Since this is the issue I know best and as we head further into the darkness that started on Friday, I thought I would post this helpful reminder when it comes to the debate regarding "tax reform" this year: the U.S. is a low taxed nation among developed economies, our supposed competitors.
This may surprise some folk, as we are used to hearing about how the U.S. has one of the the highest corporate tax rates in the world, or at least among OECD countries, which is true but that is (a) the marginal corporate income tax rate and (b) it only accounts for ~9% of revenue at the federal level. All in - federal, state, and local income and other taxes - the U.S. ranks 32nd out of 35 OECD nations by taxes as a percentage of GDP, at 25.88% in 2014 (only Mexico, South Korea, and Chile are lower). OECD data.*
For comparison, the FY2017 U.S. budget deficit was estimated at 2.6% of GDP and in FY2016 it was 3.2%. Thus, raising taxes to close out the deficit completely for FY2016 (to use the higher % of GDP number), or perhaps spend on infrastructure, would put us at 29.08%, or only up to 27th out of 35 OECD countries, behind those communists in Canada, which at 31.22% would still be 2% of its GDP higher. But that would apparently kill all our jobs (do they bleed? he asks), there not being any jobs in those aforementioned high-tax countries, apparently.
So when you hear that the U.S. needs tax reform or lower taxes to become "competitive" with the rest of the world, view it with some skepticism. If that's a reference solely to the U.S. corporate income tax and how the U.S. is virtually alone with such a high rate and a purported "worldwide" tax system, note that most major U.S.-based MNCs (i) currently pay tax at an effective rate on their non-U.S. income of somewhere between 0 and 15%; (ii) do not intend to ever repatriate that money "home" to the United States where they would incur the higher U.S. corporate rate - or at least most say so in SEC filings (and they wouldn't lie, would they?); (iii) pay a much higher effective tax rate on their U.S. source income - something like 20-30%, or even higher; and thus (iv) a move to a lower U.S. corporate tax rate and a territorial system means primarily a tax cut on income earned in the United States by U.S.-based MNCs - the stuff we're supposed to tax under a territorial system - and the ability to repatriate foreign earning tax free, which history tells us (specifically, the 2004 American Job Creation Act repatriation tax holiday) will be used to pay dividends, engage in share buybacks, or buy other U.S. companies, not "create jobs" (whether they bleed or not).
Why then, you may ask, the big push for large US based MNCs to invert? Because most of the "juice" in inversions involves stripping income out of the United States via interest and royalty payments to related parties, thus reducing U.S. tax on their U.S. income. But this is something U.S.-based multinationals can't do (and we wouldn't want them to do) and the U.S. congress refuses to implement strong earnings stripping rules - a feature of most of those aforementioned countries' tax systems - because that would be a tax increase (and/or they want to do it in "comprehensive tax reform").
More than you wanted to know, I'm sure.
*If you want to throw in the "BRICS" - Brazil 34.4%, China 22.0%, India 17.7%, Russia 19.5%, South Africa 26.9% this from wikipedia based mostly on Heritage Foundation numbers so caveats apply.