Then you should start rebuilding the political system which defines DC. Corporations literally ARE the government, nowadays. (It was given the name "lobbying", but is nothing other than corruption that's apparently accepted by the voter/citizen.)
Literally? I didn't know that.
It actually seems like this NSA stuff has been harmful to a number of large American internet companies, so I guess they haven't done a very good job of running things in their own interests.
That said, I disagree with the grandparent's point that Corporation literally are the government. Instead, the need for large media budgets for re-election campaigns drives the political process, which makes corporations and politicians cosy.
A large percentage of those are overseas, and the remainder are concentrated in Mountain View (yes, I'm aware of satellite offices in SF, NYC, Boston, etc.) Call it 15K HQ employees, which should be enough to make an impact. Right?
Except that their own senator, California's Dianne Feinstein, remains arguably the most vocal NSA surveillance enthusiast on Capitol Hill. She'll get reelected with or without the help of those 15K voters -- in a state with a population of 40 million. (In reality the number is even lower because not all employees are U.S. citizens eligible to vote.)
And those 15K concentrated employees are negligible compared to companies like AT&T, which has 243,000 employees which tend to be inside the U.S. and spread more evenly through congressional districts: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=T+Profile
Of course AT&T has long had a cozy relationship with the NSA very different from left coast companies: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/
BTW, compare to WalMart's 2.2 million employees: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=WMT+Profile
"Literally" is certainly a stretch, but at least indirectly, corporations spanning many sectors are very heavily influencing the government - for example finance, energy, food, military.
Just to make a very immediate example, bankers who had a central role in the 2000s financial crisis, are now executives or advisors of the government.
Process-wise, the HSBC case showed who's in charge between governments and large banks.
That's why the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the OECD?
2. That profit isn't "hidden". It's in plain sight. It's not even a loophole. The money is still taxable - but only once it is repatriated.
2. The US corporations still pay more tax than do corporations in other nations.
3. US corporations with no foreign income tend to pay ~35% after deductions (per "independent" study cited above).
So yes, its easy to tell that US corp tax rates are higher.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/27/433250/general-e...
I could probably find numerous such examples among the richest companies in the US. So something about your claims doesn't work.
"There are more ways to measure effective tax rates than there are to order coffee at Starbucks"
So tell me, what do you want? Lower taxes on corporations? They don't seem to be fleeing the US, and are reporting higher profits than ever.
Read the paper I linked. If you want to argue, argue with the points he makes (and which I've attempted to repeat here). The paper very specifically addresses the sorts of made up numbers which you've cited.
All taxes are distortionary. For maximum efficiency, all income taxes (which by definition punish income and saving) should be replaced with progressive VATs (thus encouraging income and saving). The worst distortionary taxes are the capital gains tax (which solely punishes saving) and the corporate income tax (which has no reason to exist at all - all disbursements are taxed as personal income tax anyways, hence the double taxation complaints).
And yes, some companies do leave the US:
...Bisaro also extolled the added benefit of lowering his company's effective tax rate, which he forecast would drop from 28% to 17%. Based on Bisaro's strongly-held opinions about U.S. corporate tax policy, that must have been a major selling point for the deal. [1]
And hey, guess what I bet you didn't know? It's actually illegal for US companies to leave the country! They have to "merge" with a foreign company to move out.
[1] http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/21/actavis-the...
And what happens when they hit hard times? Let me guess, lower taxes? So just lower and lower taxes, all the time, no matter what?
The US has the highest statutory tax rates on corporate investment in the OECD. The effective tax rates on corporate income are vastly lower than that, and often actually zero — especially for those large and powerful enough to have sway over the government.
The GAO study you're citing is infamously incorrect.
1. Corporations (and humans) can carry losses forward: if they lose money in 2008 but make money in 2009, they get to even out the two years. This is only fair. Thus they can appear to pay zero tax in a year in which they made money.
2. The "effective rate" counts the aforementioned foreign retained profits as being taxed at zero. Which they're not.
3. An independent analysis found that effective corporate tax rates are "in the mid to upper 20's", and that corporations which operate solely in the US pay 35% corporate income tax:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/files/140tn0197.pdf
TL;DR The US really, really, really does have the highest corporate tax rates in the OECD.
Control of the government by corporations is a complex phenomenon, and taxation is only one part of many.
Lobbyists take quite commonly part in the administration, and once they do, they certainly don't start to act against their own interest.