I mean like if you translated Project 25 so the opposite or reverse of every single policy prescription it makes is compiled, could that be the playbook for a much better and equitable future society?
Sorta like a Project 21st Century™️
EDIT: I’m not necessarily saying if they say “=18% corporate taxes” == “-18%” or “+36%”, I just mean they want to lower the taxes to reach that so why not consider raising it in the opposite direction so you’re moving away from anti-utopia
Rhetorically: What’s the antithesis of an 18% (base) corporate tax rate?
Project 2025 is fucking awful, but just doing the opposite of them doesn’t make sense when the working conditions of regular people can only be improved through a materialist view of the world, as the opposite of their goals isn’t what our goals are.
An 82% (base) corporate tax rate?
Can you prove that’s the antithesis, and not -18%?
Would 82% be the best for regular people? If not, who would it be best for?
I was thinking -18% tax rate. So if you’re a corporation, you get 18% subsidies on top of your profits.
Whatever the reduction delta is from where it is now, raise it that? They want to lower it to that so it makes me think theres fat they are trying to hide and augment with that number
Edit: like if you asked a billionaire what tax rates they’d want to see over the next like 5 years? Cant you take whatever their suggestions are and even if they bullshit the stats but leave off at a reasonable doubt single choice, just use that to inform where policy should be leading for them and everyone else in a paired evaluation
That delta (+3%) would still concede ground to conservatives when pre-Trump corporate taxes were at 30%. Even Biden told Congress it should be at 28%.
It’s just too reactive to want the opposite of what the new conservative playbook is. The best corporate tax rate for the average person has nothing to do with what Trump or P2025 think, so formulating our economic systems around the opposite of them won’t work either. We need a materialist analysis of our economy by experts and academics to determine what any particular tax should be in able to develop economic situations that best benefit regular people the most.
When you say it wont work, i feel like thats all or nothing thinking. Withhout having to think about it or spend anymore money, wouldn’t at least be an easy step in the right direction?
I don’t like the cut of this jib because its what delayists like on their side say. We cant do the right thing because we need a billion studies, or its not proven to be perfect so it must be rejected but delay tactics should be ascribed presumptive correctness a priori 🤔
I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t think it’s all-or-nothing thinking to question the effectiveness of just doing the opposite of what conservatives propose. If we don’t base these decisions on real data or thorough analysis, we might end up with a policy that feels good politically but doesn’t actually deliver the best results for people. I’m not suggesting endless studies or using that as an excuse to delay action, but rather that we should be intentional and evidence based in making these decisions. Especially given our elected officials have cabinets full of paid staff who can already read the studies that have been published. No new studies and waiting is necessary.