Trump's Tax Plan

Anyways, most of this shit is out of the president's hands. Much of it rides on the Chair of the Federal Reserve. Janet Yellen has decided to keep interest rates low until the end of this year.

Whenever these interest rates rise, which you'll certainly see in a Clinton presidency, watch for a loss in jobs and a drop in the stock market.

Bullshit. Taxes were way higher in the 1950's yet there was a lower unemployment rate.

>expecting Trump to be truthful
I've got bad news for you

0% because the president doesn't control taxes or the budget directly. They have to work with congress to make a real plan. Neither candidate will get anything close to their proposals passed.

It's a lie because Mr. T will cut spending. And the economy will grow, so people will pay more money, and more taxes will be collected.

Yeah while we had all our manufacturing still stateside. We pay taxes to Mexico to export, they import to us for free. Why won't Hillary raise taxes there, she wants to raise them on you and me.

I hate you

was she including the illegals in her count?

pretty much all of it, its a dumber version of what bush did and look what that accomplished

The jobs part is bullshit. With the way the economy is going, jobs will likely be created up until the Fed Jacks rates, which I'm surprised trump isn't getting more thumbs up for mentioning.

As for the deficit, that is largely true. I think the exact number is a little lower than 10 trillion, more like 4 or 5.

We must've been watching a different debate.

The study did (I assume it was this one), but she didn't talk about it.

>we need to take more money from ourselves, or else our debt won't be paid as quick!

None of it is true. How can these (((analysts))) possibly predict accurate outcomes when there are so many unknown variables?
What kind of time frame?
Massive tax cuts would lead to increased debt initially, but have they taken into account renegotiation of trade deals? Budget cuts? Would the job loss be government jobs, actually decreasing the deficit? Why would cutting corporate and income tax result in job loss in the first place if its not just government jobs?

Clintons (((facts))) don't hold up to any economic scrutiny and don't provide enough detail to be trusted. Stated in a debate like she did, the analysis are nothing but lame ass hypotheticals. Then again, that's all liberals do in debates anyway.

best answer. president is a figurehead. power to do ANY of this shit lies with congress.

its a ctr bot, ignore it

What the fuck are you talking about? He has said he wants to spend more money to "rebuild" the military.

hillary clinton will start ww3 if elected?

how much of this is true

Its extremely hard to analyze where the numbers will go with any degree of accuracy. To say specifically this is how much debt will occur and this is how many jobs will be lost in a specific number is foolhardy. It would be foolhardy if Trump made the same statement back and around and gave specifics on how many jobs it would bring back and how much debt it would reduce as well.

Specific economics cannot really be narrowed down and known but there are basic economic assumptions which seem to hold no matter the data.

Trump's tax reduction plan would probably increase the growth of large and small businesses as would his reduction on regulations. When the costs of a business is lowered, its profits are higher and therefore they should expand. By how much is entirely up for debate.

Additionally reducing the back tax on foreign investments coming back to the States should also increase growth for much the same reason in that there would be greater incentive to bring money back, when the cost for doing so is lowered. But once again making a specific statement on how much money would be brought back, or how many jobs would be grown would be foolhardy.

As for the debt its two pronged; the first prong is taxation and the second prong is spending. If we assume Trump only decreases taxes and continues to spend at the same rate as Obama has then we could probably assume that the deficit will increase. There are prevailing theories which suggest that this might not be the case or that the debt increase would be minimal which can be summed up as follows: decrease taxes, businesses grow, GDP rises as a result, at the lower rate of taxes on the now higher GDP the actual real taxes gained is higher. But whether this holds true in all cases is not clear.

So onto the second prong, spending. Trump has laid out some details of where he would like to see spending cuts so his approach isn't the classic Neo-Con cut taxes and spend policy.

None of it. It's impossible to measure how many jobs a policy will create. Hillary is proposing a 65% estate tax. Anyone who understands what this is knows this would obliterate farming and small business in the US

None of it

She already started it.

His plan really is trickle-down.

Giving rich corporations and businessmen tax cuts isn't going to "create more jobs" because taxes aren't the only reason why businesses go elsewhere: they leave for the cheap labor.

>Less taxes=more jobs, simple as that.

You might be retarded.

>wants to use the USAF to police no-fly zones in Syria's airspace

>is very pro-NATO, who are already on a war footing with Russia over Finland

100%

>His plan really is trickle-down.

And Hillary's is tax-and-spend.

An additional protip: if you lower taxes on the labour force, which Trump is also doing, you enable companies to offer a wage which is lower while still being as competitive in the context of the cost of living, since a smaller proportion of the paycheque goes to the government.

Continued:

Where Trump makes his cuts will be the most crucial part of his plan. Spending has increased dramatically since Obama was elected but that was mostly in one large program which was the government bailout of the stock market during the 07/08 recession which saw Billions of dollars filtered from the government into the market to buy back toxic stocks.

Outside of that the spending can be seen as basically an increase to what Bush had already been doing with a minor sequester thrown in to make it look like the ebil Republicans were destroying the government as we knew it.

If we assume that we don't need to have another bailout nor that the stimulus package is continued in anyway, spending will decrease. If we assume that Trump is able to cut where he wants to cut we can also assume a spending decrease but here's the kicker. The kicker is how much cutting do we do, from where, and how? That remains to be seen from either candidate in much real terms and can't honestly be seen due to the fact that spending and even taxation both fall into the hands of the Executive and the Legislative branch.

Trump has an interesting solution which might add a 3rd prong if properly implemented and that would be foreign payments for military protection. Trump has stated multiple times "we will not be the world police for free" so if he is able to charge foreign countries for protection then he might be able to reduce costs around the military budget, which could either be huge or inconsequential.

>tax-and-spend

this doesn't mean anything

>you enable companies to offer a wage which is lower

oh thank god, just what i wanted, working for less money

>you enable companies to offer a wage which is lower

Nonsense. For many reasons, but the big one is they can't go below the minimum wage, which is where most jobs are at already. This would do nothing for the cost of labor.

Yep back when everything was "MADE IN USA". Make taxes higher and even the McFatburgers won't be made in the USA any more.

She is likely referencing the Oxford study, mentioned in part in this article.

businessinsider.com/donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-us-economic-policy-2016-9

You can decide for yourself and they should Jane links to the original articles

it's hillary

do you really have to ask?

>'I looked at trumps plan, it will result in the extinction of the human species'
>POLITIFACT: mostly true; scientists claim that humans will eventually go extinct, and if trump is elected this does not change

Tax-and-spend means to tax and then to spend to a gratuitous extent. It inflates the welfare state and reduces general economic liquidity. That's bad.

You get the same amount of money, mook. A simplified hypothetical: You make $15 an hour, and you're taxed at 30%; your take home per hour is 10 dollars. Trump reduces your tax to 15%. Now a company can employ you at $12, and you'll still be netting $10 an hour.

Look at my flag, faget. I understand how tax laws are used to lure companies to an economy.

No the top marginal rate was higher but no one in the country paid those rates.

You can do a simple check to see what the percentage of GDP the government collected in terms of taxes then vs. now is and you'd see quite clearly that the IRS wasn't nearly as aggressive back then as it is today.

You might have had a top marginal rate of 60-70% but you may have only paid 7% of your total income or less.

The top marginal rate has in fact decreased by 60% since 1950, and yet the percentage of revenue gained by the government through taxation compared to GDP has increased by a large degree.

Also outside of taxes, you do realize the USA was the largest economy in the world and was the only nation that had not been bombed or invaded in WWII? They had a massive advantage over any and all competitors due to the simple fact that their manufacturing base hadn't been blasted to the stone age 10 years previously and that they hadn't lost half a generation of working young men.

"Stream line" is what he said.

>minimum wage, which is where most jobs are at already

lol, more like 4%

I must admit that I was intrigued with Killary's (laughing hyena) military plan to eradicate ISIS. Push ISIS into Syria, push immigrants into America and Europe, and kill Assad. Sounds like a replay of Gaddafi.

>Nonsense

You're nonsense, cunt. Of course we're not talking about minimum wage jobs, the fact that such a substantial portion of your economy operates on the minimum wage is a symptom of the fact that no decent companies want to do business in your country. No one's trying to bring more minimum wage jobs to America.

An old tax plan would have caused there to be 10 trillion less in tax revenue over the course of 10 years. He made some adjustments, and that number is down to about 5. She knew that those changes were made to the plan and lied.

Whether or not the decrease in revenue adds to the debt is dependent on government spending. If Trump spends like a democrat, then his plan adds 5 trillion to the deficit. If he finds ways to spend more efficiently, then it will add less. If he spends 5 trillion less than Hillary would, then it adds nothing to the debt projections.

- Accounting PHD student user

Good post leaf

>Most jobs are already at

Most entry level you mean? You do realize that the economy isn't made of burger flippers right? The mean and median income is well above minimum wage. Most people don't stay that long on minimum wage and if they do its either because they have huge gaps in employment, have never asked for a raise in their life, or bounce between dozens of jobs in a year.

If they stayed in one spot and worked for more than a year you're probably going to already be working above minimum. I've met plenty of people who make above minimum that didn't even graduate high school because they picked one job and stuck with it.

Also remember, we aren't talking about adding 5 trillion to the debt. We are talking about doubling the debt plus an extra 5 trillion. It is pretty safe to project that each new president will double the debt without someone seriously cutting growth in government expenditures.

So when they say adds 5 trillion, they mean adds what we already project to be added, plus another 5 trillion.

When they say Hillary will add 0, they mean she will double the debt, but her tax plan won't make it worse. I disagree, because I think she will increase spending beyond what is projected.

> willfully ignoring the learned opinion of economists from across the political spectrum

not true at all. she's a socialist lying cunt.

Thanks, trying my best to be impartial here but when I see these sort of lab made numbers thrown out by politicians on how much devastation or greatness will come from one small cut to taxes or spending or one small increase, I just have to say something.

> ignores that every other first world country was bombed to shit

Really made me think

Given how much he flip-flops he might have said that at some point, but his latest stance is to eliminating the sequester on defense spending and increasing military spending.

One more (you) for myself.

I don't know where she is getting the job loss data. The organization that studied the candidates plans and came up with that 10 trillion number said Trump's plan would create jobs and Hillary's plan would make it harder to create jobs.

WAT DE NEUK ZEG JIJ NOU?!
Wat voor halve gare KANKERHOMO bende gij nou wel nie? kankerlijer rot es heel vlug terug naar Gelezen.

Vieze vuile gore kanker nieuwvriendje
>KANKER

I checked the fact checker on her website and it said all of that is 100% true. I guess that settles it.

Thanks PhD bro. I'm an undergrad myself wish you all the best.

Well shit. Our records have been corrected, boys.

wtf i hate hillary now

When you take governmental accounting, try not to shoot yourself.

There is so much wrong

1) Predictions like that don't mean shit in Economics
2) HER Analysis. Care to explain in detail? No? Then stfu.

Women couldn't work in the 50s.

The labor pool was nearly half the size.

Was thinking about betting against Trump as a hedge since if he loses I will be depressed. At least I'll have a chunk of change coming in that case... But then betting against Trump... Nah.

You must be tripping.

That's what Shills don't understand. Economic estimates are useless, practically. And economics are 90% common sense

>willfully cherry picking economists to satisfy your world view

Ever hear of tariffs?

The tax code wasn't 70000 pages that you paid firms to know and advise you on. They're making a big deal about Trump understanding the tax system. It's a crazy bullshit. He knows exactly how to fix it.

You haven't read his plan. It gives massive tax breaks to the lower and middle classes. Massive. It will add 1000s to every American households pocket. He wants to double the standard deduction, for one. A big part of the decrease in revenue is from that alone. And that does absolutely nothing for rich people.

Trump's plan puts money in every America's pocket. But it will add to the deficit if he doesn't cut projected spending or find other revenue. That is his plan in a nutshell.

of course its true, her (((economists))) independently came to that conclusion you fucking sexist

I aten't.

>HER Analysis
She was very adamant on the fact that "we" looked at Trumps tax plan

Who "we" is, she didn't say

NATO doesn't give a shit about Finland, unfortunately. They won't even take us in.

How the fuck does that make sense?

You have more money so you give lower wages? What?

His statement makes 0 sense if you think for 2secs

>90% common sense
>useless trying to predict

You have no idea what you're talking about. An ideal True Believer or the Alt-Right.

Government job losses are terrific.

People who have little or no economic value will be laid off and they will finally have to realize that they are no more useful than the people who fill up your coffee every morning.

Wtf? That's patently wrong

>You have more money so you give lower wages?

That's not really what I said user, I don't even really know how to parse this statement. I explained later though, keep reading the thread my friend.

That's the point though, you guys have a generally pro-joining-NATO sentiment in your current and prospective government, and Russia's like "Don't let the Finns in" because at the moment you exist as a good no man's land between NATO and Russia, and NATO's like "We might let them in nigga" which would essentially mean NATO would have troops and missile batteries sitting right on Russia's border at all times. Which would make Russia itchy.

It really is. Especially since politicians lie to hell and entire "credible analytics" firms sell themselves like cheap whores for political money.

Economics is 90% common sense.

You might be able to predict trends, but predicting absolute numbers is nearly impossible. Especially since there a shit zillion confounds in the real world. What if we go to war? What if there's a plague? What if aliens come to earth? What if the stock market crashes again? What if a new technology is discovered that can only be manufactured in Ecudaor? What if a new vein of resources is discovered? Etc.

You can make some predictions of general trends (example: lowering taxes lowers costs on business and therefore businesses will expand) but saying you know absolutely how many jobs will be grown or how much debt will be added is ridiculous.

Look. Its about WHAT KIND of jobs.

Shes talking about public sector government jobs.

Hes talking about PRIVATE INDUSTRY JOBS.

If he cuts taxes, there will be alot of people losing their tax-paid jobs.

I re-read your comment and missed a word, whoops

Anyways, while the lower tax rate allows for smaller wages and higher profit margins for companies to reinvest, have you considered that people won't ask for lower wages and will just gain more money?

Assuming that the companies will lower wages globally, though, how is that bad? Person X makes the same amount, realistically, which allows the companies to have higher profit margins to expand domestically which allows more people to be employed and the 40%+ of our country that doesn't pay taxes will have enough money to pay those taxes. From these above studies, I see no consideration of adding millions more paying small amounts of tax

(Cant tell if shill or Trump help)

Which cuts government spending somewhat drastically and re-asserts power to the people. Why is this bad and why is this not being even taken into account??

Her main constituency is comprised of people who have no jobs and people that believe they can buy influence. Not industry or people that want to work. So taxing the hell out of people that are already ready to leave for Mexico will not help the economy. But her constituents don't care as long as they think their check is still going to be there. And her plan did work for Venezuela for awhile.

Its bad, because it relies on corporations/companies to willingly pay higher salaries and to hire more people.

This is classic trickle down economics which DONT FUCKING WORK.

On the other hand. Hes completely right, that more regulation and more taxes will only stagnate growth within the US economy.

Especially the way the US uses its taxes.

The real answer is that the US needs high taxes for PEOPLE (not corporations), regulate wallstreet and most importantly raise minimum wage.

>tl:dr
>both are wrong, you need to combine policies.

>have you considered that people won't ask for lower wages and will just gain more money

It's about creating new jobs. It's not about people asking, it's about companies offering. I don't know what existing US companies would do, you can't very well say "We're dropping wages across the board because you're paying less tax". There'd be mutiny.

More to the point, toothpaste, she unironically declared if she finds some democratically elected government not to her liking, she will blow them back to the middle ages. She's not president of the united states, she's president of the world.

What doesn't work is raising taxes, thus giving more money to the government and out of the hands of real investors, thus allowing government to spend it all on growing government and buying votes with gift laws from the treasury. Handing money to people with no real skin in the game is a loser. The collective group of citizens with more money to spend will always out perform a government on ROI.

on a question time that has a lot of viewers and has been recorded by many media
good luck, globalists.

Rebuild doesn't mean spend more but I can see how you would think that, libshit considering its all progressives can do to "improve" things.

Efficiency must not be in your vocabulary.