technically you've just argued that setting a corporate tax rate of zero would leave 93% of the federal revenue completely in-tact.

<Snipped quote by mdk>
It's not misleading, if you look at it as a measure of where the tax burdens have shifted over the decades. I'm arguing that corporations are being taxed a very small amount, and getting boatloads of subsidies on top of that. Now, I'm not advocating that the US necessarily needs to raise their corporate tax rates, because there are ways to grow tax revenues without changing rates. Either way, it seems reasonable to say that if the tax rate is going to be lowered, all of the deductions and subsidies need to be cut out to balance the books.

From the article you linked: "However, it's not quite that simple. Those rates above are the statutory rates — the rates set by law. And that is not the rate that many companies in the U.S. end up paying. Deductions and credits help push down businesses' total tax liability, meaning that many companies end up paying far less than the statutory rate. Here is the average effective tax rate for U.S. corporations."

That average effective tax rate is 18.6%, which makes it the 4th highest in the world.

If that's what Trump is suggesting, can you show me how his proposal balances out a $7.8 trillion tax cut over 10 years? I'm not asking for logical arguments about expectations of increased investment or job growth. I want to see a legally guaranteed counterweight to that cut.

The Trump Tax Plan Is Revenue Neutral
The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:
1. Reducing or eliminating most deductions and loopholes available to the very rich.
2. A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted
10% tax rate, followed by an end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad.
3. Reducing or eliminating corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as
deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and
business income. We will also phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of business
interest expenses

>grouping the sidesword and backsword together

fucking normies

<Snipped quote by Andreyich>

Well the arming sword did branch off into both, like the coat of plates going into both the brigandine and the full plate.

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>
They nevertheless shouldn't be grouped together

<Snipped quote by mdk>
While I find this document quite informative, it lacks a handful of specifics that would make it possible for someone to calculate the final effect on the revenue, and doesn't have concrete revenue predictions that qualify as legally guaranteed counterweights. I guess we'll just have to wait until the Congressional Budget Office crunches all of the numbers based on the bill itself.

Also, subsidies are not mentioned in that document. How unfortunate.

Apparently 20+ people were killed (and 100 wounded) in a shooting at a Las Vegas country festival.
Link.