Trump vs. Harris . . . economic plan, deficit, and debt.

1. 83

   tsmogposted 7 months ago

   How the Plans of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump Could Affect the Deficit by Investopedia (Sept 17, 2024)
   https://www.investopedia.com/trump-harr … on-8710401
   
   The bottom line . . .
   
   "According to separate analyses by nonpartisan think tank the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and the Penn-Wharton Budget Model at the University of Pennsylvania, Harris's policies could increase deficits by up to $2 trillion, while Trump’s policies could increase them up to $4 trillion.
   
   Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "Budget Watch 2024."
   
   Neither organization’s analysis encompassed all of the tax cuts, spending programs, and taxes proposed by the candidates in recent days. However, the analyses highlight the rival politicians’ starkly different approaches to how they would manage the federal budget and the $35 trillion (and counting) national debt."
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Not really a lengthy article closer to short. At the article one can magnify the graphics for ease of use. Another option is to right click the image in this OP and open image in new tab.
   
   Open to see/review other articles on this topic as compare/contrast.
   
   How much should the deficit and the debt matter for who you vote for?
   
   Thoughts, criticisms, accolades, and/or commentary?
   
   [Edit: A closer look at Trump's proposal to lower corporate tax rate to 15% that is conditional.
   
   Donald Trump’s Proposal to Lower the Corporate Tax Rate to 15% by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (Sept 6, 2024)
   https://www.crfb.org/blogs/donald-trump … ax-rate-15

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

      "Neither organization’s analysis encompassed all of the tax cuts, spending programs, and taxes proposed by the candidates in recent days. "
      
      These are the most important variables. I must laugh "Spending programs...

      replyreport
   2. 83

      tsmogposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Penn Wharton (University of Pennsylvania) Budget Model’s / Guide to the 2024 Presidential Candidates’ Policy Proposals
      https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/2 … tion#trump
      
      [Note: Lands on Trump. Scroll up to see Harris]
      
      "In preparation for the 2024 presidential election, Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) has compiled a brief guide to our analyses of the candidates’ policy proposals. These analyses project the policy proposals’ fiscal, distributional, and economic effects. These analyses only include proposals that are detailed enough to score, and so coverage may differ between candidates."
      
      [The following are intros only. For details see article.]
      
      ** Harris Campaign Policy Proposals: PWBM estimates that the Harris Campaign tax and spending proposals would increase primary deficits by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years on a conventional basis and by $2.0 trillion on a dynamic basis that includes a reduction in economic activity. Lower and middle-income households generally benefit from increased transfers and credits on a conventional basis, while higher-income households are worse off.
      
      ** Trump Campaign Policy Proposals: PWBM estimates that the Trump Campaign tax and spending proposals would increase primary deficits by $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years on a conventional basis and by $4.1 trillion on a dynamic basis that includes economic feedback effects. Households across all income groups benefit on a conventional basis.
      
      Deep dive into Trumps proposals . . .
      The 2024 Trump Campaign Policy Proposals: Budgetary, Economic and Distributional Effects by Penn Wharton (Aug 26, 2024)
      https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/i … osals-2024
      
      Summary: We estimate that the Trump Campaign tax and spending proposals would increase primary deficits by $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years on a conventional basis and by $4.1 trillion on a dynamic basis that includes economic feedback effects. Households across all income groups benefit on a conventional basis.
      
      Key Points
      
      ** We project that conventionally estimated tax revenue falls by $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years, producing an equivalent amount of primary deficits. Accounting for economic feedback effects, primary deficits increase by $4.1 trillion over the same period.
      
      ** While GDP increases during part of the first decade (2025 – 2034), GDP eventually falls relative to current law, falling by 0.4 percent in 2034 and by 2.1 percent in 30 years (year 2054). After initially increasing, capital investment and working hours eventually fall, leaving average wages unchanged in 2034 and lower by 1.7 percent in 2054.
      
      ** Low, middle, and high-income households in 2026 and 2034 all fare better under the campaign proposals on a conventional basis. These conventional gains and losses do not include the additional debt burden on future generations who must finance almost the entirety of the tax decreases.
      
      Deep dive into Harris Proposals
      The 2024 Harris Campaign Policy Proposals: Budgetary, Economic and Distributional Effects by Penn Wharton (Aug 26, 2024)
      https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/i … osals-2024
      
      Summary: We estimate that the Harris Campaign tax and spending proposals would increase primary deficits by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years on a conventional basis and by $2.0 trillion on a dynamic basis that includes a reduction in economic activity. Lower and middle-income households generally benefit from increased transfers and credits on a conventional basis, while higher-income households are worse off.
      
      Key Points
      
      ** We project that spending increases by $2.3 trillion over 10 years while conventional tax revenue increases by $1.1 trillion, for a difference in primary deficits of $1.2 trillion. Accounting for negative economic feedback effects, primary deficits increase to $2 trillion.
      
      ** Relative to current law, GDP falls by 1.3 percent by 2034 and by 4 percent within 30 years (year 2054). Capital investment and working hours fall, thereby reducing wages by 0.8 percent in 2034 and by 3.3 percent in 2054.
      
      ** Low- and middle-income households in 2026 and 2034 fare better under the campaign proposals on a conventional basis, while households in the top 5 percent of the income distribution fare worse. These conventional gains and losses do not include the negative impact of the additional debt burden on future generations who must finance most of the spending increases.

      replyreport
2. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 months ago

   "US tax reform legislation enacted on 22 December 2017 (P.L. 115-97) moved the United States from a ‘worldwide’ system of taxation towards a ‘territorial’ system of taxation.
   
   Among other things, P.L. 115-97 permanently reduced the 35% CIT rate on resident corporations to a flat 21% rate for tax years beginning after 31 December 2017."
   
   https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/united-sta … ate-income

   replyreport
3. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 months ago

   Hungary CIT (Last reviewed 15 July 2024):    9
   
   https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/quick-char … -cit-rates

   replyreport
4. 62

   Willowarborposted 7 months ago

   
   
   
   So how does Trump aim to offset this in terms of revenue?
   
   
   "Trump's growing list of tax cuts, policy experts say. Trump's proposed tax breaks together could cost as much as $9 trillion over the next decade, according to a September 20 analysis from TD Cowen analyst Jaret Seiberg."
   
   And Trump's alma mater Penn Wharton says..
   
   "We estimate that the Trump Campaign tax and spending proposals would increase primary deficits by $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years ".
   
   I guess the idea is that the cost Americans will pay in increased tariffs will increase revenue to offset his spending?
   
   https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tax- … rity-cost/

   replyreport
5. 83

   Sharlee01posted 7 months ago

   I have done a bit of research on the subject --- Just some additional food for thought. 
   
   The analyses by these organizations on Harris and Trump’s fiscal plans, while providing insights into their broader approaches, fall short by not fully accounting for all proposed tax cuts, spending programs, and taxes. This omission leaves a gap in understanding the true scale of their potential impacts on the federal budget and national debt, which now exceeds $35 trillion. By only focusing on partial aspects of their policies, the analyses may not accurately reflect the full fiscal consequences. This narrow evaluation overlooks the complexity of both candidates' strategies and the significant budgetary challenges the next president will face. Understanding these deficits fully requires a more comprehensive analysis that includes the entirety of both candidates' proposals.
   
   The caveat that these analyses do not account for the full range of tax cuts, spending programs, and proposed taxes is important but often overlooked by the general public. By including this disclaimer, economists and organizations acknowledge that their assessments provide only a partial picture of the potential fiscal outcomes under Harris or Trump. This limitation means that while their evaluations highlight the candidates' contrasting approaches, they cannot offer a complete forecast of how each would handle the federal budget or the $35 trillion national debt. In short, the caveats emphasize that any conclusions drawn from these reports should be seen as provisional and subject to change when more details emerge.
   
   So, would it be fair to say that these analyses may not be entirely accurate or comprehensive, especially when comparing the fiscal impact of Harris’s many plans, which include numerous social spending programs, with Trump’s, which generally promise less spending. Since these analyses don’t capture all of the candidates’ proposals, particularly Harris's extensive spending initiatives, they likely underestimate the true cost of her policies. Similarly, without fully factoring in Trump’s tax cuts or other fiscal proposals, the comparison might not accurately reflect his budgetary impact either. Therefore, any conclusions about the fiscal deficits or overall financial outlook based on these partial analyses could be misleading.
   
   Economists’ evaluations of candidates' economic plans and projected deficits often do not fully come to fruition due to a variety of factors. One key reason is the unpredictability of external events, such as recessions, global crises, or market shifts, which can dramatically alter economic outcomes, as seen during the 2008 financial crisis or the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, even if candidates propose specific fiscal policies, these are often significantly altered by the legislative process, where compromises and opposition can reshape the original plans. Economic forecasts also rely on assumptions about growth rates, inflation, and employment, which can be off-target, leading to inaccurate projections. Furthermore, analysts sometimes misjudge how businesses and individuals will respond to new tax or spending policies, introducing further complexity. As a result, while economists’ evaluations provide valuable insights, the reality is often more nuanced and unpredictable, making these projections more of a guide than a certain outcome.
   
   Example ----  While the initial projections of some economists regarding Biden's proposals as he campaigned for a strong recovery were optimistic, the reality became more complicated due to his unexpected spending.  Inflation emerged as a significant challenge, leading to debates among economists about whether the scale and timing of government spending were responsible for this inflation, especially since their projections did not account for such extensive expenditures. Many argued that the stimulus contributed to overheating the economy rather than fostering a balanced recovery from COVID-19. Additionally, persistent supply chain disruptions and labor market imbalances further complicated the situation, as high demand outpaced supply and led to rising prices, ultimately straining the economic outlook.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Willowarborposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Regardless of opinion, tax cuts reduce government revenues and lead to budget deficits or growth in government debt.  We're going to do this again?...
      
      
      The Trump Tax Cuts Led to Record-Low, Not High, Revenues Outside of a Recession...
      
      "The tax legislation that President Donald Trump signed in December 2017 significantly reduced federal revenues, with the largest tax cuts going to the richest Americans. Following the enactment of these tax cuts, federal revenues fell dramatically—as the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected would occur at the time the law passed1—and they remain below projections of federal revenues made prior to their enactment."
      
      Some economists feel that Trump's tax plan will  simply not  generate enough revenue given the nation’s investment needs and our commitments to Social Security and health coverage.
      
      https://www.americanprogress.org/articl … recession/
      
      https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-t … to-deliver

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

         In economic discussions, it’s important to recognize that there are always winners and losers when predicting outcomes. For instance, while some economists support former President Trump’s economic plans—highlighting potential benefits like tax cuts and deregulation—others express skepticism, pointing out the risks associated with increased national debt and income inequality. So, who does one believe?  Both lists below have very astute economist.
         
         Here are some economists and commentators who have voiced skepticism or opposition to former President Trump's economic plans:
         
         Larry Kudlow
         Art Laffer
         Kevin Hassett
         Peter Navarro
         Stephen Forbes
         Richard Epstein
         Michael Pillsbury
         Robert Rector
         E.J. Antoni
         
         Here are some economists and commentators who have voiced skepticism or opposition to former President Trump's economic plans:
         
         Paul Krugman
         Joseph Stiglitz
         Jason Furman
         Larry Summers
         Adam Posen
         Janet Yellen
         Mark Zandi
         N. Gregory Mankiw
         Evan Soltas
         Diane Swonk

         replyreport
      2. 99

         DrMark1961posted 7 months agoin reply to this

         Yes, tax cuts reduce government revenue. So why do some people in goverment think the solution is to increase spending and make more programs? Do they not understand that the people are fed up with paying taxes?
         If Trump is able to stop taxes on tips and overtime do you know what the solution is? Decrease government spending. Do you all really need those tens of thousands of new IRS agents?
         Would you not be happier if your tax rate fell and you eneded up with more money in your paycheck?

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

            I completely agree. Reducing taxes, especially on things like tips and overtime, would put more money directly into the pockets of hardworking individuals. The logical step would then be to cut government spending accordingly, ensuring the budget is balanced without overburdening taxpayers. Many people are tired of high taxes funding ever-increasing government programs, which often come with layers of bureaucracy. Streamlining government, cutting waste, and focusing on efficiency could lead to a scenario where everyone ends up with more of their hard-earned money while still providing necessary services. And yes, adding thousands of new IRS agents seems like the wrong direction if the goal is to lessen the tax burden and make things more efficient.

            replyreport
6. 70

   Ken Burgessposted 7 months ago

   The best laid plans of mice and men...
   
   For the first time in our lives... we have a choice between two KNOWNS.
   
   We know what Trump tried to do and did.
   
   We know what Biden-Harris tried to do and did.
   
   I don't care about campaign promises... we either have a continuation of the road we are on now... or we switch back to Trump.  That simple.

   replyreport
7. 83

   tsmogposted 7 months ago

   As Election Day Approaches, US Fiscal Confidence Dips and Voters Call on their Leaders to Prioritize Solutions to the National Debt by Peter G. Peterson Foundation (Sept 26, 2024)
   https://www.pgpf.org/press-release/2024 … ss-release
   
   "NEW YORK (September 26, 2024) — With just six weeks until the election, voters are increasingly concerned about the $35 trillion and growing national debt, yet Vice President Harris and former President Trump have yet to put forward proposals for how to address America’s fiscal outlook. September’s Fiscal Confidence Index, modelled after the Consumer Confidence Index, dropped to 47 (100 is neutral), reflecting strong majorities of Democratic and Republican voters looking for fiscal leadership from candidates.
   
   More than eight in 10 voters (82%) say their concern about the debt has increased, up 5 points from last month. The percentage of voters who want the debt to be a top-three priority for the president and Congress also increased this month to 77%, including 73% of Democrats, 70% of independents and 87% of Republicans.
   
   “Voters are clearly concerned about the growing national debt, and they want their Presidential and Congressional candidates to put forward solutions,” said Michael A. Peterson, CEO of the nonpartisan Peterson Foundation. “This is a fiscal election because the leaders we elect will face a series of critical deadlines and decisions, from the debt ceiling, to the expiration of nearly $5 trillion of tax cuts, to looming automatic cuts to Social Security. Voters understand that we need a sustainable fiscal foundation to build a stronger economic future and address national priorities like the climate, healthcare, education and national defense.”
   
   A little further along . . .
   
   "The Fiscal Confidence Index measures public opinion about the national debt by asking six questions in three key areas:
   
   ** CONCERN: Level of concern and views about the direction of the national debt.
   ** PRIORITY: How high a priority addressing the debt should be for elected leaders.
   ** EXPECTATIONS: Expectations about whether the debt situation will get better or worse in the next few years."
   
   The survey results can be seen at the next link . . .
   https://www.pgpf.org/what-we-are-doing/ … ence-index

   replyreport
8. 83

   tsmogposted 7 months ago

   How about a different perspective on the proposals of Trump and Harris's economic plans.
   
   Who Has the Better Economic Plan — Harris or Trump? by the National Catholic Register (Sept 26, 2024)
   ANALYSIS: Catholic economists express skepticism over both candidates’ fiscal and monetary proposals.
   https://www.ncregister.com/news/economi … s-or-trump
   
   "Will either approach actually work? Several Catholic economists who spoke with the Register reacted negatively to aspects of both candidates’ plans, both from the point of view of sound economics and the basic principles of Catholic social teaching (CST).
   
   Among them is Hannah Kling, assistant professor of data analytics and economics at Belmont Abbey College.
   
   ​​“As a Catholic economics professor, I’m very frustrated by how many policies on both sides of the aisle violate common sense and Catholic social thought,” she told the Register. “That tariffs and price-gouging laws are extremely popular among the general public while all economists know they only hurt the general public really breaks my heart.”
   
   A little further along about midway in the article arrives . . .
   
   The Church’s View on Economics
   
   Assessing how a particular public policy will benefit or harm their own bottom lines isn’t the only factor for Catholics to consider when it comes to evaluating a candidate’s position on issues like the economy.
   
   The Church’s moral theology on justice, peace and human dignity — also known as Catholic social teaching — offers key principles to bear in mind when making prudential judgments about what policies best serve the common good, such as the preference for resolving economic issues at the lowest level capable of addressing them effectively and the imperative to protect and uphold human dignity. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ 1996 statement titled “A Catholic Framework for Economic Life,” for example, teaches that “a fundamental moral measure of any economy is how the poor and vulnerable are faring.”
   
   An interesting article offering a perspective that may not have been considered. It delves into both proposed economic policies offering pros and cons. It may be worth a peek.

   replyreport
9. 83

   tsmogposted 7 months ago

   From FactCheck.org arrives . . .
   
   Harris Misleadingly Cites Some Economic Analyses of Her Policies and Trump’s (Sept 27, 2024)
   https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/harri … nd-trumps/
   
   See analysis and commentary on . . .
   
   ** Penn Wharton Budget Model
   
   It opens with . . .
   
   "In the campaign event with Winfrey, Harris cited the “Wharton School of Business.” She is referring to analyses performed by the Penn Wharton Budget Model of Harris’ and Trump’s tax and spending plans, and PWBM did not conclude that her plan “would strengthen the economy, his would weaken it,” as she said.
   
   PWBM found that Harris’ plan would reduce the nation’s gross domestic product more than Trump’s, and would reduce workers’ wages more.
   
   PWBM did conclude that Trump’s plan would add about twice as much to the nation’s debt, but PWBM warned that the debt added by both candidates’ plans would fall on “future generations who must finance almost the entirety of the tax decreases” each has proposed."
   
   ** Goldman Sachs
   
   It opens with . . .
   
   "In her interview with MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle, Harris said analysts at Goldman Sachs, a global investment and wealth management firm, “said my plan would grow the economy” and Trump’s “would shrink the economy.”
   
   In fact, the analysts found that the economy would continue to grow under both candidates. If Trump wins, the growth would be a bit smaller in Trump’s first year, but that “abates in 2026,” the report said. If Harris wins, there would be at best a “very slight boost to GDP growth” in the first two years, the report said, referring to the real GDP, which is adjusted for inflation.
   
   The company’s chief executive officer suggested the difference in the economic impact between the two candidates isn’t significant."
   
   ** Moody’s Analytics
   
   It opens with . . .
   
   "Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, has said that if Harris and Trump were able to get all their policies enacted, the economy would thrive more under a Harris administration.
   
   “Assuming Harris and Trump are able to fully implement the policies they have proposed when they take office, the economy will perform better under Harris than under Trump in their terms,” Zandi told Newsweek in a Sept. 20 article. “That is, real economic growth will be stronger, inflation and interest rates lower and budget deficits and debt lower under Harris’ policies than under Trump’s policies,” he said.
   
   However, a Moody’s Analytics report published in early August said that it’s most likely if Harris wins the election, she will have to deal with a divided Congress – making it difficult to execute her full agenda, which Moody’s assumed would be similar to what was in the Biden-Harris administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2025. But that scenario would still work out better for the economy than if Trump becomes president with a Republican-controlled Congress, the second likeliest outcome, the analysis said."
   
   ** Financial Times/Chicago Booth Survey
   
   It opens with . . .
   
   "In Pittsburgh, Harris correctly cited a survey by the Financial Times and the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. “A survey of top economists by the Financial Times and the University of Chicago found that, by an overwhelming 70 to 3% margin, my plan would be better for keeping inflation low,” she said.
   
   The survey, which the Financial Times wrote about on Sept. 14, asked 37 economists: “If the Harris or Trump economic platforms were to be enacted, which do you think would be more inflationary in the medium term?” In response, 70% said Trump’s plans would be more inflationary; 27% said that there would be “no material difference in their inflationary consequences,” and 3% said Harris’ plans would be more inflationary.
   
   There was a similar response to the question about federal deficits: 70% said Trump’s plans would lead to larger deficits; 19% said there would be “no material difference,” and 11% said Harris’ plans would “produce larger federal budget deficits in the medium term.”
   
   ** Nobel Laureates
   
   It states . . .
   
   "Harris referred to “16 Nobel laureates” in the event with Winfrey and other events. Those Nobel Prize-winning economists commented on Biden’s record in office, not future plans by Harris. But they did praise the Biden administration, while saying they were “deeply concerned about the risks of a second Trump administration for the U.S. economy.”
   
   The 16 economists wrote a letter in June, when Biden was still running for reelection, saying: “While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we all agree that Joe Biden’s economic agenda is vastly superior to Donald Trump’s. In his first four years as President, Joe Biden signed into law major investments in the U.S. economy, including in infrastructure, domestic manufacturing, and climate. Together, these investments are likely to increase productivity and economic growth while lowering long-term inflationary pressures and facilitating the clean energy transition. … An additional four years of Joe Biden’s presidency would allow him to continue supporting an inclusive U.S. economic recovery.”
   
   On Trump’s plans, the letter said: “Nonpartisan researchers, including at Evercore, Allianz, Oxford Economics, and the Peterson Institute, predict that if Donald Trump successfully enacts his agenda, it will increase inflation. … We believe that a second Trump term would have a negative impact on the U.S.’s economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.’s domestic economy.”
   
   As vice president, Harris clearly supports the actions of the Biden administration and many of the same economic policies as the president, but the Nobel laureates didn’t analyze her plan, as she said."

   replyreport