to see a proposal by Congressional Democrats, nor can I find one on the web. Republicans have advanced several, so this “a couple Republicans” thing is just more Obama nastiness, but, should we expect different from him? Well, we should, of course, but then reality intrudes.

There is a problem, though, when discussing dealing with the “corporate tax inversions”, as The Economist points out

The real solution is to lower the corporate rate, eliminate tax breaks and move America from a worldwide system to a territorial one. Barack Obama has proposed a reform that cuts the rate to 28% but keeps the worldwide reach. Dave Camp, a Republican congressman, has plumped for 25%, the OECD average, and a shift to a territorial system, instead.

It should be possible to bridge the differences. But both sides have tied the subject to other issues. Mr Obama insists that corporate-tax reform must also raise more money to spend on things like public infrastructure, which the Republicans oppose; they, in turn, want to package it with cuts in personal tax rates, which Mr Obama is loth to accept. Thus, nothing happens.

Sadly, that’s the way Washington works, trying to package other things with the main thing. That’s how we ended up with student loans “reform” in Obamacare. Even if both drop the other stuff, they still have to deal with the rates and reach. And then deal with recalcitrant Senate Democrats.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Obama Weekly Address: Companies Which Flee High Taxes Are Un-patriotic”

  1. Zhytamyr says:

    So if say some fictional congresscritter we’ll call “Lurch” moors his luxury boat in another state to avoid paying taxes on it?- is this unpatriotic? What if fed govt workers were twice or three times as likely as the average citizen to cheat or just not pay income taxes?- is this unpatriotic? What if those fed gov bureacrats were never prosecuted or even punished? What if the IRS along with the CIA, ATF, FBI, BLM- well pretty much the whole shebang could & would take action against common Americans for holding contrary political views? Does anyone (with a functioning brain) listen to to crap that comes out of these unclean vermin’s mouths? It’s unpatriotic that the president has not been impeached & jailed (forever)- that’s unpatriotic.

  2. Jeffery says:

    So corporations are people, deserving of protected religious and political rights BUT can move their extracorporeal selves to a foreign country to avoid taxes while actually still conducting most of their business in the US?

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    Corporations have no obligation to God, country, employees or customers – they have but one moral – to maximize the return on investment for shareholders.

    Will Walgreens (with 8500 American stores) renounce America, put a FAX machine and phone line in Switzerland and become a Swiss company to save taxes? If the long-term savings in taxes is greater than the short-term loss of business from bad press, they’ll do it.

    So corporations are people my friend, have religious and political rights when convenient (according to the SCROTUS), but are not patriotic.

    Maybe if I pay a guy in St. Kitts and Nevis $100 a month to put a tent in his back yard (my new “residence”) I can stop paying US federal taxes! No? Only corporations can do that? Doesn’t seem fair.

    Why don’t average Americans have the same loophole?

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Isn’t it funny that people like Jeffery argue that corporations must have morals, patriotism, etc and yet want to deny them the right to act in a moral or religious way.

    He then says that “one moral” – that of maximizing return on investments – while all the time saying that the money generated by corporations should go to taxes.

    After all, in his mind, people don’t know how to spend their own money – the corporate government does.

    In short, there are those amongst us that the government owns all we do and all that we create.

  4. jl says:

    “So corporations have religious rights (according to SCOTUS)…” No, J, they said those rights reside in the RFRA. Without that legislation, signed by Clinton, the case probably would have gone the other way. But I love the hypocrisy- the taxes that the corporations save (legally, by the way) pale in comparison to the taxes the American public spends on welfare and medical care to illegal aliens that enter the country while Obama looks the other way.

  5. Jeffery says:


    You misunderstand, again. I said that corporations have one moral. To maximize the return on investment. You and your SCROTUS are deregulating them giving them rights of personhood and religion. My question was why don’t you require them to be patriotic as well?

    You can make the argument that the profits of corporations should not be taxed. Are you making that argument?

    Government has functions paid for by taxes.

  6. gitarcarver says:

    I said that corporations have one moral. To maximize the return on investment.

    And of course, that is not a “moral,” but why should reading and comprehension be suddenly understood by you?

    You and your SCROTUS are deregulating them giving them rights of personhood and religion.

    That is factually false Jeffery. First off, there is no such thing as the SCROTUS. Secondly, corporations have always been what the law calls a “false person.” If that were not the case, corporations could not appear in court proceedings, procure land, etc.

    It is not a new theory, It is long standing law.

    My question was why don’t you require them to be patriotic as well?

    You want to force people and or corporations to be “patriotic?”

    Who defines what that means?

    Government has functions paid for by taxes.

    And those functions are defined within the Constitution. Is it “patriotic” for the Congress and President to go outside of those functions?

  7. john says:

    Kerry’s “boat” is actually a corporation, he leases it out to others. It spends much more time in Newport RI thanit does in Nantucket. If you were less of an idiot you might have known so

  8. gitarcarver says:

    Kerry’s “boat” is actually a corporation, he leases it out to others.

    And you have the audacity to call other people an “idiot?”

    Sorry john, but a boat cannot be a “corporation.” It can be an asset of a corporation, but it cannot be a corporation in and of itself.

    It spends much more time in Newport RI thanit does in Nantucket.

    So what you are saying is that Kerry keeps the boat where it can make money and pay less taxes on that money.

    Funny how that works, huh?

Pirate's Cove