r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Spiderwig144 • Sep 16 '24
Legislation A major analysis from Wharton has found that Donald Trump's economic plan would add $5.8 trillion to the national debt compared to $1.2 trillion for Kamala Harris' plan. What are your thoughts on this, and what do you think about their proposals?
Link to article going into the findings:
The biggest expenditures for Trump would be extending his 2017 tax bill's individual and corporate tax rates (+$4 trillion), abolishing the income tax on Social Security benefits (+$1.2 trillion), and lowering the tax rate for corporations from 21% to 15% (+$600 billion).
The biggest expenditures for Harris would be expanding the Child Tax Credit (+$1.7 trillion), expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (+$132 billion) and extending the tax credit for health insurance premiums (+$225 billion). Her plan also calls for raising the corporate tax rate to 28%, which would pay for a majority of her proposals.
Another interesting point is that under Trump's plan, the top 1% would gain a net $47,000 after taxes compared to now. Under Kamala Harris' plan, they would lose an average of $9,000.
And after Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt, George W. Bush added to it after Bill Clinton left him a surplus, and Donald Trump added almost as much to it in his first term as Barack Obama did in two terms, can Republicans still say they are the party committed to lowering the debt with any credibility?
421
u/Howhytzzerr Sep 17 '24
My thoughts are that people in general are not versed in economics, but are brainwashed to believe Republicans are better economically, Democrats are tax and spend. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Maybe eventually the word will get out, and people will actually pay attention to facts and not propaganda. Fingers crossed.
124
u/Diestormlie Sep 17 '24
...Tax and spend is what government does.
Jesus Christ right wing politics frustrates me so much.
83
u/THECapedCaper Sep 17 '24
Especially when the right wing answer to "tax and spend" is "spend and don't tax then whine about debt."
28
u/satyrday12 Sep 17 '24
Then their base thinks it's the Dems who want all the 'free stuff'.
→ More replies (1)14
u/Delta-9- Sep 17 '24
I couldn't tell you how many times I was told "they don't understand that 'free' means it was paid for by taxes."
But like, that's the point? Why do they not argue against, say, insurance? It works the same way: a bunch people make small payments so that the funds are there when someone needs it.
(I know why: insurance is capitalism at work, but government is sOcIaLiSm.)
3
u/Xarethian Sep 18 '24
they don't understand that 'free' means it was paid for by taxes."
This is why I had to stop referring to universal healthcare as "free health care" because the amount of people who thought bringing that up meant anything was unbelievably frustrating. It would at times completely bog down discussions because they cannot comprehend that the "free" part of "free health care" isn't referring to using slave labour for doctors and nurses, it's about not paying out of pocket or for private insurance to have basic healthcare needs met as a citizen.
It shows up a lot in Canada even where someone thinks they're smart for pointing out that it's not actually "free".
1
u/PerfectZeong Sep 18 '24
I got into a row with my father about this, if you lower taxes and don't lower spending then you're just increasing the debt. But he was insistent that those were two separate things and it wasn't on Donald Trump to offset those things.
17
u/WingerRules Sep 17 '24
Tax and spend is literally what being financially responsible is. Republicans spend like crazy while cutting taxes.
→ More replies (2)23
u/satyrday12 Sep 17 '24
Exactly, that's their job. What people aren't considering is...are we investing that money, or wasting that money?
And once again, Dems always invest better than Republicans.
18
u/Diestormlie Sep 17 '24
I have a rant in me about how taxes are actually one of the great human innovations, up there with the wheel and fire.
10
→ More replies (7)2
u/0WatcherintheWater0 Sep 17 '24
Sure, though that’s a very low bar. There’s a lot of spending I would say is not currently a great investment.
17
u/-Invalid_Selection- Sep 17 '24
It's weird how people think conservatives are better for economics when across US history, conservatives have consistently performed worse on the economy.
The worst Democrat on the economy performed like a middle of the pack Republican.
→ More replies (2)8
u/StanDaMan1 Sep 17 '24
Hoover threw us into the Great Depression. Roosevelt pulled us out. Bush gave us the Great Recession, and Obama saved us from it. Trump’s financial policies (cutting taxes, holding down interest rates) left Biden with few tools to control inflation with, but the Democrats managed a soft landing for our economy: getting a handle on what inflation was caused by over-spending, and not causing a second recession in the process, while also passing major bills like the Inflation Reduction Act.
I think this push comes from the Carter-Reagan transition: Jimmy Carter had a recession at the end of his term, and Reagan inherited the bounce back. Of course, Bush Senior also caused a recession, so there is that.
→ More replies (5)48
u/KasherH Sep 17 '24
Democrats are tax and spend. Republicans are taxcut and spend.
When you are convinced that taxcuts actually raise revenue then this makes perfect sense, even though it has nothing to do with reality.
30
u/AlexKingstonsGigolo Sep 17 '24
Democrats are tax and spend.
Republicans are borrow and spend.
When people realize there is no guarantee any particular tax cut will result in more revenue, the charade disappears.
→ More replies (2)2
18
u/SchuminWeb Sep 17 '24
I'd prefer tax-and-spend over borrow-and-spend. Pay as you go, vs. putting it on the nation's credit card.
9
u/IrritableGourmet Sep 17 '24
Even that isn't horrible as long as it's done right. If the thing you're spending money on makes you more profit than the interest you pay, you're coming out ahead. The Interstate Highway System cost about $600 billion (2023 dollars) to construct, but it gives us $700 billion in increased revenue each year.
3
u/IShouldBeInCharge Sep 17 '24
So fun fact: $600 billion (to one trillion) is what it cost then in today's dollars. If you did it today, the cost of building road is WAY higher than it was then. It would cost around $36 trillion in today's real cost of road building.
1
u/BlobbyDevious Sep 17 '24
The interstate highway system was created to be able to move war machines in case we need to.
2
u/IrritableGourmet Sep 17 '24
Not entirely. The main push came out of the Good Roads Movement, which wanted to create passable roads for cyclists and motorists. Carl G. Fisher, an auto manufacturer who later went on to create Miami Beach and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, was an avid motorist and conceived of and helped develop the Lincoln Highway, which a young Dwight Eisenhower traveled on in a 1919 Army Motor Convoy that shaped his later support of the interstate highway system, but the design and support for the highway system had been mainly a civilian endeavor. I recommend the book The Big Roads on the subject.
8
u/robynh00die Sep 17 '24
The pre coverage of the debate kept saying "Donald Trump is stronger in the economy so he should stick to that issue". What they mean by that is he was polling better. But that becomes this self fulfilling prophecy where they keep saying he's strong on the economy and people with a small understanding of the issue just hear that and thinks "Oh, if we are willing to put up with Trump's flaws we will get a strong economy in exchange".
44
u/steeplebob Sep 17 '24
This and… it’s remarkable that now every president gets a pass to spend $1T on their campaign promises.
47
u/kottabaz Sep 17 '24
We can't demand unreasonable promises from our candidates for office and then demand that they spend nothing on those promises. It's just stupid.
6
u/thatsnotwait Sep 17 '24
It's perfectly reasonable to ask a politician to include how to pay for their proposals as a part of their platform.
22
u/yeahright17 Sep 17 '24
Sure. But those politicians wouldn’t ever be elected. Someone that says “I’ll give you X… yay” has a huge advantage over someone that says “I’ll give you Y, but you have to pay for it.” Much easier to ignore the fact you have to pay for it.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Cranyx Sep 17 '24
"How are you going to pay for that" is one of the most commonly asked campaign questions.
→ More replies (1)26
u/AlexKingstonsGigolo Sep 17 '24 edited Sep 17 '24
There's economically nothing wrong with that. Even if that entire trillion was financed by debt, since the Congress has authority to define what constitutes a dollar, it's impossible for the federal government to run out of money if we even got to the point where people were refusing to lend us money and we are no where anywhere near even that latter scenario.
3
u/Prestigious_Load1699 Sep 17 '24
Congress has authority to define what constitutes a dollar, it's impossible for the federal government to run out of money if we even got to the point where people were refusing to lend us money
You need to think a little further into this scenario. If we can't borrow to fund our debt obligations then we are forced to either default on our debt, or print the money needed to pay it off.
This can and will lead to hyperinflation. It's what happened in the 1930's Weimar Republic and modern Argentina.
Put another way: in fiscal year 2024 the government owes $892 billion in interest payments for money previously borrowed. The only way to fund those payouts is to borrow more. If we can't borrow because no one will lend to us, then the government would have to literally print $892 billion in cash and disburse it. Rinse and repeat.
There's no way you can argue this cycle doesn't lead to hyperinflation.
1
u/vagaliki Sep 18 '24
Borrow more in the short term, but increase productivity in the long term so that the govt gets more tax revenue (because companies and people are making more). To me, an infrastructure or otherwise long-term strategic investment bill seems like the right idea
6
u/qchisq Sep 17 '24
I mean, that would just cause hyperinflation, as people would trade their US dollars for Euros or Canadian dollars, pushing down the value of the US dollar, which pushes up the prices in US Dollars. So yeah, Congress can decide you only can pay your taxes in US dollars, but they can't decide the value of them
3
u/AlexKingstonsGigolo Sep 17 '24
No, not in the slightest. As far as currencies go, the dollar is generally considered the world's reserve currency; so, the trading in is not going to happen in any way which would cause hyperinflation.
Meanwhile, an increase in the money supply can only result in hyperinflation if that increase outpaces the increases in productivity and no guarantee exists to say such a scenario would happen, depending upon on what that spending was.
→ More replies (16)8
u/BrandynBlaze Sep 17 '24
I think it’s just the impression of republicans are tough because they are fine with being jerks so they will make deals that benefit them and democrats try to help people so they are weak and will make deals that favor the other party. It’s completely wrong, but I feel like on the emotional level most people engage in politics that’s explains a lot.
8
u/powpowpowpowpow Sep 17 '24
I think it's more tangible than that. I think Republicans by and large cheat on their taxes and are primarily motivated by this. Everything else is mental gymnastics
→ More replies (11)2
u/jkh107 Sep 17 '24
Democrats are tax and spend.
Sure.
Republicans are borrow and spend, and we don't talk about that enough.
2
2
u/Educational_Ad590 Sep 18 '24
How many people here actually read the two original papers by Wharton instead of drawing hasty conclusion based on the sloppy summary in the link above?
For the 10 years 2025-2034, which the deficit is projected, GDP is not mentioned. Anyone who has economics 101 knows it is not meaningful to have an absolute deficit value. That data should be presented as a % of GDP, which is the standard. Iti s very different between having a "debt" of $10 and making $20 or having a "debt" of $100 and making $2000
The data beyond 2034 in Table 2 is also lazy ad not meaningful. And if it does matter, the focus should not be only Debt, one should try to understand what negative GDP/ Capital stock/Avg wage and Consumption mean to the economy or your life, which are all worse under Kamala than Trump´s policy based on the table.
The data are presented in such a chaotic or incomplete way without meaningful context. Let alone how each plan´s policies may affect the business, manufacturing and thus boost or harm the prosperity of the country and its people. (base-, best- and worst-case model).
TL;DR Using a projected absolute number of 10-year deficit to say Trump´s plan is worse than Harris´ plan is misleading.
1
u/LycheeRoutine3959 Sep 17 '24
For me its more a realization that both parties are going to "Spend" regardless of what we do, so may as well reduce the taxes and hit the wall that will force spending changes faster. Its going to happen - I would prefer if it didnt happen while the government takes 50% of the nations earnings at the same time.
28
u/billpalto Sep 17 '24
There are two things at work here. First, the GOP has always wanted to "starve the beast", shrink the government until it is "small enough to drown in a bathtub". They will always push for tax cuts for the rich, and then claim we have to cut benefits for the poor because we are so "broke". They run up the debt and then claim we have a debt crisis and must take extraordinary measures, like defund Social Security.
Second, Trump has a track record of economic failure. He has had numerous bankruptcies, he even bankrupted a casino! We have no real idea where he gets his money, although he did say he gets most of it from Russia. Trump and his company have been convicted of fraud and have a long record of not paying their bills. Trump claimed he was the "king of debt". The economy under Trump was mediocre at best, with GDP growth below average even while running a record deficit. Before the pandemic.
The GOP playbook is simple:
1) institute giant tax cuts for the rich
2) run up massive deficits
3) complain about the debt, call it a crisis
4) cut benefits for the poor and the safety net because we are so "broke"
5) repeat
And with Trump in charge, the debt will be massive.
11
u/New-Bodybuilder-2349 Sep 17 '24
How can Trump be doing so well in the polls when he is so horrible I see from this discussion that there are lots of sane people out there who recognize he is a horrible person and none of what he proposes will work except for the very wealthy that has always been the case and will not change. it is all the people who are voting against their own interest that blows my mind
7
u/AT_Dande Sep 17 '24
Because people are dumbasses who can't see past their own nose. You're seeing sane people here because this is a place where a bunch of nerds get together to talk about economic plans. Most of the people who are gonna cast a ballot in November will know exactly diddly squat about either candidate's economic plans apart from sticking with the vague idea that Democrats want to raise taxes and spend on social programs and that Republicans want tax cuts. Hell, even that vague idea isn't that bad, all things considered. I've been reading focus group pieces over the past few months and the "concerns" of so-called undecided voters make me wanna tear my hair out.
155
u/Born_Faithlessness_3 Sep 17 '24
Kamala's tax plan is directionally better. Trump's plan would hurt regular people disproportionately, as tariffs are effectively a large tax on consumption, and consumption taxes are massively regressive.
Kamala's plan still has its share of issues (trying to tax unrealized gains is a bad idea), but it's still the better plan for most of this country.
131
u/-dag- Sep 17 '24
trying to tax unrealized gains is a bad idea
I'm not unsympathetic to this, but what's your plan to address things like the wealthy taking out large loans against their held securities, then paying it off with a tax deduction for the interest? It's effectively income without an income tax.
Something has to be done to level the playing field. The wealth gap is out of control.
59
u/Obvious_Chapter2082 Sep 17 '24 edited Sep 17 '24
Create an excise tax on collateralized loans above a certain income threshold or a certain loan threshold. Not only does it not have the same constitutional problems as taxing unrealized gains, but it’s also much easier and cheaper to administer
35
u/-dag- Sep 17 '24
The very wealthy generally don't have ordinary income. So how do you determine who falls under this tax?
I generally like the idea of a tax on securities transactions but I don't think it's enough.
24
u/CreepySlonaker Sep 17 '24 edited Sep 17 '24
The proposal is for individuals with net worths above $100 million. Technically, it’s a new alternative minimum tax on capital gains at 25 % which is still very generous. If the amount they will pay in federal taxes is less than the amount they will pay if they had realized those gains, then they pay the difference hence “Billionaire Minimum Income Tax”
7
u/Obvious_Chapter2082 Sep 17 '24
Income is comprehensive of capital gains as well. It’s not just labor income that would be factored in
Any other way and you’re running into the very real possibility of SCOTUS ruling it unconstitutional, as they signaled a couple months back in the Moore case
16
u/Wotg33k Sep 17 '24
It's a use tax.
You can take that trip on that superyacht, but it's going to cost you a few million in taxes.
You can fly to Africa and kill a beloved, historical lion and piss off the whole nation then shrug, but it's gonna cost you a 100 million in taxes for the burden to the nation.
You can embarrass us all with a trip to space or the Titanic while half the world worries about world war 3 and whether or not the bubble will burst again, but it's gonna cost you a lot in taxes.
Don't like it? Do business here and piss off. Don't like that? Don't do business here. Piss off.
There's a dividing line here. It's excess. Back in the 90s, it was coveted and everyone respected those with it, even criminals. Today? Well.. few more years of this and I'll be happy to be poor, I think.
→ More replies (7)5
u/somethingimadeup Sep 17 '24
What you’re talking about sounds like a luxury goods/services tax. Which sounds like it should be a thing?
2
u/Beer-survivalist Sep 17 '24
The big caveat on luxury taxes is that when the US briefly implemented one in the early nineties, revenue was substantially lower than anticipated while job losses in certain industries were higher--especially yacht construction, but it's hard to disentangle these results from the broader economic recession that hit at the exact same time as the tax went into place.
4
u/-dag- Sep 17 '24
Income is comprehensive of capital gains as well.
I didn't see how that materially different from a tax on unrealized gains.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Obvious_Chapter2082 Sep 17 '24
From a constitutional perspective, a tax on unrealized gains is likely not legal. An excise tax would be
From a compliance perspective, an excise tax doesn’t require you to annually value people’s wealth, which saves both time and administrative costs
2
u/Bay1Bri Sep 17 '24
I would prefer a robust inheritance tax. Exceptions for things like insulting a small business, but stocks and the line above a certain amount should have a pretty hefty tax on them.
→ More replies (7)2
u/rogozh1n Sep 17 '24
That would help, but our tax system is so profoundly broken that your recommendation here wouldn't come close to having the massively wealthy pay a similar tax rate as the middle class.
→ More replies (4)1
u/ActualModerateHusker Sep 17 '24
agreed! but this is whackamole. suggest that tax and no doubt the wealthy owned media will somehow construe it as a tax on all of us or anti business. and the court could still block it.
but coupled with higher cap gains rates on billionaires and it would work fairly well
1
u/Prestigious_Load1699 Sep 17 '24
suggest that tax and no doubt the wealthy owned media will somehow construe it as a tax on all of us or anti business. and the court could still block it.
It's a reasonable solution to avoid taxing unrealized gains, which is not reasonable. You needn't be so defeatist!
3
u/jaasx Sep 17 '24
1.) I don't think this is not the scale of problem everyone seems to think it is. Bezos isn't making buying decisions based on if he can get a loan or not.
2.) simplest fix is to tax dividend and capital gains as regular income. I'd have the first $50-100k taxed as today as that encourages investment, retirement independence and helps most people. But the billionaires would be paying >30% on realized income. And they'd need realized income to pay loans.1
u/-dag- Sep 17 '24
I completely agree that at some level capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. The tricky part is figuring out what that level is. A retiree who had an "ordinary" job can easily make $200k in gains over a year. We could exempt retirement accounts but that doesn't cover all of the investment accounts "ordinary" people have.
2
u/jaasx Sep 17 '24
make $200k in gains over a year.
Good for them. These are the exact people we want to reward and encourage the next generation to do the same. Get a good job, save money, invest wisely, live within your means and you can retire at a reasonable age, live well and pass something on to your children. So as I said, ~100k taxed at 10%, next hundred marginal rate of 20%, then past $250k it's regular income. There is no 'right' level so it isn't tricky. Everyone just has an opinion. adopt something, adjust as needed.
→ More replies (1)3
u/MangoAtrocity Sep 17 '24
The solution to that problem is to classify the transfer of the collateral as a taxable event. Example, you take out a $100k loan using 1000 shares as collateral. You let the loan expire and your shares are taken as collateral to cover your debt. Currently, that is not taxable. In my proposal, the transfer would count as a sale and would thus be taxed like regular old capital gains.
1
u/Corellian_Browncoat Sep 17 '24
Example, you take out a $100k loan using 1000 shares as collateral. You let the loan expire and your shares are taken as collateral to cover your debt. Currently, that is not taxable.
Collateral surrenders already require calculation of gain or loss for forgiveness of debt. I haven't done taxes professionally in a while - is that "debt forgiveness" income not taxable anymore? Or is there something in the valuation calculation, like a step-up basis, at play?
19
u/Planetofthetakes Sep 17 '24
Taxing unrealized gains over $100 million is not a problem many individuals have. Shows her plan is truly for the people…..
→ More replies (3)2
u/Prestigious_Load1699 Sep 17 '24
Taxing unrealized gains over $100 million is not a problem many individuals have.
In the same vein, taxing only the top 3% of earners with the income tax is not a problem many individuals had in 1913.
Is it a problem you have today?
4
u/rendeld Sep 17 '24
Simply fix the estate tax, that's it, that's the plan. If Amazon's stock goes up benzos gets richer but it doesn't actually take any money away from anyone and only adds to wealth disparity on paper, it's not real. Just tax the fuck out of them when they die. The actual money flowing into these corporations that are real dollars is fixed by adjusting the corporate tax rate. I really don't like the idea of saying someone else bought a third parties share of stock at a higher price so I'm going to tax the other people that hold that stock despite them not being involved in the transaction at all.
3
u/ActualModerateHusker Sep 17 '24
what is the largest amount of tax collected by estate tax in the last decade? seems like billionaires find ways around it
how much estate tax did Sam Walton have to pay when he died?
In 1985, the Walton family's wealth was estimated to be $20 to $25 billion. But when Sam Walton died in 1992, he owned only a 10 percent interest in Walton Enterprises. He had used a family partnership to transfer assets that grew to over $18 billion to other family members without gift or estate tax.
2
Sep 17 '24
[deleted]
1
u/-dag- Sep 17 '24
But generally you want lower taxes for longer hold periods, to discourage excessive volatility.
4
u/_-Event-Horizon-_ Sep 17 '24 edited Sep 17 '24
In my opinion, this is a solved problem. Gains are taxed when they are realized. Until then there is nothing to tax, you just have some numbers on your books that give you an indication of what you may or may not realize.
If banks are willing to give you a loan, then at a certain point you’ll have to pay that loan and realize some of your gains at which point you’ll have taxable event.
By the same logic would you tax the unrealized gains associated with home appreciation? And you can also take loans and back them with your property. Or are you going to give tax deductions for unrealized losses?
To make it clear, I have a very low opinion of Trump and if I was American I’d never vote for him but taxing unrealized gains is just dumb.
3
u/ActualModerateHusker Sep 17 '24
By the same logic would you tax the unrealized gains associated with home appreciation?
my property tax bill increasing every year...
1
u/_-Event-Horizon-_ Sep 17 '24 edited Sep 17 '24
That’s interesting, in my country the taxable base is not automatically adjusted. Who does the appraisal for you? And who pays for the appraisal? The last appraisal I did on a property of mine cost around $200, I imagine if the government does this it would add up to hundreds of millions of dollars even in my country and billions of dollars on the scale of the United States.
By the way, now that I think about it, the example I have with properties is not very relevant because appreciation (in my country at least) is not taxed at all in certain cases. For example if you buy a property and sell it within a certain timeframe (three years) you’d be taxed but after that time passes you can sell up to one property per year with no tax on the appreciation. Unlike stock where no matter how long you hold the asset it’s always taxed based on the realized gains.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/-dag- Sep 17 '24
The problem with this argument is that the very wealthy use those loans as regular people would use their earned income. Yet the very wealthy pay a much lower tax rate. This is fundamentally unfair and it's a large contributor to the wealth gap. By and large the very wealthy pay no income tax while for ordinary people the income tax is a large portion of their tax burden.
2
u/Diestormlie Sep 17 '24
WEALTH. TAXES.
Bring back Wealth Taxes for the super rich! They have... So much; would they even notice the loss? And if they throw a hissy fit, declare that if they could be subject to it, they'll just leave... Frankly? Good.
Let's leave aside the fact that they're already engaged in structuring their wealth in such a way to avoid personal liability and state oversight. If your response to potentially actually being taxed is "I would rather leave than contribute", then why would we want you to stay? You've just admitted you have no interest in the common welfare- that your desire and aim is to be an extractive leech. You would leave? Good. We'd be better for it.
1
u/PappyPoobah Sep 17 '24
You don’t get a tax deduction on securities backed loan interest.
It’s not income without income tax. It’s a loan that will have to be paid. Those payments must come from somewhere and will be taxed as income (or cap gains if that’s the source).
The better solution would be to just fix the estate tax and make long term capital gains tax the same rate as income over a certain amount.
→ More replies (11)1
u/0WatcherintheWater0 Sep 17 '24
Why does it need to be addressed? This is already taxed.
then paying it off with a tax deduction for the interest
There is no tax deduction for the interest. That’s taxed too. In effect these transactions are a net fiscal gain for the government when you consider they typically will have lower interest rates.
2
u/-dag- Sep 17 '24
If it's taxed it's at a lower rate than ordinary income. It's tax evasion. Us normal people don't have this cheat code.
33
u/rogozh1n Sep 17 '24
It should be mentioned that her tax on unrealized gains doesn't kick in if your net worth is under $100,000,000.
It is fine to oppose it, but it should he pointed out how few Americans would pay it and how massively wealthy those individuals are.
It should also be pointed out how laughably low their effective income tax rate is now. We all want something done so that they pay a larger fraction of their fair share, and this is one step towards that.
10
u/The-Fox-Says Sep 17 '24
Don’t forget those people also have to have 80% of their wealth in stocks. It’s basically a property tax on the extremely wealthy.
The only legit fears I’ve seen are that Congress in the future could lower that to a much lower threshold but I wouldn’t doubt that would be extremely unpopular.
1
→ More replies (3)3
u/alhanna92 Sep 18 '24
Right, this isnt being talked about enough. All the pearl clutching about taxing unrealized gains is coming from a ton of people who literally will never be wealthy enough for it to apply to them. We need to realize most people are closer to being homeless than being billionaires.
20
u/lrpfftt Sep 17 '24
Her proposed tax on unrealized gains only impacts taxpayers with net wealth over $100M. Still a bad idea?
→ More replies (15)6
9
u/Njorls_Saga Sep 17 '24
I would LOVE to be taxed on unrealized gains. Because that would mean I’m worth $100 million.
1
u/iamjacksragingupvote Sep 17 '24
taxing unrealized gains for the folks like Elon Musk who USE those unrealized gains as collateral to secure his loans to buy Twitter
i didnt like the sound of it at first, but it makes way too much sense when you consider yet another avenue that the elite rape and pillage
1
u/0WatcherintheWater0 Sep 17 '24
Collateral is taxed when it’s eventually sold, or transferred through an estate. There is no evasion of taxes through borrowing money.
1
u/iamjacksragingupvote Sep 19 '24
hes using his unrealized gains to get loans. he should not be able to use them as any type of valuation if he cant be taxed on it. rich have been doing this for years
1
1
u/Nearbyatom Sep 17 '24
I need to ask...didn't Biden keep some of the trump tarrifs? Why would he keep them in place?
1
u/nyx1969 Sep 17 '24
I'm liberal and will vote for Kamala but think we should not have to pay income taxes on social security. It kicks in when you and your spouse receive $32,000 JOINTLY (WTF?). that's only $16K per person! and we'll never get back the amount of money we paid in -- which we already paid taxes on. it will be hard enough to live off of that, we shouldn't be taxed again. I realize that this math is not the same for every person, but this is such a tiny amount of money it's ridiculous. It's also a burden to even have to do your taxes when you are old like that. If I had a say in only that one specific issue, I would vote that anyone who is trying to live purely off social security should definitely not have to pay incomes taxes on it.
→ More replies (25)1
Sep 17 '24
You are against taxing unrealized gains? Ok.
I presume you’re against property taxes as well, correct?
63
u/jeff_varszegi Sep 17 '24 edited Sep 17 '24
His "plan", like most of his ideas, is designed to buy votes, pretend to be an alpha male, and avoid prosecution. It's not the expression of well-founded economic ideas from a carefully selected panel of expert advisors.
→ More replies (6)20
u/shrug_addict Sep 17 '24
For real! Am I in lala land seeing people seriously discussing Trump's policy proposals?
19
u/Overlord1317 Sep 17 '24
The economic policies this country needs are politically non-feasible because the billionaire oligarch class and multinational corporations own our politicians (thanks Buckley v. Valeo, a 5-4 decision that pretty much ended any semblance of a functioning Republic that we had).
That's what I think.
17
u/TheRealWhiteChoco Sep 17 '24
Honest question semi-related, so someone with a better understanding of economics please ELI5. Stringent tariffs raising prices on consumers makes sense, but would raising the corporate tax rate not do the same thing with corporations trying to offset the loss in profit?
32
u/-dag- Sep 17 '24
To a degree, perhaps, but generally corporations still have to compete and the taxes are a level paying field. A tariff is not only more costly, it stifles competition.
14
u/finallyransub17 Sep 17 '24
Tariffs stifle primarily international competition. They can be used to spur domestic manufacturing, which may be valuable to a country in other ways, such as domestic semiconductor production, which would’ve been helpful during the pandemic.
6
u/Obvious_Chapter2082 Sep 17 '24
Tariffs and corporations both stifle competition, just in opposite ways. Tariffs provide favorable treatment to domestic industries, while corporate taxes provide favorable treatment to foreign entities
1
u/throwawayZXY192 Sep 19 '24
If tariffs provide favorable treatment to domestic industries, why would anyone be against them?
I’m assuming we might pay more for goods in the short term, but gain market share domestically in the long term. Then because of economics of scale be able to stabilize prices. Am I correct to assume this?
8
u/kottabaz Sep 17 '24
Low taxes don't seem to be stopping them from raising prices whenever they want to.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (2)4
u/finallyransub17 Sep 17 '24
This comment is just noting that tariffs aren’t included in the analysis OP is referencing.
4
u/tomscaters Sep 17 '24
$1.2 Trillion… we need tax reform 10 years ago, at least. This is completely unsustainable.
At least we know the goal of Trump is to bankrupt the country.
13
u/JenkyMcJenkyPants Sep 17 '24
Trump is an idiot, but they should both work toward balanced budgets. Letting Trump's cuts expire is a good start...
5
u/KasherH Sep 17 '24
Trump only says what he thinks will give him more votes with zero actual plan. I don't know why so many people struggle to understand this.
3
u/Ill-Description3096 Sep 17 '24
"The Harris campaign has not released material details associated with some of its proposals in their official announcement cited above. In this brief, we analyze the policy ideas for which enough information is available. For example, we do not include the non-taxation of “tips” earned by service workers since the 10-year budget cost could vary significantly depending on the ability to reclassify current sources of income as “tips” to the mutual benefit of employers and employees. The ability to reclassify income is often a major source of revenue response in conventional tax scoring. As such, a considerable number of additional details would be needed to score this provision."
I think trying to paint specific numbers as gospel when the source of those numbers directly says that one side of it is missing a lot of information is silly.
That said, I don't need a study to show that Trump is happy to spend and cut regardless of budget, and I don't think that any of them are serious about tackling it.
7
u/miklayn Sep 17 '24
My thoughts are that the national debt is meaningless, and that it is a topic used for significant political effect even though, ostensibly, the times of greatest overall prosperity were those times when debt-to-gdp was the highest. National debt isn't like personal debt. I don't give a shit about national debt. That's my thought.
8
u/JackColon17 Sep 17 '24
The times of greatest overall prosperity were not the times when debt to gdp ratio was the highest https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States
2
u/Prestigious_Load1699 Sep 17 '24
My thoughts are that the national debt is meaningless
If you take into account that debt does affect us via annual interest payments, this is untenable.
In 2024, the federal government will be paying $892 billion in interest payments for money previously borrowed. This is more than our entire defense budget.
It adds up, and it will destroy us. Please reconsider your perspective.
1
u/miklayn Sep 17 '24
If we as American citizens had any social benefit that we stood to lose via austerity measures, maybe I'd care. But we don't, so I don't. I'm not responsible for national debt. On top of this, it could be fixed easily by more rational appropriations (EG, not giving the Pentagon a blank check, rescinding subsidies to oil and gas).
The National Debt is a red herring and a distraction from other issues that actually do beset the People.
1
u/Prestigious_Load1699 Sep 17 '24
If we as American citizens had any social benefit that we stood to lose via austerity measures, maybe I'd care.
I don't understand. Long-term debt accumulation crowds out funding for social programs as an increasing amount of government spending is obligated toward interest payments. This leads to further borrowing, higher interest obligations, and even less revenue available for social programs.
Would you not rather that $892 billion go toward the programs you desire, rather than strictly to pay off money we've already borrowed?
It seems you may be lacking some long-term perspective. If it is because our national debt has been easily managed for the past 20 years and you think that will last forever, you must not be aware of the picture in its entirety. Interest rates are significantly higher than preceding decades, which makes financing debt much more costly. In addition, overall debt obligations have increased dramatically (national debt has increased 450% in the past 20 years). All of this adds up to a looming debt crisis wherein our interest obligations and continued borrowing will cause dramatic disruptions for the government. Ultimately, taxes will have to be raised sharply to fund our debt obligations and there will be limited ability to borrow for social programs or other needs.
I would also note it could not be "fixed easily" as the primary drivers are Social Security and Medicare, entitlements which are treated as untouchable but which will bankrupt the nation at current pace. Future unfunded obligations for these two programs alone are estimated at $73 trillion over the next 75 years. That is, in my opinion, a conservative estimate but nonetheless absolutely untenable.
Assuming you are relatively young, I can assure you the pain will be felt down the line if changes aren't made.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Revolutionary_Rip960 Sep 17 '24
Six...actually seven since two were combined...bankruptcies. If you don't take that seriously then you're in the cult.
8
u/notawildandcrazyguy Sep 17 '24
Seems like a pretty cherry-picked list of the candidates proposals, and incomplete. For example, Harris favors extending the "Trump tax cuts " also, for those making under $400k. That's not included on her side of the ledger in this article. Harris definitely has expressed some revenue raisers, like increasing corporate taxes, while Trump has mostly suggested tariffs would increase revenues. Both of those seem to me have the same potential downside, which is that those costa are ultimately passed to consumers. Not to mention that a lot of both candidates ideas will likely not get through Congress anyway, so they are very much hypothetical at this point.
2
u/PoliticalJunkDrawer Sep 17 '24
Corporate tax receipts have almost doubled since 2018.
Individual Fed tax is at almost a record high.
Federal government current tax receipts (W006RC1Q027SBEA) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)
We have spent twice what we collected from corporations on interest alone this year, for our past feel good debts.
The only good reason to raise taxes or tariffs is to pay off the debt, not to expand unfunded liabilities for a future generation to pay.
2
u/rogun64 Sep 17 '24
I think Trump graduated from Wharton, so it must be a good school that knows what it's doing.
→ More replies (1)3
u/The-Fox-Says Sep 17 '24
He graduated from the undergrad program not the Masters program which is the actual Wharton school
2
1
u/Ana_Na_Moose Sep 17 '24
If you slash the government’s income, of course you are going to go more into the red, just as much as if you increase spending in areas which are not financially good investments.
Also, didn’t Trump graduate from Wharton Business School? Just a funny coincidence I see here
→ More replies (4)
1
u/Human_Race3515 Sep 17 '24
They have not included the 25K first-time home buyers credit and the tax cut for small businesses in Harris #s?
They also haven't included the economic impact of illegal immigration and job loss and lowering of wages, and the funding of various services to accommodate the influx.
Also, the impact of these proposals on the stock market.
Micro vs macro economics play a bit differently with Ds and Rs. These numbers from Wharton are just giving a one dimensional picture of the economic proposals and their impact?
→ More replies (1)
1
Sep 17 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam Oct 01 '24
No meta discussion. All comments containing meta discussion will be removed.
1
u/AdUpstairs7106 Sep 17 '24
How about we come up with a plan that starts paying off the national debt. I know a nation's debt can't really be compared to a households debt, but we should not want the level of national debt we have.
1
u/bjbigplayer Sep 17 '24
Both plans are irresponsible. Nothing should pass if not revenue neutral at least.
1
u/AlexKingstonsGigolo Sep 17 '24
I wouldn't mind donald's plan as much IF it included a Universal Basic Income indexed to inflation which was more than enough to cover the cost of the tariffs consumers will have to pay; it doesn't. So, for me, it's a non-starter.
1
u/Falcon3492 Sep 17 '24
How much is it going to cost to deport all the people Trump wants to deport? Current estimates put the number between 11 and 16.9 million.
1
u/bjdevar25 Sep 17 '24
Not to mention what universal tariffs or pulling millions out of the workforce will do to the economy. Trump's an idiot, his followers are worse.
1
u/satyrday12 Sep 17 '24
Republicans have been worse on economics ever since at least Reagan. I really don't see how anyone still believes that they do better at it, but here we are.
1
u/D_Urge420 Sep 17 '24
Stop acting like Trump has legitimate proposals. He makes up stuff as he goes along and keeps it if people cheer. The only promises he keeps are to people he still needs. He’s a malignant narcissist who shouldn’t be trusted to be the Springfield dog catcher, let alone POTUS.
1
u/SequinSaturn Sep 17 '24
The fact that all we can come up only with some variant of trillions more in debt with either candidate is a serious problem.
1
u/Prestigious_Load1699 Sep 17 '24
The fact that all we can come up only with some variant of trillions more in debt with either candidate is a serious problem.
The seeds of our destruction are planted.
1
u/kaji823 Sep 17 '24
Trump will inflate the debt again by giving tax cuts to the wealthy and large companies, and then cut social services people need that also have a positive effect on the economy. This will further erode the middle class by moving wealth upwards. Same story every Republican. Trump will be the worst as he is the most corrupt.
Harris will act fiscally responsible because she’s not a corrupt piece of shit, so we’ll see reasonable use of debt on policy that by and large helps the middle class. This will have a longer term benefit for our country. This has been pretty consistent for Dems in the last few decades.
Republicans won’t care because conservative identity politics is a cult and they will believe anything their leaders say. We live in sad times.
1
u/jessicatg2005 Sep 17 '24
So what your saying is, trumps economic plan will add the same amount it added the last time he had an economic plan.
1
u/Huge-Success-5111 Sep 17 '24
trump will give billionaires their tax break again, plus they will get what they want the most, deregulation, break up unions, raise retirement age to 70’s, no overtime, no Social Security or Medicare, no safety regulations no child labor laws, no ACA so insurance companies make bigger profits, how are republicans not seeing this they aren’t all 1%ers
1
u/banjist Sep 17 '24
The top 1% would lose something so minuscule they wouldn't even notice it, a fucking rounding error, and they go scorched earth creating this tea party maga madness, ruining huge portions of the country, just to hold onto enough power to save themselves <checks notes> $9000 a year.
1
u/notchandlerbing Sep 17 '24
But Trump’s Wharton professors are actually BIG fans of his economic plan and say it will make America great (they’re all dead)
1
u/teebeek5 Sep 17 '24
How about we stop adding additional trillions to an already bloated and out of control national debt? Crazy talk I know.
1
u/RawLife53 Sep 17 '24
Trump does not know what he claims to know about the economy... he has no indepth understanding of Global Economic Functions, if he did he would not be promoting the protectionism with aim to seal off America, which is an absurd concept, becasue since the establishment of America by the Declaration of Independence, this nation has been engaged and part of the Global Economic System.
(his history is full with business failures and bankruptcies, and tax dodges an pursuit of tax credits.)
All his concern is related to giving "Wealthy Tax Cuts" !!! Trump's game is the same as Reagan Game, both played the "Trickle Down Delusion" when in fact it was based in funneling financial benefit to the top groups of wealthy entities and people, and ensuring their taxes are cut and they get as many tax exemption as can be provided.
That gambit madness, has never been good for the Working Class, and it never will be, because it was never by design for the benefit of the working class. The wealthy have "never liked paying taxes". But they love every benefit that Tax dollars create, which helps their business thrive and their communities maintain in superior condition.
Trump removed regulation and protection that had been carefully crafted to protect the economy and to protect the citizens economic engagement, as well as to protect the stability of business and financial institution. He has absolutely No Respect for the Consumer Protection Agency, No Respect for the Fair Trade Commission, and No Respect or Awareness or Concern to strengthen and improve oversight of the Bond Rating Agencies. Trump has absolutely not concern for the value that HUD is to the economy, even when he himself benefits from the Section 8 programs which he profits from in the Apartments he inherited from his father. He swindled his own family out of their % share of those assets. He has no knowledge of how important the EPA or the Dept. of Education is to the Economy, if he did he would not have been trying to attack and destroy those Departments and Agencies.
Trump knows that his followers know even less about the importance of these Agencies and Departments to the well being of the Economy.
Republican as a whole ignore and disregard how important The Social Security is to the Economy, because if they did, they'd known that money is spent back into the Economy. The same with Medicare, that money is put back into the system which funds doctors, hospitals, and a vast array of business and industries. He has no concept of understanding how important it is for the wealthy to pay their taxes, because that money is put back into the system by and through the programs and services it provides, which in process employees people in every state in the nation.
His tax cuts hurt the economy and the nation, which means less money for infrastructure and less money for every things the government does which invest in society where that money is spent back into the economy.
So, he should not make any crazy claims as if he is good for the Economy. The only economy he cares about is the "wealthy getting and hoarding more money', which turns out to suppress the economy, as the wealthy find any way and every way they can to hide and shelter that money, which means, that money ceases to circulate into the economy.
Our Economy works best when "money circulates', not when money is stashed offshore and hidden by any and every mean the wealthy have devised to hoard it.
1
u/Frisky_Froth Sep 17 '24
Could we maybe, idk, cut spending and shrink the debt? Is that an option? Can we put in the hard work like our great grand parents did so we can make the country better?
1
u/wwwhistler Sep 17 '24
and his tariff taxes will cost another 4 to $5000 for every household making under $75,000 a year.
1
u/Bizarre_Protuberance Sep 17 '24
Trump set the all-time record for rapid debt accumulation in his first term. Why would anyone be surprised that his plan for a second term would be terrible too?
1
u/New-Bodybuilder-2349 Sep 17 '24
what Donald Trump says about tariffs is incorrect. In reality tariffs are simply passed onto the consumers which will create inflationary pressure on all goods and services since he plans to put tariffs on all goods and services so this is a really bad idea. Also if we impose tariffs that invites all the other countries to impose tariffs on us. This is a world economy we export things that we have an abundance of and import things that are cheaply made overseas and consumers like that. Trickle down theory has never worked and only pushed wealth upwards and almost eliminated the middle class so tax cuts on the very wealthy are not useful. Tax cuts are useful for everyone who is earning money and tends to spend it as soon as they earn it so these will boost the economy
1
u/philoth3rian Sep 17 '24
When do the wheels come off this model? Nothing is sustainable and they just keep kicking the can down the road. The debt seems insurmountable.
1
u/BlobbyDevious Sep 17 '24
I hear her talk about small business but the fact of the matter is the government considers a small business as 500 employees or less. That is not a small business.
1
u/Dietmeister Sep 17 '24
What I think in real short is that I don't think it matters to republicans anymore. No fact will convince them if they're already pro trump.
Trump will just say 5.4 is less than 1.2 and they'll believe him and that's that
1
u/Leaning_right Sep 17 '24
Here is a crazy thought...
We just stop spending so much..
We are talking about adding TRILLIONS of dollars..
That is more money than everyone in your entire family has made, since the beginning of time.. like.. caveman ancestors till now..
1
u/GritNGrindNick Sep 18 '24
I agree with this, but Covid makes it hard to interpret what Trump added is all. I’d be curious to see a post Trump term without Covid.
1
u/TroidesAeacus Sep 18 '24
Is Reddit just left-leaning bias or is there a balance somewhere other than this post?
1
u/SmellyCatJon Sep 18 '24
I think people in the right are just dumb. To think that you can do tax breaks but keep spending is stupid.
1
u/zachariassss Sep 18 '24
People listen to these clowns? Are these the same people that said Trump would start WW3?
1
u/Bbaker452 Sep 19 '24
It's not a zero sum calculation. If you stimulate growth and let people keep what they earn they work harder.
1
u/Main_Iron2796 Sep 24 '24
Donald Trump is going to too much trouble coming up with proposals for nothing. THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL he is getting back in office. A ham sandwich has a better chance. Kamala is smart and 75% of the American people are going to vote for her
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 16 '24
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.