Reform and Corporate Taxes - NYTimes.com The corporate tax system is a mess. The United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, but too many businesses still don't contribute their fair share of revenue, in large part because of numerous loopholes, subsidies and other opportunities for tax avoidance. While some industries and companies pay little or no tax because they qualify for generous breaks or have really good lawyers, others are taxed heavily. There is no doubt that a system that is more competitive, more efficient - the current mind-numbing complexity makes planning far too difficult - and more fair would be a plus for the economy. President Obama's framework for business tax reform, released on Wednesday, is a welcome start for a much-needed debate on comprehensive tax reform. But we already have two big concerns. While the administration insists that business tax reform should not add to the deficit, the country needs to raise more revenue to care for an aging population, rebuild infrastructure, improve education and tackle the deficit. Corporations, which benefit from all of those, should, as a matter of necessity and fairness, pay more. Our other concern is that like all tax reform, the potential for gaming the process is ever present and unless it is vigilantly managed could actually reduce revenue and add to the deficit. Take the framework's central reform: reducing the top corporate rate from 35 percent to 28 percent, while at the same time doing away with loopholes and subsidies. In theory, it is a sound approach, which would reduce complexity while bringing the rate in line with that of other advanced nations without busting the budget. But, even if they made it past the lobbyists, the specific loophole closers in Mr. Obama's new framework - including ending subsidies for oil and gas exploration, corporate jets and private equity partners - are far too small to make up for dropping the top rate. As for the big money subsidies that would have to be cut or ended to pay for a lower rate - including less generous depreciation and reduced deductibility of interest on corporate debt - the White House merely presents them as part of a menu of options for "consideration." The framework's call for a minimum corporate tax on the foreign earnings of American companies is a step in the right direction. Under current law, various tax provisions and tactics allow companies to reduce or defer taxes by shifting ever more production and profits overseas. But the idea is blunted by the framework's failure to say what the minimum tax rate should be. Nor does the framework broach other reforms like taxing foreign profits when they are earned rather than when they are repatriated to the United States - that could ultimately be more effective in getting multinationals to pay more. Even with its shortcomings, Mr. Obama's proposal presents a needed contrast to the Republicans" approach to corporate taxes. Last year, Dave Camp, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, proposed a top corporate rate of 25 percent without saying how he would pay for the tax cut. Mitt Romney has done somewhat better, calling for a 25 percent rate to be coupled with "broadening" the corporate tax base, which generally means closing loopholes. But he has yet to say which tax breaks he would end. Serious reform requires specific proposals, tough trade-offs and hard numbers attached. Without all of those, this effort could too easily be hijacked by powerful corporations and their high-paid lobbyists.