I also want to clarify that I'm not necessarily opposed to 'moderate incentives' to keep plants, so I don't know how far apart our positions really are in the end. What I wrote was mainly about imposing or increasing import tariffs to protect local industry - and even there, anti-dumping procedures should still be possible in extreme cases, as indeed they are under WTO rules. But since you're mentioning the topic as a reason to vote for Trump, I guess I assumed you supported the high-profile statements he's made about it, which go miles beyond moderate incentives, to downright starting trade wars. I mean, I'm quite sure that 'moderate incentives' is something just about every politician would get behind, that doesn't exactly require voting for Trump.
Suffer less from protectionism, agreed - but if you talk about 'gain far more', you should also look at what percentage of GDP your imports represent - meaning, oversimplified a bit, how big a part of your economy is really competing with foreign imports. That's also dramatically lower than Germany's or China's.
I don't claim to know much about tax law, or really anything at all. What I do know, though, are the rough numbers of the de facto tax rates paid. I'm more concerned with the economic outcomes than with the legal details of how people got there. I guess that's our respective professional biases talking.
And while we're on professional biases and I've already annoyed you anyway, I also feel the US has far too many lawyers, to the point where it sometimes looks like the foremost motivation behind contracts is to provide work for the lawyers, with enforcing a commercial agreement just second in the priority list. And that's without even getting started on tort lawyers and their impact on health care costs, as I've probably already deviated far enough from the topic at hand.