I GET it. Reducing revenue that much IS the 'make
Post# of 65629
Why do you insist, why does the tax foundation insist, in ignoring what Trump has said he wants to do...infrastructure and the military....what he doesn't address....SS and Medicare? ''
And on what planet do you see elimination of estate taxes as feasible?
You can't square all those circles. That's NOT a partisan point, it's an arith met ic point.
Quote:
Overall, the plan would reduce federal revenue on a static basis by $11.98 trillion over the next ten years. Most of the revenue loss is due to the reduction in individual income tax rates, which we project to reduce revenues by approximately $10.20 trillion over the next decade. The changes to the corporate income tax will reduce revenues by an additional $1.54 trillion over the next decade, with the remaining static cost ($238 billion) due to the elimination of the estate tax.
And I simply don't buy the argument below. I saw the same argument for the Bush tax cuts, and I remember the sh*t job creation, the ballooned budget deficit and the bad ending.
So, not a head scratcher. I come down in favor of ...something else.
Quote:
Overall, the plan would increase federal revenue on a static basis by $498 billion over the next 10 years. Most of the revenue gain is due to increased individual income tax revenue, which we project to raise approximately $381 billion over the next decade. The changes to the estate tax will raise an additional $106 billion over the next decade. The remaining $11 billion would be raised through increased taxes on corporations."
"If we account for the economic impact of the plan, it would end up raising $191 billion over the next decade . The slightly smaller economy would reduce wages, which would narrow the revenue gain from the individual income tax changes to about $173 billion and reduce payroll tax revenue by about $80 billion over the next decade."