I understand that focus groups have refused to believe that anyone running for president would actually take the positions that Romney has taken. That’s one of the reasons, of course, that Republicans (e.g., Linda McMahon) try so hard not to tell anyone what they will do if elected. Better to spout banal talking points. But I digress. I doubt that the group was even told about this, but I’m fairly certain they would not have believed it had they heard it:
The plan Romney has endorsed would change the US tax system to one of territorial taxation. That means that foreign income from US multinationals would be exempt from US taxation. While this seems intuitive, it would turn every country in the world into a foreign tax haven, and encourage US companies to book profits abroad and abandon the US. As Clausing says, this is justified with a bit of legerdemain:
Advocates of a territorial system argue that because many of our trading partners have moved to a territorial system, we need to follow if our multinational corporations are to remain competitive. Yet most countries with territorial systems have hybrid versions of territoriality that are far different from the version being suggested for the United States. Those hybrid systems include tough antiabuse provisions that discourage the shifting of income and employment to low-tax havens; the result is often a higher tax on foreign income than applies in the United States.
In other words, you can move to territorial taxation with these other controls and discouragements; but that’s not the plan on offer. Instead, the plan is to turn loopholes into freeways for Mack trucks. In fact, other countries’ territorial taxation regimes typically tax profits from tax havens which offer drastically lower tax rates.
(via FDL News Desk)
The idea, of course is to create a world where no corporation goes taxed. Now, the Romneybots justify this by arguing, as noted above, that we really must keep up with the rest of the world, except, it need hardly be said and therefore it is not, for those antiabuse provisions which smack of regulation. Among other things, it’s funny how we are often advised to follow foreign examples, except in those cases, such as health care, in which doing so would benefit the common person. Then, the USA is number one by definition, and following the example of the foreigner is unpatriotic.