asier said than done. My guess is the IRS can’t even provide that data.
They can provide it easily, probably to the penny. The tricky part is figuring out what tax rate which will bring back the same amount of money, because your’re estimating. When Reagan did this to the personal tax rate in 1981, he got it right a few percentage points. There were then two other tax packages passed to bring it to a true revenue neutral state AND make sure the progressive balance between the income classes was maintained.
It’s not the tax system I want. It’s the tax system you have in your mind. That’s what I’m trying to get at here. I’m not looking for nuts and bolts, but while your generalities glitter, something a bit more specific is needed for a cogent argument.
I’d rather you take a look at some of the proposals that are kicking around. Congress has been throwing out ideas along these lines for four years now, and you’re acting like it’s the first time you’ve ever heard of it.
Haha! You do understand we’re discussing the federal government here. Nothing is simple. I deduce that you have no special knowledge of corporate taxation.
Deduce what you like; just remember the old saying about they who assume. What I said was that the arithmetic is simple. You have an old system which returns $X to Treasury. You want to create a flatter system with fewer deductions that return $X to Treasury. That’s simple arithmetic. What’s hard is doing the economic projections.
I didn’t say anything about authoritarian. I said you came off as authoritative. That means you wrote your reply as if you are an authority on the topic.
The fact that you can cite no legislation is indicative of the complexity of the issue.
Removing corporate deductions does not abolish corporate tax.
Obviously. Grass is green, also.
You have to have a tax to have deductions in the first place. Lowering the marginal rate doesn’t abolish corporate tax. It’s still a tax rate. How do you lower a rate to make it equal something that was higher (gross tax receipts)? The above quoted sentence appears to be a bit of verbal sleight-of-hand.
Corporation A has income of $1,000,000. The corporate tax rate is 34%, and they take a $250,000 deduction for (something). So, their tax is 34% of $750,000, or $255,000.
The law changes and that deduction no longer exists. So, the Corporation would pay 34% of 1,000,000, or $340,000. BUT, the tax rate was lowered to 25.5% in the same law. So, they pay in taxes under the new law….$255,000.
Lowered rate, same receipts. Revenue neutral.
What is Revenue Neutral? definition and meaning
Definition of revenue neutral: Taxing procedure that allows the government to still receive the same amount of money…
Also, what prompted the change from corporations to megacorporations in your reply? Are you amending your position on the issue by qualifying the type of corporations that would be untaxed? I’m not trying to be nitpicky. You need to be consistent with your terminology to have a meaningful discussion.
So far, this is not a meaningful discussion in the least, since this appears to be the first time you’ve ever thought about the topic.
The reason the distinction is being made, which is well known to those who have even a cursory understanding of the topic, is that megacorporations have the ability to avail themselves of many more types of deductions than do smaller, domestically oriented companies. So, your megas end up paying 4%, while small companies pay 25% or more.
In any case, it appears that this idea is far less developed than your initial reply would lead one to believe. It’s very theoretical and the basis of the theory is unclear so it really appears to have no practical application. Unless you can come up with something more down to earth, the system you propose is in short, a pipe dream.
Don’t be an idiot. This has been a goal of both parties for some time now, because of the unfairness of the current code. But, if you prefer, we can keep screwing the smaller companies and cutting off our own economic growth, if you like that sort of thing.
But, you may have your dream. Democrats were supportive of the concept until they lost the Presidency.