Eine Steuersenkung ohne Einsparungen an anderer Stelle dürfte an gesetzlichen Hürden scheitern. Der US-Senat dürfte dies selbst bei Ausschöpfung von Sonderregeln (reconciliation process) nicht bewilligen.
edition.cnn.com/2017/04/25/politics/...-tax-plan-senate-rules/
President Donald Trump's ambitious goal of reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15% without concern over deficits has a fatal problem: Senate rules.
That's per the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), which in a private analysis requested by House Speaker Paul Ryan and obtained by CNN, found that a significant corporate rate cut (in this case, from the current level of 35% to 20%, which House Republicans have proposed) for just three years would result in deficit increase after 10 years.
Why does that matter?
Well, in order for Republicans to move any tax cut at that level through Congress, they would have two options: find Democratic votes, or try to go through reconciliation, a budget process that would allow Senate Republicans to pass a bill with just 51 votes -- or in other words, no Democratic support (Republicans control 52 seats in the chamber). The only caveat: The tax bill would not qualify for a simple majority vote if it adds to deficits beyond 10 years.
Democrats have made clear that they would be unlikely to support a substantial rate cut without anything sizable in return. That leaves reconciliation as the only pathway.
Which is a problem.
The JCT analysis concluded that a cut, to 20%, put in place for only three years would result in a "nonnegligible revenue loss in the tax years immediately following the budget window." Translation: it wouldn't pass muster to go through reconciliation.
...The JCT analysis echoes something Ryan's senior tax counsel, George Callas, laid out during an April 20 tax policy panel at the International Institute of Finance Summit last week. "You could not do a straight up, un-off set three-year corporate rate cut through reconciliation," Callas told the audience. "The rules prohibit it. You might be able to do two years. A two-year corporate rate cut ... I will say would have virtually no growth effect."
Or, as Callas put it bluntly: "It would just be dropping cash out of helicopters on corporate headquarters for a couple of years."