Is your vote based on the economy?
I'm approaching my vote with a strong focus on the economy. After carefully examining both candidates' agendas, I've looked into what many economists have to say and analyzed historical examples of past policies that in some way mimic what the candidates are offering. Looking at what worked and what did not work out well historically.
I am also considering the candidates' economic records during their time in office, including what they supported while serving in their administration and the outcomes of those policies on the general population, as well as the country.
I find it somewhat less biased to look at the available facts regarding the economy. These facts, along with information about various policies, are accessible, and there are also valuable historical insights on previous economic policies that can inform our understanding. I guess one could say this is one of the easier issues to put in perspective when adding to the list of pros and cons.Articles like these, and reports put forth by our major media outlets in general, continue to promote such economic "truth" that flies in the face of most American's realities.
An overwhelming number of Americans are not better off today than they were four or five years ago economically, more Americans today are struggling to get by, struggling to pay the bills.
Even those people who are not struggling, they gripe about steak that used to cost 12 dollars now costing 37. Gas that used to be around $2 a gallon now being around $4, and so on.$2 a gallon at the height of a pandemic where there was no reason to be driving. The usual far-right distortions. And it's down under $3 where I am now.
Many Americans feel they are not better off today than they were four or five years ago, particularly in the context of rising living costs. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that 56% of adults reported feeling financially worse off compared to prior years. This sentiment is echoed in a Gallup poll, where over half of respondents stated that their financial situation had worsened, attributing their struggles to increased expenses and inflation.
Here are some key statistics regarding poverty and income in the United States for 2023:
Poverty Rate: In 2023, approximately 11.5% of the U.S. population lived in poverty, representing about 39.8 million people. This marks a slight increase from 2022's rate of 11.3%(Census.gov).
Income Levels: The median household income was $74,580, which is about a 2.3% decrease from the previous year when it was$76,066(Census.gov)(Census.gov).
Child Poverty: The child poverty rate stood at 16.3%, affecting about 8.9 million children(Census.gov)(Census.gov). This was a slight increase from 2022, when the rate was 15.5%(Census.gov).
Racial Disparities: Poverty rates varied significantly by race and ethnicity. In 2023, the poverty rate for Black or African American individuals was 19.8%, while for Hispanic individuals, it was 18.1%. In contrast, the rate for non-Hispanic white individuals was significantly lower at 7.7%(
Census.gov).What are Trump's specific plans to reduce childhood poverty? The cost of housing? The cost of groceries? Raise wages?
I must first ask what are Harris's, and please offer how her agenda will be paid for ... In 60 minutes interview she could not answer that even after being asked three times. It would well appear you ignore all questions regarding Harris. However, have many regarding Trump. Trump openly offers his agenda, and how he plans to bring it to fruition.
Trump has outlined a multifaceted agenda to address childhood poverty and the related issues of housing and food costs, with a strong emphasis on economic growth and job creation. He believes that keeping present tax codes or reducing the tax burden further on individuals and businesses will stimulate economic activity, leading to job creation and higher wages.
Trump's administration has advocated for deregulation to encourage investment, which he argues can drive down costs for housing and groceries by increasing competition. Additionally, he has proposed initiatives to bolster vocational training and apprenticeship programs, aimed at equipping young people with the skills needed for well-paying jobs. By focusing on these economic strategies, Trump aims to create an environment where families can thrive, ultimately reducing childhood poverty and its associated challenges.
Trump’s plan to bolster vocational training includes several key components aimed at enhancing educational opportunities and creating a skilled workforce. He proposed increasing federal FUNDING for vocational and technical education programs through grants to support schools and organizations that provide hands-on training in high-demand fields. ( I feel this form of funding supports adding well-educated workers, that will grow our nation.
Harris presents a plan that could hinder our nation by promoting social programs that lack incentives for work. Instead, these programs may encourage a dependency on government support, undermining the efforts of those who strive for success and self-sufficiency.
A crucial aspect of Trump's initiative involves encouraging partnerships between educational institutions and local businesses, allowing schools to tailor their programs to meet the specific needs of the job market, ensuring students gain relevant skills that employers are seeking. Trump has also emphasized the importance of expanding apprenticeship programs, which provide students with valuable work experience while still in school, creating a direct pathway to employment upon graduation. Additionally, by advocating for the inclusion of Career and Technical Education (CTE) in high school curricula, Trump aims to ensure that students are aware of and can pursue various career paths that may not require a traditional four-year college degree. Finally, he has suggested reducing regulatory burdens on educational institutions that offer vocational training, making it easier for them to operate and innovate in their program offerings. Through these initiatives.
Trump’s agenda aims to cultivate a skilled workforce prepared to take on future job opportunities, ultimately fostering economic growth and reducing childhood poverty. He promotes a sense of pride and achievement, while Harris's approach is viewed as promoting stagnation rather than progress.
Trump offers a fishing rod, whereas Harris offers a fish."Trump offers a fishing rod, whereas Harris offers a fish." I would add that Harris's "fish" belongs to someone else; she must first confiscate it before giving it away.
But I do like the comment; it fits very well with how I see the two parties when it comes to their basic philosophy.So true—and I can only picture the fish she offers being quite small. Would she genuinely want her supporters to feel satisfied without reaching out for a frozen fish stick? After all, some people prefer Chilean sea bass, while others are content with free frozen fish sticks that require no effort to obtain.
After reading this, it is obvious that for most Trump supporters it is not.
Hell no. I'm voting to see Trump brought to justice for his 2020 coup attempt.
WSJ poll of 39 economists... the vast majority vehemently disagreed with some of Trump’s most popular policies.
"When it comes to eliminating taxes on tips, 87 percent oppose it, believing it would have little impact on lower-wage workers; 85 percent oppose extending, or making permanent, Trump’s 2017 tax cuts. One hundred percent oppose imposing tariffs on imported goods.
And sixteen Nobel prize-winning economists warned in an open letter that a second Trump term would have a “destabilizing effect” on the U.S.’s domestic economy and negatively impact its world standing."
An analysis from the Peterson Institute For International Economics found that Trump’s policies would “worsen American living standards.”
Eighty-eight current and former executives in corporate America predicted Trump’s policies “risk reigniting inflation” and would “lower GDP growth” and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris in an open letter.
“As a bundle, the policies are pretty terrible,” Dr. Josh Bivens, a Chief Economist and Senior Researcher with the Economic Policy Institute said. “They will raise taxes on the vast majority of households on net while cutting taxes for the very rich and maintaining the tax cuts on corporations. They will create all sorts of weird unintended effects. No big problem currently facing US working families is really addressed.
“If they’re all undertaken, it is a near guarantee that the result would be higher interest rates and higher inflation,” Bivens said.
Trump's economic plans? There are no for me.How a Trump Win in 2024 Could Impact Inflation in 2025 by GOBankingRates (Oct 8, 2024)
https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/ec … inflation/
The most important quote is . . .
"A separate report from the Peterson Institute for International Economics suggested that Trump’s policies could cause the U.S. inflation rate to climb “between 4.1 and 7.4 percentage points higher than otherwise by 2026.”""When it comes to eliminating taxes on tips, 87 percent oppose it, believing it would have little impact on lower-wage workers..."
This is something I don't understand. If it will have no impact on lower wage workers it will have no impact on tax roles. If that is the case why in the world do we impose the onerous record keeping rules on businesses AND employees that receives tips? Just because we can?Eliminating taxes on tips could be a meaningful policy for low-wage workers, and dismissing its impact overlooks several important considerations. While some argue that 87 percent of people oppose the measure because they believe it would have little effect, this view may underestimate how taxes on tips disproportionately burden workers in service industries. Tips often make up a significant portion of their income, and even a small tax break could improve their financial stability. For many in low-paying jobs, every bit helps, and removing the tax on tips could reduce their overall tax burden, allowing them to keep more of their hard-earned money. Additionally, tipping is already a volatile source of income, and reducing taxes on it could provide more predictability and relief for workers who rely on tips to make ends meet. Rather than dismiss the idea, it might be more beneficial to consider how this policy could contribute to alleviating the financial challenges faced by low-wage earners.
As of now, Donald Trump has not made any specific public announcements about plans to change the tax rates he implemented during his presidency. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 was one of the hallmark achievements of his administration, significantly lowering tax rates for corporations and individuals. Trump has frequently praised the impact of the TCJA, particularly on economic growth and job creation, and has continued to defend its provisions. It appears some are providing media with if comes...
This bunch seems to like to write letters...
Sept 2021 ---Open letter from Nobel Laureates in support of economic recovery agenda
The American economy appears set for a robust recovery in part due to active government interventions over the past year and a half, including President Biden’s American Rescue Plan. But, reversing years of disinvestment in public goods and addressing the country’s long-term needs—including building toward sustainable and inclusive growth and facilitating our clean energy transition—will require more.
(Related content: Debunking 5 Top Inflation Myths)
Success in the 21st century will require building upon the bi-partisan infrastructure deal that has passed the Senate, which prioritizes investments in our nation’s “hard” infrastructure. The President’s Build Back Better agenda employs a broader conception of infrastructure by making critical investments in human capital, the care economy, research and development, public education, and more, which will REDUCE families’ costs.
While we all have different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we believe that key components of this broader agenda are critical—including tax reforms that make our tax system more equitable and that enable our system to raise the additional funds required to facilitate necessary public investments and achieve our collective goals. Because this agenda invests in long-term economic capacity and will enhance the ability of more Americans to participate productively in the economy, it will ease longer-term inflationary pressures.
Signed by 17 recipients of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences:
George A. Akerlof, Professor, Georgetown University
Sir Angus Deaton, Professor, Princeton University
Peter Diamond, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Robert Engle, Professor Emeritus and Co-Director of the Volatility and Risk Institute, New York University
Oliver Hart, Professor, Harvard University
Daniel Kahneman, Professor, Princeton University
Eric S. Maskin, Professor, Harvard University
Daniel McFadden, Professor, University of California, Berkley
Paul Milgrom, Professor, Stanford University
Roger Myerson, Professor, University of Chicago
Edmund S. Phelps, Professor and Director of the Center on Capitalism and Society, Columbia University
Paul Romer, Professor, New York University
William Sharpe, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University
Robert Shiller, Professor, Yale University
Christopher Sims, Professor, Princeton University
Robert Solow, Professor Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Joseph Stiglitz, Professor, Columbia University
The same group wrote a letter in 2016 regarding Trump's economic plan---
Yes, a group of Nobel Prize-winning economists signed an open letter in 2016 warning that Donald Trump's economic plan would likely lead to negative consequences for the U.S. economy. The letter, released during the presidential campaign, criticized Trump's proposals, particularly regarding tax cuts, trade policies, and immigration restrictions. The economists argued that these policies could increase the federal deficit, raise inequality, and create instability in the economy. For a full copy of the letter, you can access it directly (Columbia Business School
)ps://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/imce-uploads/Joseph_Stiglitz/Nobel%20letter%20on%20the%20economy.pdf).
It would appear they got it wrong regarding Trump and Biden in the end.I cannot find a letter from 2016. Is there a direct link?
Using the information from your first post, I was led to the following.
https://business.columbia.edu/sites/def … conomy.pdf
This is their letter discussing the economic impacts of a Trump second term.Yes, I read that letter, which led me to examine their track record in predicting economic outcomes—and it's quite poor. Hopefully, you checked out the links I provided. It’s interesting that they endorsed Biden during his campaign, believing his plan would be beneficial for the country. Yet, we’re now living through what many see as the fallout of his failed economic policies. Back in 2016, they harshly criticized Trump’s economic proposals in comparison to Clinton's, but we saw that, up until COVID, Trump's economy was thriving. It seems this group consistently gets it wrong.
So, I must say, I have no confidence in what they stated in their 2024 letter regarding Trump's economic plan. I've done my own research and have shared it extensively here on HPs with People Power in this thread. I’m not about to repeat myself again.
Let me add that Harris has not provided anything concrete regarding an economic plan. She’s made a lot of promises about what she intends to deliver, but there’s no clear explanation of how she plans to fund it. Has this group published a letter evaluating her economic proposals? I’m unsure how any economist can assess a plan that lacks real details. I shared information about Trump's economic plan and how he intends to finance it.
Can you provide any details on Harris’s economic plan? I haven't found anything about how she would pay for it. Additionally, she had a great opportunity to discuss her plan on 60 Minutes but failed to do so, even after being asked three times about funding. I don't understand why the focus seems to be solely on Trump's economic plans when there appears to be little attention given to Harris's proposals. Trump's administration was on fire, Biden/Harris were the water that put the fire out.
I am very satisfied with Trump's proposals. I find them fresh and bold, completely breaking from the status quo. I believe they can help Americans refocus on striving for the American Dream through capitalism.'Which presidential nominee has the better economic agenda to get Americans back on track? According to nearly 40 economists from America's top schools surveyed by the Financial Times and the University of Chicago Booth School of Business' Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets, it's Harris instead of former President Donald Trump, the GOP presidential nominee.
When asked which nominees' economic policies would be more inflationary—in other words, which would be more likely to cause inflation—70 percent of the economists said Trump's while only 3 percent said Harris'. Meanwhile, 27 percent said there is no material difference in each economic platform's inflationary consequences.
A total of 70 percent also thought Trump's economic platform would produce larger federal budget deficits, while only 11 percent said Harris' platform would and 19 percent said there would be no material difference.
Then we have Moody's and Goldman Sachs , the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, Penn -Wharton and more that all support the Harris plan over Trump.
How Will trump offset the costs of his plan? Tariffs that essentially all economists believe will be passed on to consumers. His plans also result in the middle class paying more in tax. . Harris will raise the corporate tax rate to 28% and a slight increase in the top tax bracket.
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris- … ey-1953940I looked over your link, and it offers little in terms of a concrete economic plan from Kamala Harris. The most I could find was a vague outline of her proposals: she aims to expand tax deductions for small businesses, restore and increase the child tax credit, and lower housing costs through down payment assistance for first-time homeowners. To finance these initiatives, she plans to raise taxes on the wealthy and large corporations and crack down on price gouging to help with grocery bills.
However, implementing such large social programs requires Congressional approval, and the specifics of how she intends to fund these proposals remain largely undefined. This lack of clarity makes it difficult for economists to assess her plan effectively. They rely on her campaign documents, speeches, and broad principles she has put forward, including investments in social programs and infrastructure. Yet, as we've seen with previous evaluations, economists have often been inaccurate in their predictions, particularly regarding Biden’s and Trump’s economic policies. Many of their forecasts about the Biden administration's economic outcomes were significantly off the mark, many economists praised his economic plan. It is clear his economic plan was a disaster, and we have all lived it. Just as they were with Trump, whose economy was performing well until the onset of COVID-19. Many economists predicted his plan would put the economy in danger.
Harris's proposals appear to lean heavily on handouts and tax increases, which raises concerns about their realism and implications for democracy. The notion of funding expansive social programs through taxing the rich is not only questionable in practice but could undermine the democratic principles that have contributed to America's prosperity. It's troubling to consider that such an approach might gain traction, especially given the historical significance of individual liberties and market-driven success in shaping our society. How can anyone support relinquishing the democratic ideals that have built this country?
As of yet, you have provided nothing that would have me believe you have found out anything regarding how Harris's plan would be paid for. You offer many leftist economists simple evaluations of her plan without clear information but what she is saying at rallies... To be honest just about every article I have read regarding Harris economic plan the authors have add caveats such as " The wide range of possibilities reflects considerable uncertainty about her fiscal policy stance at this point, leaving a large void regarding how she might deal with the already unprecedented, dangerous, and unsustainable federal debt trajectory." or "We relied on what she has shared on the campaign trail, and interviews."
Just quoting these types of evaluations holds water in my book. I pointed out a few incidences of just how wrong some economists have been. It is important to rely on these folks' past records, is it not?https://kamalaharris.com/wp-content/upl … tunity.pdf
"As of yet, you have provided nothing that would have me believe you have found out anything regarding how Harris's plan would be paid for."
I have repeatedly written about the increase in the corporate tax rate as well as the highest income bracket rates.Corporate tax - the only income tax paid twice by the same people. And you agree it should be raised again!
Trump's well-laid-out plan for the economy was, in my view, far superior, offering better solutions that focused on building a society where citizens can truly thrive and reclaim the American dream. His approach emphasized creating opportunities through education, hard work, and a strong economic foundation, rather than relying on handouts. In contrast, I see Harris’s plan as one that promotes dependency, with a focus on government spending programs rather than empowering people to succeed on their own. Much like Biden's approach, her proposals seem to revolve around giveaways, and I don't see any evidence of a viable, intelligent plan that would encourage economic growth or foster individual success. To me, her vision lacks the substance needed to help people achieve real prosperity.
I’ve made it clear many times that I’m a staunch capitalist, and I firmly believe that the rich should not be forced to pay for the poor. I support a society where opportunity is available to those willing to work for it, not one where wealth is redistributed from those who’ve worked hard and strived to become successful. I respect the effort and determination it takes to build wealth, and I don’t think people who have achieved that should be penalized for their success. What I value is a system that rewards ambition and hard work, where individuals are empowered to pursue their own version of the American dream, not one that promotes dependency on government handouts. I believe in creating opportunities for people to thrive, not taking from those who have earned their success to support those who haven’t put in the same effort.
There have been several instances in U.S. history when taxes were raised on the very rich, and the outcomes were often viewed as failures in terms of economic performance or revenue generation. For example, during the Great Depression in the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented significant tax increases on high-income earners as part of his New Deal programs. The top marginal tax rate rose to as high as 94% in 1944, with the intention of generating revenue to fund recovery efforts. However, the economy struggled to fully recover until the war effort in the early 1940s, leading critics to argue that these high taxes stifled investment and economic activity during a crucial recovery period. Similarly, in the 1970s, the top marginal tax rate hovered around 70%. This decade was marked by stagflation—high inflation coupled with stagnant economic growth—and many critics contend that the high tax rates contributed to a lack of incentive for investment and entrepreneurship, resulting in slower job creation and economic vitality. Additionally, in the 1990s, under President Bill Clinton, the top income tax rate was raised from 31% to 39.6% in 1993. Although the economy eventually experienced growth, the tax increase faced significant opposition and was argued to have temporarily hindered economic momentum. The immediate aftermath raised concerns about business investment and economic expansion, despite the later economic boom in the decade. These examples illustrate that raising taxes on the wealthy has sometimes led to unintended negative consequences, such as slowed economic growth, disincentives for investment, and increased national debt, highlighting that the effectiveness of such tax policies often hinges on broader economic conditions and government spending practices.
Trump's plan is unique not been tried before in the combination of variables he has proposed. Trump's economic plan is unique in its combination of aggressive tax cuts, deregulation, and a focus on American manufacturing, setting it apart from previous approaches. Unlike traditional economic strategies that often emphasize gradual reforms and incremental tax increases, Trump's plan advocates for substantial tax reductions for both individuals and businesses, aiming to stimulate immediate economic growth. His emphasis on deregulation seeks to reduce bureaucratic barriers, enabling businesses to thrive without the heavy constraints typically imposed by government oversight. Additionally, Trump’s focus on revitalizing American manufacturing through incentives and tariffs is a departure from past policies that often favored free trade and globalization, which he argues have harmed domestic industries and jobs. This combination of measures—significant tax cuts, deregulation, and a strong push for domestic manufacturing—creates a comprehensive and aggressive approach aimed at fostering rapid economic expansion, job creation, and a resurgence of American competitiveness in the global market. By intertwining these strategies, Trump’s plan attempts to create a self-reinforcing cycle of growth that prioritizes American workers and businesses in a way that previous administrations have not fully explored.
Harris offers a regurgitated tax on the rich, which our history shows as a rule failed.Simply taking from those that have earned it and giving it to those that have NOT earned it as a method of producing economic equity will always be a failure. In the very short term (months or a few years) it can look very good, very successful, but that lack of incentive you mentioned will always be there, lurking in the back of the mind of the earners, while at the same time the incentive to work less and less is in the forefront of those that receive without effort. It cannot last.
As an example, I have a relative that is a HUGE go-getter. He works a full time job while also studying for, and receiving, his realtor license - he is now also a realtor, working to sell houses. In his copious free time he purchased and is completely remodelling a multi-million dollar house, doing all the work himself.
But. He also commented a few months ago that he is not going to continue doing all that, for the rewards are falling steadily; Uncle Sam requires more and more of what he earned to the point is isn't worth expanding. The incentive just isn't there.I completely agree with that sentiment. It’s incredibly inspiring to hear about someone who is a huge go-getter, working full-time while studying for a realtor license and even remodeling a multi-million dollar house on their own. However, it’s disheartening to learn that despite all that hard work and ambition, they feel discouraged by the increasing tax burdens. When the rewards for one’s efforts are diminished by higher taxes, it can really impact motivation and the desire to expand one's endeavors. This underscores a significant concern: if people feel that their hard work is being disproportionately taxed, they may be less inclined to put in that extra effort or take on new challenges, ultimately stifling innovation and growth.
Socialism typically involves the redistribution of wealth, where resources are allocated from the rich to support those in need, such as the poor and marginalized groups in society.
I look at Harris's plan as a gateway to socialism --- The impact of socialism on work ethic and innovation varies significantly by country and context, with some arguments suggesting that socialist systems can lead to decreased motivation to work and hinder innovation. Critics often point out that in some socialist countries, especially those with extensive welfare systems, generous benefits may reduce individual incentives to seek employment or pursue higher education. For instance, if individuals receive substantial support regardless of their employment status, they may feel less compelled to work hard or engage in entrepreneurial activities, resulting in a less dynamic workforce. Additionally, socialist systems that emphasize collective ownership and centralized planning can sometimes stifle competition and innovation, as there may be fewer incentives for companies to innovate or improve efficiency in the absence of market competition. Historical examples, such as the former Soviet Union, illustrate that while there were notable achievements in specific fields, the lack of competition and bureaucratic inefficiencies contributed to stagnation in many sectors
It's clear who would thrive. A lot of us are tired of the failed trickle down policy. We're tired of supporting cuts for the upper brackets. Most of us find ourselves in the middle brackets and therefore want to see policies that build the economy from the middle out. Trickle-down tax cuts for the very rich do not increase prosperity, growth or employment for the average American. These tax cuts will also severely reduce federal
revenue and balloon the deficit.
https://itep.org/a-distributional-analy … plan-2024/Overall, while Trump's tax plan is designed to stimulate growth, its long-term effects on the economy and federal budget remain uncertain, leading to mixed opinions on whether it would work out well or poorly. Very hard to predict the outcome of his plan, and one must understand that Congress in the future could offer new tax programs as needed. This is what being a democracy offers us... Nothing is written in stone.
Key Points on what Trump has talked about doing. Not confirmed in any respect.
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. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/i … osals-2024How many people does Elon Musk feed? How many does he house and clothe? How many cars have people bought with money Musk gave them, and how many people were employed building those cars, from mining the iron ore to screwing in the left taillight?
It's called "trickle down" - what Musk has trickles down to thousands of people that support themselves with what Musk "trickles" to them.
After you have taken Musk's wealth from him to satisfy your greed for what you want but don't want to earn, who will then build the next Tesla factory? Who will design and build the next rocket advance? Who will feed all those people now depending on the "trickle down" from Elon?
The Middle class, that is being built from the middle out? Will that be the one getting the most welfare will provide the billions necessary for that factory or will it be a conglomerate, a corporation exactly as we have today, the same corporations you would drive out of business as you take their earnings from the owners?
Hint: the wealth "trickling down" from Elon Musk goes to over a hundred thousand people every week, and they in turn support hundreds of thousands more.How did this conversation all of a sudden shift to welfare? I don't believe there's anything about increasing welfare in Harris's plan. In terms of Trumps tax plan, I'm not interested in taking up the slack in extra tax so that the top bracket can get a break. He also has no plan to replace all the Lost revenue due to the giveaways to the top tier. His plan adds significantly to the deficit.
Historical data shows, that when given tax breaks or economic policies based on "trickle-down economics," wealthy individuals tend to primarily benefit themselves by accumulating more wealth, rather than significantly increasing spending that would "trickle down" to stimulate the broader economy, often leading to increased income inequality; this means they largely pocket the benefits of these policies instead of reinvesting them in ways that create widespread economic growth for all levels of society.
Again, I'm not interested in funding the few percent at the top.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-bad … ts-2021-12I find the claim that Trump’s tax plan unfairly shifts the burden to lower-income earners while benefiting the top bracket to be unfounded. His tax plan, particularly the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, aimed to stimulate the economy by lowering taxes across the board, not just for the wealthy. While it’s true that top earners saw significant breaks, middle-class families also received relief. The argument that there’s no plan to replace lost revenue overlooks the fact that economic growth can offset deficits by boosting job creation, investments, and overall tax revenue. Trump’s approach is built on the idea that cutting taxes leads to a more dynamic economy, which in turn generates higher revenues in the long run. Additionally, critics often exaggerate the deficit impact without accounting for the increased growth projections that come from a more business-friendly environment.
I disagree with the claim that "trickle-down economics" doesn't benefit the broader economy. There have been historical examples where cutting taxes on businesses and high earners has led to increased growth that benefited everyone. For instance, during Ronald Reagan’s administration, the significant tax cuts he implemented were based on supply-side economics. While some argue that the wealthy benefited disproportionately, the overall economy grew, unemployment dropped, and millions of jobs were created. Similarly, under John F. Kennedy, tax cuts also resulted in strong economic growth. When businesses and high earners have more resources, they are often able to reinvest in expanding their operations, hiring more workers, and increasing wages. The argument that the wealthy just "pocket" the money overlooks the fact that economic growth often leads to greater opportunities and upward mobility for lower and middle-income earners. By creating a more favorable environment for investment and entrepreneurship, these policies can stimulate broader economic development.For instance, during Ronald Reagan’s administration, the significant tax cuts he implemented were based on supply-side economics. While some argue that the wealthy benefited disproportionately, the overall economy grew,
Harris is proposing a 28% corporate income tax rate, same as Reagan had.
"I find the claim that Trump’s tax plan unfairly shifts the burden to lower-income earners while benefiting the top bracket to be unfounded "
https://itep.org/a-distributional-analy … plan-2024/"Harris is proposing a 28% corporate income tax rate, same as Reagan had." I have not found anywhere to quote her on this stat.
Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, the tax brackets for high earners (or "the rich") changed, with the top marginal rate being reduced from 39.6% to 37%. Here are the relevant tax brackets for high-income individuals as of 2023:
37%: Applies to income over $578,125 for single filers and over $693,750 for married couples filing jointly.
35%: Applies to income between $231,251 and $578,125 for single filers, and between $462,501 and $693,750 for married couples filing jointly.
Under the current tax brackets established by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, individuals making $55,000 and $95,000 fall into the following marginal tax rates for 2023:
For an individual earning $55,000 (single filer):
They fall into the 22% tax bracket. However, their entire income isn’t taxed at 22%—only the portion over $44,725. The rest is taxed at lower rates:
10% on income up to $11,000
12% on income from $11,001 to $44,725
22% on income from $44,726 to $95,375
For an individual earning $95,000 (single filer):
They also fall into the 24% tax bracket, but only the portion of income over $95,375 is taxed at 24%. The breakdown is:
10% on income up to $11,000
12% on income from $11,001 to $44,725
22% on income from $44,726 to $95,375
24% on income from $95,376 to $182,100
Compare the current to what is being predicted."Kamala Harris proposes raising corporate tax rate to 28%"
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris … 024-08-19/
The rest of your post is discussing individual brackets. I believe that Harris wants to raise the top bracket to 39%.Not 28% but 39% --- you feel this is fair do the math that would mean someone making $400,000 would pay $156,000?
She also has expressed that she would like to raise the corporate tax rate from the current 21% to 28%.
It would seem this kind of taxation mimics socialist Nations. In my understanding, socialist nations typically adopt a combination of high corporate and personal tax rates to fund their social programs and manage the economy. For example, countries like Sweden and Denmark have corporate tax rates ranging from 22% to 24%, which reflects their commitment to maintaining robust social services.
Moreover, social security contributions are significant in countries such as Norway and Sweden, with both employers and employees contributing to fund various benefits and programs. This approach to taxation is often progressive, meaning higher income earners face higher tax rates, which aims to reduce income inequality.
You’re certainly entitled to view her shift toward socialism as a positive or reasonable step. We all have the right to our opinions. As I mentioned, I identify strongly as a capitalist. It’s evident that many people in our country are feeling dissatisfied with the current state of democracy, which traditionally supports capitalism. This dissatisfaction seems to indicate a potential shift toward socialism, especially with a significant portion of the population appearing willing to embrace that change, which I personally view as a step backward.
One of the great things about Americans is their ability to change their minds, often based on new experiences or shifting circumstances. History shows that public opinion can be quite fluid, and many people are willing to reevaluate their beliefs when they feel that current policies or ideologies aren't serving their needs. This adaptability is a key characteristic of American democracy. and the one that could pull us out of what I would see as a big old mistake."Not 28% but 39% --- you feel this is fair do the math that would mean someone making $400,000 would pay $156,000?
This is incorrect.
She proposes raising the corporate tax rate from the current 21% to 28% (it was 28% under Reagan... Clearly not a socialist)
And she proposes raising the top individual tax bracket from the current 37% to 39%. I, along with a great number of economists, have no issue with either.Thank you for answering my question.
Reagan inherited Nixon's economy, which was not good ---Yes, during Richard Nixon's presidency, there were tax increases on corporations as part of broader efforts to address inflation and manage the economy. In 1970, Congress passed the Revenue Act, which included provisions to increase corporate tax rates. This legislation raised the corporate income tax rate from 48% to 52% for certain corporations. His attempt to make the rich pay failed and failed badly.
Reagan --- The top marginal tax rate was reduced from 46% to 28%.
The number of tax brackets was reduced, simplifying the tax code.
I don't think I know of any time raising the taxes on the rich, and corporations worked in itself.
The recovery from the Recession during Barack Obama's administration was an exception, his economy was influenced by several factors beyond his tax increases on high-income earners in 2013. One factor was the aggressive monetary policy implemented by the Federal Reserve, which included lowering interest rates and quantitative easing to stimulate economic growth. These measures made borrowing cheaper, encouraging both consumer spending and business investment. Additionally, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed shortly after Obama took office, injected over $700 billion into the economy through tax cuts, infrastructure projects, and social programs, aiming to create jobs and spur economic activity. The stabilization of financial institutions through the TARP, initiated during the Bush administration and continued under Obama, helped restore confidence in the banking system, leading to increased lending.
Plus the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act enacted in 2010, sought to increase financial oversight and prevent future crises. As the economy gradually improved, we saw increased spending. The job market showed signs of recovery, with unemployment rates decreasing.
Obama's second term in 2016. Furthermore, technological advancements in sectors like information technology, energy, and healthcare spurred job creation and productivity improvements. A combination of these factors played crucial roles in facilitating the gradual improvement of the economy.
Hooray for your secular beliefs. I admire you for standing firm on them as I do others on their beliefs and values. I got stuck on ". . . and I firmly believe that the rich should not be forced to pay for the poor. Does that mean the poor should be forced to pay for the poor? The bottom line and common sense says someone will have to pay for the poor as has been done throughout history. That force is usually through some tax plan. It is even biblical as it use to be done through the temple.
I myself discover conflict between my secular belief system at contrast to spiritual/religious beliefs when it comes to providing for the unfortunate related to government economic models.
Looking for perspective. Have you read . . .
Who Has the Better Economic Plan — Harris or Trump? published by the National Catholic Register (Sept 26, 2024)
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 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.”
A hint is the article gives poor marks to both Harris and Trump.
Personally, though may be challenged, which is life, I accept through my spiritual/religious beliefs that the unfortunate should be cared for by some reasonable measure. Again, from the article, "a fundamental moral measure of any economy is how the poor and vulnerable are faring.”
Frankly, I vehemently question Trump's plan related to the last underlined sentence and the thought is it the poor that are to pay for the unfortunate through a proposed tax plan. Yes, yes, discussion is imperative to the 'how', but the 'why' is established by the article for the Catholic position.
From a contribution from Willowarbor in another thread the Institution on Taxation and Economic Policy shares . . .
A Distributional Analysis of Donald Trump’s Tax Plan published on Oct 7, 2024
https://itep.org/a-distributional-analy … plan-2024/
The image seems to indicate that Trump's plan will indeed force the poor to pay for the poor. Of course, naturally, is open to discussion, however it is enough for me if I stick to being a one issue voter not to vote for Trump while debating if to vote for Harris.I believe my perspective is quite clear when considering the full context of my thoughts. I've consistently stated that I am a staunch capitalist and firmly oppose the idea of forcing the wealthy to subsidize the poor. I envision a society where opportunities are accessible to those who are willing to work for them, rather than one where wealth is redistributed from hardworking individuals to others.
To be more specific, I think society thrives when individuals strive to support themselves, even though not everyone is able to do so. We could certainly allocate more of our tax dollars to help those who struggle to thrive, possibly by improving how we budget those funds. While this may sound simplistic, I believe there's significant potential for more efficient spending. Simply throwing money at problems often exacerbates them, rather than solving them.
"I myself discover conflict between my secular belief system at contrast to spiritual/religious beliefs when it comes to providing for the unfortunate related to government economic models."
I want to assure you that I'm not against helping those in need or supporting individuals who struggle to thrive. I believe we can allocate our tax dollars effectively to assist those in need without resorting to tax policies that seem punitive toward the wealthy. This approach doesn’t make sense to me, in any respect.
I've elaborated on my views in previous comments, and I feel that Harris's proposals might be more about garnering attention and stirring emotions rather than a sincere plan for implementation. (It is clear it is working with some) In my opinion, her "tax the rich" agenda comes off as a political tactic—a hook designed to appeal to voters but lacking the seriousness to be enacted.
I assure you that I’ve taken a thorough look at Trump's unique economic plan. At this moment, I can't take your chart seriously, as it appears to be based on conjecture and doesn’t accurately represent what Trump has articulated regarding new tax proposals. He has consistently maintained a "wait-and-see attitude," which makes it evident that it’s too early to critique what he might propose.
From my observations, Trump tends to focus on averting problems rather than creating them, and he puts considerable thought into his proposals. In analyzing both Harris's and Trump's economic plans as the media are offering, I've relied heavily on the past historical context of how taxes reflected on the economy. I think it important to realize and understand that neither of their plans is set in stone. It appears Trump's approach is distinctive and somewhat untried in our nation's history. While it certainly carries risks, I believe it’s worth considering the potential benefits.
The chart means little due to not being sure where this outlet came up with their stats. It's purely conjecture at this point. Reading into a plan not yet written. I am a very common sense person, I like facts that are purposed to Congress.Okay . . . I can respect that . . . BTW it wasn't my chart.
"The chart means little due to not being sure where this outlet came up with their stats. It's purely conjecture at this point. Reading into a plan not yet written. I am a very common sense person, I like facts that are purposed to Congress."
The methodology is included in the report. ITEP is highly regarded and nonpartisan.
It's okay for Trump's plan not to be fully flushed out yet there is criticism for lack of detail from Harris?
https://itep.org/a-distributional-analy … plan-2024/"The methodology is included in the report. ITEP is highly regarded and nonpartisan."
I did not say they were not highly regarded----
I don't believe it's completely accurate to claim that the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) is always highly regarded and nonpartisan. While ITEP is known for its research on tax issues, its track record of predictions isn't flawless. In many cases, their analyses have missed the mark, particularly when they lacked critical information needed to make accurate predictions. For instance, when they evaluate the impact of proposed tax reforms, they often base their conclusions on models that make assumptions about future economic behavior, which can be unpredictable. Additionally, although they claim to be nonpartisan, critics argue that their findings frequently align with more progressive tax policy positions, raising questions about bias. Like any organization, their analysis should be taken as one perspective, not the final word.
Trump has offered much more of his plan, and how he feels it will benefit the nation. I offered his plan repeatedly on this very thread.
I've also asked for details on Harris's economic plan, but it seems nowhere to be found beyond vague statements like "the rich will pay for it." I'd genuinely appreciate it if anyone could provide something concrete.
To me, continuing to defend her plan is pointless. There's nothing substantial to support it, except for a few surface-level evaluations from economists who don't have the best track records when it comes to predictions."I've also asked for details on Harris's economic plan, but it seems nowhere to be found beyond vague statements like "the rich will pay for it." I'd genuinely appreciate it if anyone could provide something concrete."
Once again, the entire plan. I believe taxes / funding or disgust beginning around pages 71 or 72
Edit:
https://kamalaharris.com/wp-content/upl … tunity.pdfthe link is to X a campaign headquarters, I found nothing regarding her agenda on anything. Just lots of Trump bashing.
My apologies. Too many links to keep track of. I believe that information related to taxation begins around page 71 or 72
https://kamalaharris.com/wp-content/upl … tunity.pdf
Trump and Harris tax plans side by side...
https://www.claconnect.com/en/resources … -proposals
Related Discussions
- 15
Trump vs. Harris . . . economic plan, deficit, and debt.
by Tim Mitchell 8 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-8710401The bottom line . . ."According to separate analyses by nonpartisan think tank the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and...
- 7
Kamala Harris's Misrepresentations of Trump's Agenda
by Sharlee 7 months ago
Kamala Harris has made several misleading or false claims about Donald Trump's agenda, particularly during her ads and rallies. One of the key points she often emphasizes is that Trump's immigration policies are rooted in cruelty and racism. I believe this characterization overlooks the...
- 4
It's Official Obama's Economic Policies Are A Disaster!
by lady_love158 14 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100909/bs_ … titivenessOops, look like an objective third party has come to that conclusion, and Obama can no longer claim it's Bush's fault!
- 21
It's the economy stupid!
by Alexander A. Villarasa 12 years ago
Now that all three presidential and one vice-presidential debates are history, the quintessential question begs to be answered. Are we better off economically compared to 4 years ago when Pres. Obama assumed the reins of the presidency? If some of us answers yes, then Obama...
- 19
Bidenomics
by Sharlee 21 months ago
Biden called out for 'factual error' once again -- this time in 'Bidenomics' tweet, after boasting about wage levels.President Biden was previously fact-checked when he claimed to slash the deficit by $1.7T WAPO fact-checked and found to be MISLEADING and earned Biden bottomless...
- 137
Inflation, what is up with that?
by Scott Belford 9 months ago
There is good inflation and their is bad inflation. What we experienced from 2009 - 2021 was the good type of inflation, between 1 and 3% a year. What we are experiencing now between 5 and 9% inflation is bad inflation. What we experienced in the 1980s, 10 to 15% inflation is...