I doubt even a Republican would be willing to lower corporate income taxes. Nominal rates haven't been touched for quite a while; politicians opted instead to just allow the loopholes and safe havens to continue lowering the effective rate, and corporations seemed to be happy about that.

The likely reason for corporations holding onto cash is the lesser impact deferrals can make in today's markets. Companies are becoming larger and larger umbrellas every year, and as the need to hire new people presents itself, the unfortunate realization for them is that they must look to the bigger cities for their best talent. NYC, LA, SF, DC, etc., are the best places to acquire talent, and they are also home to some of the highest tax rates in the country.

This makes talent acquisition increasingly expensive, and that means less money that can go to the offshore safe havens that allow deferrals to be so lucrative for companies. So, companies hire as little as possible, and though corporate revenues are decreasing rapidly as a result, it's better for them than having to face a rather unstable business environment in the US, where all your massive infrastructure and talent investments may be useless in just a few years' time.

I believe that the US is becoming increasingly unfriendly to businesses, and the lack of political cooperation in DC is showing executives just how true that reality is. My contention is that businesses are holding onto cash because they may need to make sudden and quick moves in the near-future. They will either make huge hiring moves and will build out massive new infrastructure to support it -- or they will GTFO of the US while they have the chance.

>I doubt even a Republican would be willing to lower corporate income taxes.

I think a lot of people expect some type of future repatriation period that would allow these companies to bring their cash stateside at a reduced tax rate during a short temporary window. It is something the government has done in the past and it probably makes sense to do again sometime soon. I wouldn't want to be the CEO who overpays taxes by billions just because I wasn't patient enough to wait for another one of these tax break windows.

These tax repatriation deals are getting to be like "immigration reform". Once you start doing it, no matter how much you say "This is the last time! Honest!" people factor the next amnesty into their calculations. In both cases the fact that people believe it will happen increases the likelihood they are correct.

I would love to see the US corporate income tax eliminated, but this kind of one-time tax amnesty thing is bad policy.

> In both cases the fact that people believe it will happen increases the likelihood they are correct.

More like the people that want it to happen have enough collective influence to buy off Congress to make it happen so long as there isn't a pesky POTUS with an itchy veto pen finger.

Doesn't matter. If companies can afford to wait (and they can), Congress will eventually be seduced by the prospect of billions in free tax money. When Congress finally does it they can pay off all their interest groups without raising taxes. Nobody has to be paid off.

As time goes on, that pot of money gets bigger and bigger. The more people expect a tax amnesty, the more companies will just leave the money where it is instead of repatriating and paying taxes at the current rate, which just sweetens the pot even more.

Also, the president isn't any less beholden to donors. Do you think Obama would stand in the way of something Goldman Sachs (#3 donor) wanted? I don't.