Even if it’s an election-year strategy of co-opting one’s opponents’ ideas, it is encouraging to hear that President Barack Obama is proposing to cut corporate tax rates and get rid of loopholes and subsidies.

Republican contenders Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have already advanced many of the same ideas.

Election-year politics suggests that Obama’s plan to lower corporate taxes and weed out loopholes is little more than campaign rhetoric. Still, it’s worth having a national debate about corporate tax rates and international competitiveness as well as the loopholes and subsidies that create an uneven playing field between industries and among different companies.

Before there is any reasonable discussion about corporate tax rates, it’s important to understand the difference between stated tax rates and effective tax rates. Many large corporations pay effective tax rates far below the stated corporate tax rate of 35 percent. In a few extreme cases, such as with General Electric in 2010, a few big multinational corporations can pay no federal income tax, despite billions of dollars in profits, because of creative use of tax credits and corporate tax loopholes.

Corporate interests argue for lower taxes, saying the U.S. has the second-highest corporate tax rates after Japan. That’s true. But it’s also true that many large corporations pay far less than the 35 percent tax rate.

One study found that 115 of the 500 companies in the Stand-ard & Poor’s stock index paid a total corporate tax rate of less than 20 percent — including federal and other taxes.

Once the impact of targeted tax loopholes is understood, it becomes clear that small businesses or any company without tax experts are the losers, and bear an unfair tax burden. Reforming corporate taxes would level the playing field, at least a little bit.

Obama’s proposal would cut many industry subsidies and corporate tax loopholes while trimming the top rate to 28 percent, down from 35 percent.

Another reality is that the companies that enjoy generous and targeted tax breaks or subsidies will fight to keep them, employing armies of lobbyists and campaign contributions to make sure they win in Congress.

While simplifying the tax code and taking out many old loopholes, Obama’s plan also would add new loopholes or subsidies to boost manufacturing, clean energy and corporate research and development. This is a problem for tax experts who question favoring any particular industry over others.

While supporting manufacturing and giving it favored tax treatment might have emotional or political appeal, it is a questionable policy when the primary reason for tax reform is simplifying the tax code — not adding more targeted breaks.

Obama’s tax proposal is just an outline. His plan would lower rates, but be revenue neutral by closing loopholes. Unfortunately, and probably intentionally, his plan does not offer specifics about which loopholes and subsidies would be closed.

There will be winners and losers in any reform of corporate taxes. Obama’s plan sounds good and appeals to the many winners who would enjoy lower rates and more fairness. That could help Obama in his re-election bid. But he conveniently leaves out the details describing which loopholes will be ended — which companies or industries would be the losers in his tax-reform plan.

Corporate tax reform is an important topic and should be part of the presidential dabate. Too many inequities have existed for too long, allowing certain companies and industries to enjoy favored tax treatments, while the rest of U.S. companies are left to pick up the slack and pay more.

It’s too bad Obama’s plan is widely seen as a political script and unlikely to see action this year. But early in 2013, tax reform — both corporate and personal — should be on the agenda, regardless of who wins the election in November.