Economy Trump’s Tax Proposals Would Cost a Staggering $10.5 Trillion

[Jack V Savage]

This...

Cutting taxes reduces gov't revenue and increases deficits, which also raises borrowing costs.

 

[Cajun]

Cutting taxes reduces gov't revenue and increases deficits, which also raises borrowing costs.

There are also cuts in other areas etc. You know it's not a raw value.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There are also cuts in other areas etc. You know it's not a raw value.

I'd say that tax cuts undeniably impose costs, but you can offset those costs if you have other priorities. I disagree that enriching corporations and rich individuals should be a higher priority than reducing interest rates or feeding hungry kids (for example). If there were other proposed options, I'm open to considering them. As it stands, it looks like Trump is planning to finance the cuts with mostly higher deficits and some higher taxes on the poor and middle class. Bad idea IMO.

 

[Hog-train]

Whatever Trump's verbal shenanigan's, at the end of the day he just votes standard Republican - tax cuts for the rich and corporations. He just does what his donors want just like every other politician.

 

[Sinister]

Just have your grandparents help out.

We will grow bigly. Yooge numbers.

We will tax GY-NA!!

A small price to pay to lose freedoms!!

 

[lowlife]

Cutting taxes on individuals isn't 'shoveling money to corporations.'

unfortunately in a way it is. our government counts on us to be diligent consumers, they assume the money will transfer from us to them. Not that I'm against tax cuts that's just a byproduct of how we've been conditioned.

 

[lowlife]

Cutting taxes reduces gov't revenue and increases deficits, which also raises borrowing costs.

It only increases debt if spending remains constant. Surely there is somewhere in all this bloat we can trim the budget!?

 

[Jack V Savage]

It only increases debt if spending remains constant. Surely there is somewhere in all this bloat we can trim the budget!?

Again, it's all about priorities. I don't agree that giving money to big corporations and rich individuals should be a top priority.

 

[luckyshot]

He also said drilling and selling some to Europe which would pay trillions of the debt down.

He also said Mexico would pay for the wall....

 

[Jack V Savage]

He also said Mexico would pay for the wall....

We produced a record level of oil in 2023 (not just for us, but for any country ever). I can't even imagine how the guy thinks we're supposed to generate so much additional production that the gov't's share will amount to "trillions" over the next 10 years. It's just total fantasy world stuff.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Ah yes, let's make regular Americans pay a MUCH bigger percentage than billion dollar corporations (that effectively already pay near single digits after exploiting all the loopholes set up forv hem).

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

It takes some serious demoralization to cry about keeping more of your own money. OMG, how are our masters supposed to blow our money on foreign wars and pet projects now?

Do you also cry when your boss offers you a raise because it's "costing" the company money?

Here, take your few pennies from your master and like it while all his rich buddies get yachtloads.

Trumpers are like dogs telling other dogs to be happy to lick the plate after the owner has a steak dinner.

 

[nostradumbass]

Here, take your few pennies from your master and like it while all his rich buddies get yachtloads.

Trumpers are lick dogs telling other digs to be happy for the scraps after the owner has a steak dinner.

Was that supposed to be English?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Whatever Trump's verbal shenanigan's, at the end of the day he just votes standard Republican - tax cuts for the rich and corporations. He just does what his donors want just like every other politician.

He's actually worse in that he's combined the typical GOP platform of upward redistribution with protectionism which almost certainly will hurt the economy.

 

[Jeffy37]

guys the elections over, you can all go home. No way Trump is winning, not a chance. Quasimodo predicted this.

This is truth. And it's actually funny how people bitch about any policies. We are printing out money under democratic leadership now and have devalued the dollar.

 

[emefer]

He's actually worse in that he's combined the typical GOP platform of upward redistribution with protectionism which almost certainly will hurt the economy.

It’s GOPs America.

For the readers

FDR Saved America—Then the GOP Ripped Us Apart​

When we handed America over to Ronald Reagan in 1981 it was a brand, gleaming new country with a prosperous and thriving middle class…​

 

[filthybliss]

It’s GOPs America.

For the readers

FDR Saved America—Then the GOP Ripped Us Apart​

When we handed America over to Ronald Reagan in 1981 it was a brand, gleaming new country with a prosperous and thriving middle class…​

Historically, democrats have been the better option for economy. Its been documented for quite some time now.

Economists Agree: Democratic Presidents are Better at Making Us Rich. Eight Reasons Why. - Evonomics

Wisdom of the Crowds. Preventing Government Capture. Labor Market Flexibility. Freedom to Innovate. Profitable Investments in Long-Term Growth. Power to the Producers. Fiscal Prudence. Labor and Trade Efficiencies.

evonomics.com

 

[Jack V Savage]

Historically, democrats have been the better option for economy. Its been documented for quite some time now.

Economists Agree: Democratic Presidents are Better at Making Us Rich. Eight Reasons Why. - Evonomics

Wisdom of the Crowds. Preventing Government Capture. Labor Market Flexibility. Freedom to Innovate. Profitable Investments in Long-Term Growth. Power to the Producers. Fiscal Prudence. Labor and Trade Efficiencies.

evonomics.com

I think it's part better policies, part better luck, and part reverse causation (I look at cultural conservatism as a kind of luxury good that people can't afford in bad economic times).

I'd also disagree with that piece in that I'd date the modern GOP's founding in the union of disgruntled Southern Dems who were mainly focused on cultural issues (mainly but not only racism--they were disgruntled by the Dems' increasing embrace of civil rights for black Americans), disgruntled pro-business types (who had hoped Eisenhower would get rid of New Deal policies and felt betrayed when he didn't), and CTers (who thought everyone was secretly a Communist). And things were legitimately fucked up in the '70s, which is why the public was willing to roll the dice with a radical like Reagan. Reagan also backed off on a lot of stuff so the policy changes were a bit overstated.

 

[emefer]

 

[Andy Capp]

Spending costs money. Cutting taxes does not.

You know, I never credited you with being a Rhodes Scholar or something, but I didn't realise you are this thick.

Think about it this way. Say your take home pay goes down but your spending remains the same. How is that any different in the end from having a constant take home pay and spending more money? E.g. you make 5000 per month, let's say, and you normally have 1000 left after expenses. Whether you spend 1000 more this month than usual or your take home pay is 1000 less than usual the result is the same, isn't it? You're still broke at the end of the month no matter which way you got there.

Hard to believe this needs to be explained but there it is.

Edit: I didn't realise I was bumping an old thread until I already had this reply written. So sue me lol.