From Bloomberg.com:
 
If there were a power ranking of U.S.  companies, like the ones compiled by football writers for National Football  League teams, Microsoft would surely be first or second to Google. But  last week, Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer came to Washington  to announce what Microsoft would do if Obama’s multinational tax policy  is enacted.
“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,”  Ballmer said, “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving  them out of the U.S.” If Microsoft, perhaps our most competitive company,  has to abandon the U.S. in order to continue to thrive, who exactly  is going to stay?
At issue is Obama’s policy to end the  deferral of multinational taxation.
The U.S. now has about the highest combined  corporate tax rate, second only to Japan among industrialized countries.  That rate is so high that U.S. firms have an enormous disadvantage versus  competitors. The average corporate tax rate for the major developed  countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development  in 2008 was about 27 percent, more than 10 percentage points lower than  the U.S. rate.
Tax Burden
U.S. firms have nonetheless prospered  because our tax code allows a business to set up a subsidiary in a low-tax  country. When that subsidiary earns profits, they are taxed at the rate  of that country, and don’t face U.S. tax until the money is mailed  home.
The economically illiterate partisan  Democratic view is that this practice is unpatriotic and bleeds jobs  from the U.S. The economic reality is that American companies use this  approach to acquire market share overseas. The alternative is losing  the business to foreign competitors.
Don’t just take my word for it. A recent  paper by Harvard economists Mihir Desai and C. Fritz Foley and Berkeley  economist James Hines and published in the distinguished American Economic  Review, gathered data on American multinationals to explore the impact  of foreign investments on domestic U.S. activity.
 
Encourage Overseas Sales
 
Their conclusion was striking. The authors  found that “10 percent greater foreign capital investment is associated  with 2.2 percent greater domestic investment, and that 10 percent greater  foreign employee compensation is associated with 4 percent greater domestic  employee compensation. Changes in foreign and domestic sales, assets,  and numbers of employees are likewise positively associated; the evidence  also indicates that greater foreign investment is associated with additional  domestic exports and R&D spending.”
So when firms expand their operations  abroad, taking advantage of the lower foreign tax rates, it helps their  workers in the U.S. Higher sales abroad (surprise, surprise) are good  for domestic workers.
