I think the big thing about this is that it will lead more companies to bring capital back to the US from overseas where they are hoarding it. If they either spend it or distribute it to Americans that's likely good for the economy. It also improves the IRR for projects, which should lead to more investment. Hopefully, it works to get the economy going.
Greedy companies are greedy. Lowering to 15% won't magically make them good corporate citizens. The carrot and a really big stick are needed. I don't see this admin taking a stick to corporate America.
IIRC the Russians tried a 13% rate for a major tax and found that it worked fairly well. If you hassle enough you can get below 13% (or 15%), but hassle has its own cost.
Implying "Greedy companies are greedy" is bad makes little sense...
Greed is defined as:
> intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
I've never met a person who wasn't greedy, seriously even a pastor has the intense desire for followers.
Further, it's literally only possible for a company to exist if it is greedy. How else will they pay their employees, investors, etc?
Now, we can argue some companies are "excessively greedy". However, I think that's still probably not the correct way to describe companies that shaft their employees for the bottom line. By definition being "greedy" implies "intense" or "excessive", I think a better term would be "short sighted".
A company which harms it's employees, customers, etc. and tries to get the most value is "greedy" (just as all companies are), but what makes it "bad" is the poor management.
I think the whole point of this new proposed system (aka 15% tax), is that it tips the pro's vs con's list of companies keeping money here to "pro". That's how economies work.
What you call a loophole most every other country in the world calls "territorial taxation." If a good is produced outside the US and sold for a profit outside the US then the US shouldn't collect taxes on the transaction.
The loophole allows self-dealing transactions to move local profits offshore.
Apple US buys iPods for $10 from China and sells in USA for $100. $90 profit, taxable, right? Wrong. Apple US licenses the Apple name from Apple Ireland for $89/iPod. Final tax sheet looks like:
Revenue: $100 cash from Apple store in San Francisco
Expenses: $10 Apple China, $89 Apple Ireland
Taxable profit in USA: $1 (minus labor and such, of course)
Taxes paid to US government: minimal.
The profits from firms that do lots of business in the USA are being paperwork-shifted outside the country to evade taxes.
This has been covered extensively in numerous in-depth articles about major corporations and their tax schemes.
You actually have it backwards. US firms that do a lot of business overseas are being paperwork-shifted outside of the US not to avoid paying taxes on US operations but to avoid paying US taxes on operations that take place largely overseas.
This is how Apple ends up with 250 Billion (or whatever it is now) overseas that it doesn't want to Repatriate and pay US taxes on. That money wasn't earned by selling iPods in the US, it was earned by selling iPods everywhere else.
The first is the US government not doing enough to prevent shell IP licensing from being used to eliminate US profits (while the companies are benefiting from US stability and legal protections).
The second is the issue with US companies repatriating (or not) profits earned in foreign subsidiaries.
If the goal is to repatriate earnings why not incentivize repatriation instead? Bring it back tax-free if you invest it in R&D on needed projects, x many new jobs, etc.
