This was always going to be a hard sell given some commentators estimate this will take about $65 billion out of consolidated revenue over the next eight to 10 years.

Commonsense suggests that if it fails to create extra economic activity, then other forms of taxation, such as income tax or the GST, will need to be increased or key Government services, such as health, welfare or education, would need to be cut.

The only other option would be to kiss any hope of ever returning the Federal Budget to surplus goodbye.

These are some of the reasons neither Mr Turnbull, nor the Treasurer, Scott Morrison, have been able to capture the hearts and minds of the hundreds of thousands of voters who remain intensely sceptical about any Government intervention on the side of big business.

It is the same scepticism that saw a majority of UK voters back Brexit and which saw wildcard candidate, Donald Trump, elected as the president of the United States.

Ordinary people, battling with stagnating wages, soaring energy prices and ongoing uncertainty about employment opportunities and job security, feel they have been the big losers from the post-GFC economic boom.

While they have stayed the same, or gone backwards, the large corporations, business leaders and captains of industry always seem to be well ahead of the curve.

PAYE tax payers, self-funded retirees and pensioners have seen little evidence "trickle down economics", the economic theory touted by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and which has been trotted out to justify the latest corporate tax cut proposal, has ever done anything for them.

Yes, Reaganomics pulled the U.S. out of the 1980s recession but that had more to do with the President's decision to increase U.S. Government spending by 2.5 per cent a year✓ (at the cost of a huge deficit blowout) than tax cuts to corporate America.

Mr Turnbull and Mr Morrison are committed to return Australia's budget to surplus by 2021.

They have yet to explain why corporate tax cuts will do more to stimulate the economy than an equivalent investment in reducing household power bills, through direct subsidy if necessary, or the same amount spent on tax cuts for wage and salary earners.

Of course promoting tax cuts to big business is always likely to be a hard sell, regardless of how sound the economics may be. But it's not hard to understand the skepticism from voters.

This could prove difficult given NAB's announcement it is about to sack 1000 workers; the first tranche in a program to eliminate 6000 FTE jobs originally made public on the same day the bank reported a $5.3 billion profit last November .

NAB, which is expected to be a significant beneficiary from any cuts to the corporate tax rate, has clearly demonstrated extra cash does not always mean higher wages or additional jobs.

Given almost 60 per cent of respondents opposed the proposed corporate tax cut in a survey conducted by Research Now for The Australia Institute last December, the current policy is unlikely to prove an election winner for the Coalition.

If it can't show why these cuts are in everybody's interest then serious consideration should be given to walking away from them.