Bill Overview
Title: Repealing the Ill-Conceived and Problematic (RIP) Book Minimum Tax Act
Description: This bill repeals the 15% alternative minimum tax on corporations enacted by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
Sponsors: Rep. Arrington, Jodey C. [R-TX-19]
Target Audience
Population: People indirectly affected by changes in corporate tax regulations
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The original 15% minimum tax primarily targets large corporations that report substantial book profits but pay little to no federal income tax due to deductions and credits.
- Repealing this tax could alleviate the financial burden on these companies, potentially leading to increased reinvestment in business operations or shareholder returns.
- The removal may also reduce corporate tax revenues, potentially impacting federal funding for public services or increasing fiscal deficits.
Reasoning
- The 15% minimum tax repeal is expected to primarily influence large corporations and their stakeholders. Hence, the direct beneficiaries are likely corporate executives, employees, and shareholders.
- Indirect impacts will trickle down to employees through potential wage changes, job security, and other labor market dynamics influenced by corporate spending and hiring practices.
- Small and medium enterprises (SMEs), individual taxpayers, or individuals who primarily rely on public services might not directly experience significant impacts but could notice changes in economic climate over time.
- Federal budget adjustments due to this repeal could influence macroeconomic conditions, indirectly affecting consumers and local communities.
Simulated Interviews
Corporate Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Repealing the tax lifts a significant pressure off our financial reports.
- We plan to reinvest more into expanding departments, which should aid in business growth and job creation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Shareholder Retiree (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expect better dividend yields and stock performance due to tax savings being redirected.
- Concerns about public services funding if corporate tax revenues drop significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Potential for salary increase or better job offers from large tech firms reinvesting tax savings.
- Uncertain about long-term national economic impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Public School Teacher (Austin, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about potential decreases in public funding which impacts school resources and teacher salaries.
- Hopes any economic growth benefits translate into better state budgets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Auto Plant Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Little direct effect expected, but national economic trends could affect job security.
- Hopes favorable impacts on larger corporations eventually reflect across industries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Rural Kansas)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Potential trickle-down economic benefits could bolster local spending.
- Concerned about potential impacts on disposable income if public services are cut.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Environmental Activist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Skeptical that savings for corporations will lead to more environmentally responsible investments.
- Fear increased corporate flexibility could mean less regulation compliance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Real Estate Agent (Miami, FL)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopes for increased market activity as companies reinvest tax savings potentially boosting local economies.
- Worries about stability in mortgage markets if significant public funding changes occur.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Oil Industry Executive (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Significant cost reduction aids in making competitive bids and expanding operations.
- Echoes some concerns about national deficit implications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
College Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sees potential for improved job prospects post-graduation if corporate growth leads to more hiring.
- Aware of debates on corporate welfare versus public funding efficiency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $12000000000 (Low: $10000000000, High: $14000000000)
Year 2: $12360000000 (Low: $10300000000, High: $14300000000)
Year 3: $12730000000 (Low: $10610000000, High: $14600000000)
Year 5: $13500000000 (Low: $11200000000, High: $15500000000)
Year 10: $15000000000 (Low: $12500000000, High: $17500000000)
Year 100: $19000000000 (Low: $16000000000, High: $22000000000)
Key Considerations
- The repeal may have distributional effects that favor large corporations and their investors over smaller businesses or consumers.
- Potential consequences on federal deficit due to reduced revenue unless offset by spending cuts or other tax increases.
- Impact on U.S. economic competitiveness, potentially increasing investment attractiveness but also market tensions related to tax equity concerns.