>>“We don’t want a ‘progressive’ scale, “
>
>I want to be sure you realize the “progressive” part applies to giving bigger corporations a bigger reason to hire people in the US.
In my experience the sort of scale you describe is called ‘regressive’... which brings up a question: why would you want to de-facto penalize small-business for being small? Especially considering the impact they have on the economy.
>It does not target “the rich” but instead gives fortune 500 companies incentive to hire in the US. Thanks
What would give them incentive to operate in the US, I think, would be an easy anyone-can-do-it flat-rate taxes with no exceptions/with-holdings. IOW, you wouldn’t need a law degree and an accounting degree to file taxes.
“why would you want to de-facto penalize small-business for being small? “
I intend the REVERSE: businesses making little money would pay no tax at all. The larger & larger you get, the more you pay — progressively more. But you can offset those taxes by paying wages in the US.
“What would give them incentive to operate in the US, I think, would be an easy anyone-can-do-it flat-rate taxes with no exceptions/with-holdings. IOW, you wouldn’t need a law degree and an accounting degree to file taxes.”
Simplicity would be good, but complexity for the fortune 500 companies is not an issue, they already retain CPAs and lawyers.
For individuals and small firms, the only filing might be to check the box: I collected less than 2 million dollars in 2010.