http://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/trump-tax-plan_us_57fd3e8be4b07b9b8752f2ed
The economic myth that refuses to die, Trickle-Down Economics, forms the basis of Donald Trump's "New and Improved" tax plan. Trump's previous plan according to think tanks would've added upwards of $11 trillion in debt over the decade.
According to TaxPolicyCenter a non partisan think tank, this would add $7.2 trillion to the national debt over the decade.
[quote]Trump’s tax plan would eliminate the tax on multimillion-dollar inheritances, cap all business taxes at 15 percent and reduce income taxes across the board. But the Tax Policy Center found the plan to be heavily weighted in favor of the super-rich. The top 1 percent of households would receive an average tax cut of $214,690 in just the first year of the plan’s implementation, while the top 0.1 percent would save a whopping $1.1 million. Middle-income households would receive a tax cut of just $1,010, while the lowest-income taxpayers would get $110. Nearly half of the decline in federal revenues caused by Trump’s tax changes would flow to the top 1 percent, and roughly one-fourth would go to the top 0.1 percent.[/quote]
In contrast, the Bush tax cuts have added $2.8 trillion to the debt over their first decade.
According to the Don, this would, as often argued despite historical evidence, these cuts would "unleash the beast of the economy and create more jobs and everyone will have more money and pay more into tax!"
Okay, so by completely ignoring the laws of mathematics and by substantially cutting revenues, it somehow will mean even more revenue? And we're meant to take this word from someone who has had 6 bankruptcies, lawsuits over over a so called "university" and uses a "charity" as his own slush fund by purchasing a 6ft tall picture of himself?
What could possibly go wrong?
-
So because the people who earned the money get to keep more of their money the government will be hurt? Sounds like a spending problem.
-
OK you added bush tax cuts to your argument which looks bad on your part. Bush also spent a butt load and did alot of crony capitalism. That's not supply side economics crony capitalism hurts an economy by making big business too big to fail destroying small businesses. Supply side economics works wonders STOP MISENFORMING AMERICA! !!
-
Modificato da Stallcall: 10/16/2016 9:20:05 PM[quote]Okay, so by completely ignoring the laws of mathematics and by substantially cutting revenues, it somehow will mean even more revenue?[/quote] There's merit to this idea, actually. We can even look at historical evidence. (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/lesson-laffer-curve-barack-obama) The Laffer Curve explains why lower taxes can lead to increased revenue.
-
Trickle down has never and will never work.
-
Actually, lower tax rates generating higher tax revenues can work for alot of economies. Generally speaking though, no clue if that would be the case for his proposed plan
-
lol HuffPo.
-
Modificato da Ghost4201990: 10/16/2016 8:36:36 PMTrickle down economics is a buzz word. Supply side economics also known as reaganomics created the biggest economic boom in US history. Some say it was the biggest wealth creation in the history of the planet. Fact is trumps tax and regulation cuts are flawless that's a fact https://youtu.be/Sp3CuxMV5S4 ^here mark levin reads an article from forbes about the history. Leave your leftist dream world Get owned
-
Surprise level: zero.
-
I'm just here to watch Mad Max get triggered.
-
-
I'm guessing Trump logic is that people with more money are more likely to spend that money back into the economy. The issue here is assuming people with a net worth of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars are penny pinchers under current taxes. Because that extra million in taxes means they can only hire one butler instead of two. A higher minimum wage (also legalization and regulation of marijuana at the federal level because it has been shown to be a [i]huge[/i] boost for state revenue) would do more for the economy than broken tax logic. A higher min wage means more disposable income which means more money being spent on luxuries as well as necessities which helps the economy.
-
But Trump is supposed to be the change candidate....... o_O
-
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/17/exclusive-okeefe-video-sting-exposes-bird-dogging-democrats-effort-to-incite-violence-at-trump-rallies/amp/?client=safari
-
It won't matter because he isn't gonna get elected lol
-
You're like Hillary-you twist Donald's words. He's not gonna reduce taxes on the super rich, he'll reduce taxes for ALL businesses-big and small. He'll then lower taxes for the lower and middle classes, unlike Hillary, who has claimed she'll [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ua13_gYQn0]raise taxes on the middle class.[/url]
-
...and here we find someone on offtopic who doesn't support trump - a remarkable rarity nowadays. Just look at the majesty of this endangered creature!
-
Bumping so my challenge score can be 0. [spoiler]I have found the sp00ks I was looking for...[/spoiler]
-
Better than Obamas plan
-
Well I was going to explain why you're wrong but ghost and God king already did so I guess I'm not needed here.
-
Just remember he wants to cut taxes, end the sequester (budget cuts) and expand the military. I dont see where the debt goes down on this one.
-
Where did you get your economics degree? You speak with a lot of authority.
-
Modificato da Unicorn Goo: 10/16/2016 11:27:42 PMhttp://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/factchecking-the-second-presidential-debate/ [i]And Clinton claimed Trump’s plan “would end up raising taxes on middle class families.” Some families would see increased taxes, but on average middle-income taxpayers would get a tax cut.[/i] Do you have a link to your claims? Edit: a [i]credible[/i] link
-
Modificato da AurumPrimavera22: 10/16/2016 8:54:26 PM>huffpo Might as well not have linked something. Would've been more credible Trickle down economics hasn't been tried yet. Laissez-faire elimination of income taxes has, and has failed, but Reaganomics hasn't failed since Reagan's tax cuts were reversed and then taxes were increased by Congress, effectively killing Reaganomics before it could start On Tax Center, read their study. It says that they didn't factor in government spending cuts, the revenue from people who currently are tax exempt, potential revenue from bringing back businesses, etc. It literally says that Tax Center is looking at Trump's plan as if he hasn't proposed cuts Maybe you want to explain Clinton's surplus in which the GOP rejected Bill's proposals 5x until Bill gave in and accepted the GOP's economic plan?
-
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm Just saying.
-
Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. [spoiler]Not at all a bias article- not something you really want when you're trying to disprove an economic theory[/spoiler] The funny thing about academics especially economists is that they pretend like they have discovered the answer to these questions such as what exactly is the government spending multiplier, how much do people rely on the 'animal spirits' to spur investment, the liquidity trap, etc. but the reality is no one knows the answer because if they did, well the field would cease to exist. The two foundations for economic thought have essentially been thrown away- classical failed with the long recovery of the Great Depression and Keynes failed with stagflation. There are pros and cons to leaning one side or the other and it's best to weigh those pros and cons rather than pretend like there is a right answer.
-
It's pretty obvious that we cannot cut taxes without also cutting spending. We should cut all taxes for every segment of society. We should also cut spending across the board. We could easily cut taxes if we had the accompanying political will to cut spending. People should keep more of what they earn. The government should only provide necessary services that no other entity is in position to provide. Our federal government is a behemoth. I'd much rather see the beast starve than continue to grow.