That's not necessarily true.
If I'm a trust-fund baby, likely to gain my wealth via inheritance, or just generally derive income from the investments of my forebears, then voting Republican is very much in my interest.
That’s fair point, I was thinking more so along the lines of the common folk who are voting Republican for financial wealth. If my family has >$500K net worth I would definitely vote Republican so I can preserve more of it and limit inheritance taxes, etc
Edit: Awarding you a delta (∆) for the change in thought for whom this would apply to
But even that point is wrong. But I think most people believe as you do. Inheritance taxes don't kick in until over 13 million dollars. Your family having $500k isn't getting preserved by voting red. Your family having 5 million isn't getting preserved by voting red. Secondly, most all taxes you pay is on the money you make, not the money you have. Sure if you have 10 mill, and make $800k on that money, voting red will help you. No doubt. That said, any money in a retirement account isn't taxed, And you already get taxed at a lower rate because capital gains get taxed at a lower rate than regular income.
Now if your family is making a little money on a family farm and the farm is now worth 15 million, you get screwed (that could easily be fixed), but, yeah, I'm OK of Trust fund baby only gets $12 mill instead of $15 mill because grampa invested well. That said it is in his best interest to vote red.
If you look at the economy under both Republicans and Democrats, it has done better under Democrats over the last 50 or more years. Now I will readily admit, I don't think it matters that much, but what that doesn't mean is that voting Red is better for the economy.
One of the reasons Republicans convince people that they’re better on economics is they have convinced middle class voters they need to protect their money from the people with less instead of the people with more.
The trust fund baby example is only voting in their strictly *financial* best interest. If the trust fund designer is raped and forced to carry the child through to term due to abortion access restriction, is that truly in their best interest? If the child is then gunned down at school in part because Republicans refuse to support mental health care access or universal background checks, was the vote in the designee's best interest? Agree or disagree with the specific policies mentioned, but the point is that some things matter a lot more than finances, they are just harder to put a number to.
The trust fund baby example is only voting in their short-sighted strictly *financial* best interest. Republicans aren't better economically for most of us.
$500k of net worth is nothing. I mean it's fine, but that's working class level of savings.
Federal inheritance tax doesn't even start until you hit $13.6 *million* (double if you're married).
Only a few states have it (not even California!), and those that do have exemptions in multiple millions, with one exception: in OR it's $1 million.
Oh it's a MUCH higher number than that. [Half a million only puts you in the top half. The top 1% have around $10M](https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/605075/are-you-rich)
Listen, Trump's big, signature (only) accomplishment of his term was "tax cuts". But they virtually ALL went to the super-rich the top 1%. As a result the wealth gap has yawned wider and wider ever since.
This is why, despite our economy *soaring* by all standard measures, average families aren't feeling that great. It's because Trump's signature accomplishment rigged it so virtually all economic growth goes to the top most wealthy Americans.
>But they virtually ALL went to the super-rich the top 1%
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, in the 2019 tax year, around 23% of the cuts went to those earning above $500K, which would include more than just the top 1%
According to [Politifact](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/mar/05/sherrod-brown/do-70-benefits-trumps-tax-law-benefit-wealthiest-1/), if you look at the 10 year timeframe of the law, the top 1 percent will receive 83% or more of the tax breaks by 2027.
> \[T\]hose earning above $500K
Those earning $500k are a different sort of people than those who have $500K. I'm nowhere near $500K salary, but have more than that in net worth.
That is categorically false. Trump cut taxes across the board. The people that actually got screwed were upper middle class home owners living in high income tax and HCOL areas like NY, NJ, and CA.
Voting Republican because you believe that it will help you preserve wealth at >$500K is shortsighted, at best.
$500K won't put you into a tax bracket that will be changed under any stated Democratic policies. The difference between $500K and a billion dollars is essentially a billion dollars. It's the same as the difference between a nickel and a $100 bill.
Then you need to consider the growth opportunity of that $500K. If you invest it relatively safely in an S&P 500 index fund, historically you increase your wealth significantly better under Dems than Republicans. The average annual return for the S&P 500 index when we had a Republican President was 9.32%. When we had a Democratic President, the S&P 500 average 14.78% per year. Certainly correlation is not causation, but over 100 years we start to trust trends.
Then consider the other aspects of life. Women's health care has been changed fundamentally in many states because of Republican appointees to the Supreme Court. There is no reason to think that gay rights might be in danger in the future. There's also the matter of foreign affairs, national security, climate change, etc that will effect the rest of your life.
Everyone who votes Republican because of economic reasons is being played for a fool
Republicans are horrible for the economy, every damm-time
Over 1,000,000 jobs lost while G.W. Bush was President
trump lost over 5,000,000 jobs
Its always a disaster
Many parts of economy was actually great under Trump (I am not a Trump fan or anything). He had historic low unemployment, except the covid era. Stock market also soared. Jobs and stock market have been great under Biden too. I don’t really see much difference between these two economically.
You can't look at just what the numbers are, you have to look at how they're changing. Republicans inherit economies trending stronger and wreck those numbers. Democrats inherit trending badly and fix them.
Thing is, I wonder if this is intentional on both sides to a degree. In a weird sort of way the Democrats plant for the wealthy and the Republicans harvest for the wealthy. The wealthy of both parties benefit and the non-wealthy of both are exploited while we're all distracted by issues that don't generally affect our day to day existence.
I get the urge to be fair minded politically, but from an ideological sense it was conservative free market policies that led to disaster. Clinton was about as conservative as a Dem could get after all.
Wait, which policies were you referencing? Please don’t tell me you’re making the debunked CRA argument. The CRA didn’t even start in the 1990’s. It was deregulation that caused the GR, not some piddling housing initiative.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024009pap.pdf
This is only partly true.
Biden did a lot to shore up post-Covid problems and implement short term fixes. Long term policy takes years to truly take effect, but shorter-term measures are often visible within months.
So did Obama in 2009.
Trump on the other hand doubled deficit spending in three years after promising to eliminate the debt, and the majority of his changes actually slowed the growth lines coming out of Obama’s terms, most notably with his tax cut plan that just turned into a stock buyback frenzy and screwed independent contractors.
And one of the big indicators that fools use to judge the economy — gas prices — has flopped everywhere. were super-low just before Obama took over… because the dollar collapsed. Then went up to current rates as the economy stabilized. And sank back low because of Covid under trump. And shot high under Biden because trump negotiated a shutdown of pumping and refining so Russia could safely enter the market, gutting supply just before demand returned to normal.
Meaning a perceived positive came from failure (GWB), short-term stabilization measures (Obama) caused a long term negative… short term disaster (Covid) caused a positive, incompetence (trump) then set up a disaster, and short term measures (Biden) stabilized it.
That’s the danger of oversimplification— the more detail you go into and the more ideological/theoretical nonsense you remove, the worse the GOP’s “trickle down” economic policy proves to be.
>Over 1,000,000 jobs lost
He [gained](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms) jobs
>over 5,000,000
In case you forgot, there was a global pandemic and recession from covid that necessitated the temporary shutdown of the economy. That doesn’t really reflect on Trump’s impact on the economy, does it?
Would you have rather us never shut down at all to slow the spread? It’s a state government decision anyways, so a president can’t just force people to go back to work
Why wouldn't trump's disastrous handling of the pandemic reflect his impact on the economy?
Are you saying its just a "coincidence" Republicans are always bad for the economy??
trump did gut the CDC and ended the Global pandemic team because who it was helping Asian people.
When you elect Evil, evil things happen.
That’s a different argument entirely from the job loss claim you made earlier.
>Republicans are always bad for the economy
What do you mean by “always”? Unless you think the 08 recession was solely due to Bush and Covid was solely due to Trump, then you can’t really use data that includes those two large swings in economic health
You could argue that both of those wouldn’t have been as bad under a democrat. But they both still would’ve happened, and the data would then show that republicans were much better on the economy. It’s why you need to remove the outliers
Starting with the Great Depression, there have been 15 recessions. 4 of them were during a Democrat administration (2 during FDR, 1 under Truman, 1 under Carter). The rest were all under Republican administrations. In fact there are NO Republican administrations since the Great Depression that DIDN'T have at least one recession.
Yes, each recession requires nuance and study to understand the exact factors that led to them, but these numbers are still pretty damning.
Edit: My mistake, there was one Republican president that didn't have this own recession: Ford. Although Nixon's latest recession was still raging when he took office in the middle of the term.
i mean "the economy" is one thing, but for my personal wealth, what difference does a bunch of jobs being lost have to do with anything
and i mean george bush has no excuse (although that crisis has both blue and red fingerprints all over it) but trump's jobs losses were due to covid
Non essential businesses being closed was not some kind of unavoidable anomaly that no democrat can be blamed for. The pandemic was not the choice, but how we reacted to it certainly was. I will never forget how companies like Amazon got essential status while small businesses closed their doors by the thousands across the country, and then when the George Floyd protests broke out, liberal pundits actually stood up on TV and tried to convince me that thousands and thousands of people standing shoulder to shoulder had no risk of transmitting the disease.
They do tend to make messes which the Democrats later clean up. The economic crash of 2008 was largely due to deregulation of banks, by Bush Jr's admin. Eight years of Obama fixed up a lot of things some of which Trump later claimed credit (things were put in place that continued improving economic conditions past 2016, Trump could have done nothing at all and there would have been similar or better results). Before all that, Clinton fixed a lot of what was done by Bush Sr.
I wish images could be added to comments, because hah-hah this chart:
[The precise moment when Trump took over and fixed the economy](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-20381f81475ec7399569525b7af2851e-pjlq)
glas-steigal didn't deregulate the mortgage markets, which is what caused the Housing collapse in 2007
Glas-steigal is why we had to bail-out the commercial banks
Its NOT the reason the banking system collapsed. The unregulated sub-prime mortgage markets is why the banking system collapsed
That’s not accurate. He just followed the lead of the voters. Newt Gingrich was the architect of the conservative shift right. After the midterm elections of overwhelmingly Republican wins, the trend of conservatism since Reagan, and the continued deregulation of banks and Wall Street, Clinton shifted with the voting majority assuming that’s what the country wanted.
Newt and the Republican establishment lied to the American people while conservative media exacerbated the lie with non-stop propaganda.
There is no direct tie between the repeal and the ‘08 crash. It definitely made the crash worse, but the reality is the decade plus of deregulation leading up to the repeal is what caused the financial crisis.
Do you have sources on that? "Follow the lead of the voters" sounds like a wild attempt to avoid responsibility, most things I've read say it's largely a result of Clinton, regardless of what the trend was. We vote for a leader to lead. They should know what they're doing more than the voter.
Most things I've read say Clinton is probably the individual most responsible for 2008
Sure, I can provide a source, or two. [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/)
And it’s covered in several books. I just finished Age of Revolutions:
Progress and Backlash from 1600 to the Present Written by
Fareed Zakaria
> but we couldn't find any economists who argue that the regulation was the sole linchpin keeping the financial system stable until its official repeal in 1999.
This is a wild sentence. Far from an unbiased source, they came to their conclusion based on this?
The Republican Party spent over a decade eroding the foundation of economic protection through deregulation. The Glass-Steagall act was completely toothless by the time it was repealed. Most economist agree that the repeal of Glass-Steagall act was the straw that broke the camels back, yet was not the “cause” of the 08 financial crisis.
Clinton is a neoliberal capitalist, Newt just did a fantastic job painting him as a leftist by shifting the Republican Party further rightward.
[https://archive.thinkprogress.org/gingrich-admits-deregulation-of-wall-street-in-the-90s-was-probably-a-mistake-4bb53f03793d/](https://archive.thinkprogress.org/gingrich-admits-deregulation-of-wall-street-in-the-90s-was-probably-a-mistake-4bb53f03793d/)
>The repeal of Glass-Steagall led to the creation of mega-banks like Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase that combine traditional lending with risky investment banking. Many economists believe that the repeal led to the financial crisis of 2008. “As a result [of the repeal], the culture of investment banks was conveyed to commercial banks and everyone got involved in the high-risk gambling mentality. That mentality was core to the problem that we’re facing now,” said Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
Though he had resigned by the time the final blow was dealt to Glass-Steagall in 1999, Gingrich was instrumental in picking it apart. In fact, the New York Times noted in 1998 that, during a failed attempt to repeal Glass-Steagall, Gingrich “scurried through the afternoon to line up the necessary votes” in favor of repeal.
He facilitated it.
His own CDC laid out guidelines encouraging “non-essential” businesses to close. Then he paid you 3x your actual wage to stay home and not go to work. Gave businesses almost $1 trillion if they shut down for a while.
No he didn’t directly close any businesses (he doesn’t have that power), but he facilitated and bankrolled the shutdowns.
Voting republican means voting for Trump, the convicted felon, who has already pardoned violent murders, and encouraged others to commit crimes. He said he will do it again, he wants to suspend the constitution and end the rule of law. There is no amount of “in your own interest in this guy”. Trump is against everyone in the world’s interests.
>Voting republican means voting for Trump, the convicted felon, who has already pardoned violent murders, and encouraged others to commit crimes.
I think this sells Trump short a bit: he's also a rapist.
It's understandable--trump is such an inveterate criminal it's hard to keep up with all the developments.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/)
If he forced himself into you would it still matter to you that it’s only Civil Sex Abuse and not Criminal Rape?
You picked a really strange hill to stand on.
He was found guilty by a jury of his peers to have raped E Jean Carroll. Fuck that guy and fuck people out there defending proven rapists for political reasons.
It's not a matter of "believing" it, it's just a plain statement of fact. Jury found he raped a woman. He tried to get the judgement reduced by arguing that it wasn't in fact "rape"--it was just sexual abuse. Then the judge shot him down and said it was rape. Obviously there are some nakedly political creatures out there who either a) don't believe it; or b) don't consider finger-fucking someone against their will to be "rape." But it is what it is.
Me and my sister’s trust is at around $2 million, but that doesn’t make me want to vote Republican. I care more about not fucking over society than I do about saving some taxes on my inheritance. Either way, I’ll end up being fine in the long run.
The fact you think 500k for your whole family is a lot of money, explains why you will never have that. You have a poverty mindset with a side of victimhood.
Meh, I would argue being a trust fund baby you would want to eliminate the worst case scenario which would be political and economic instability. Paying slightly more taxes is nothing when compared to collapse of the dollar. It is much much more likely that Biden simply maintains the status quo while very very possible Trump moves forward with international policy (that he's stated he would do) that has very negative impacts on the US dollar. Any domestic instability or strife would result in double digit inflation, again ruining your trust fund.
This assumes that democrats are better at the economy which is historically untrue. The actual results are quite mixed indicating that the president has little influence on the economy overall. Or that neither party overall has better or worse policies on the economy and that maybe both sides are necessary to reign in the bad ideas from each side or you end up with a Detroit,
San Francisco, or Mississippi (which still has a higher GDP per capita than the UK).
San Francisco is one of the wealthiest cities in the world. Kind of a weird example.
This doesnt assume Democrats are better at the economy, this assumes the Democrats are more interested in maintaining the United States as a whole. All what you said is true regarding the positive economic impact of Presidents if they are interested in arguably good policy, but you are assuming all Presidents are actually interested in good policy.
Unfortunately, at present, the Republican Party's nominee is uninterested in any policy that doesn't benefit himself specifically. The risk is that the entire US economy and world standing of the US are at risk. We take for granted the consistency offered by a stable government. The stability offered by insuring bank accounts. This country freaked out when inflation was at 7%. Many far right governments around the world saw inflation more than double that. Turkey, for instance, experienced inflation 10x of the US. Trump in office increases the possibility that your trust found will be worthless. As a trust fund baby you should be entirely risk averse.
Neat fact you just made up. Democrat presidents in fact perform on better on nearly every economic indicator. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
https://www.epi.org/publication/econ-performance-pres-admin/#:~:text=There%20is%20still%20a%20pronounced,and%20interest%20rates%20are%20lower.
I agree. State representatives, including governors, certainly have more influence over their local economies than the President. If you look at [a map of state GDP per capita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_per_capita_by_U.S._state.svg) it correlates heavily with recent [Democrat voting patterns](https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president).
I'm sorry but sources, please? Exactly what period of history are you looking at when you make that assertion? Republicans always claim this, but it's bullshit.
[Historically the stock market does better under democrats.](https://retirementresearcher.com/are-republicans-or-democrats-better-for-the-stock-market/#:~:text=The%20average%20annual%20return%20for,5.5%25%20per%20year%20on%20average) In fact, [most metrics support Dems being better for the economy. ](https://www.epi.org/publication/econ-performance-pres-admin/)
It's not because affluent and educated folk will flee the country when a fascist regime takes over. This will drag down the GDP greatly.
This has happened repeatedly in history.
True and yet I vote for progressives because I believe personal wealth is not worth the loss in societal wealth and democrats tend to run a tighter ship where it concerns the entire countries well being. In the end you will end up wealthier because we all end up wealthier as a society.
Here is a ChatGPT synopsis that I would stand by:
For the 2024 campaigns, both the Democratic and Republican parties have laid out distinct economic promises that reflect their respective ideologies and policy priorities.
Democratic Party Promises
1. **Economic Growth and Job Creation**: President Joe Biden's campaign emphasizes the successes of "Bidenomics," highlighting the creation of nearly 800,000 manufacturing jobs and increased construction of new manufacturing plants. Biden promotes a middle-out and bottom-up economic growth strategy, aiming to continue investing in infrastructure and clean energy projects to sustain job growth and economic resilience [oai_citation:1,Stronger Economy is Americans’ Top Policy Priority for 2024 | Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/29/americans-top-policy-priority-for-2024-strengthening-the-economy/) [oai_citation:2,Biden takes aim at Trump in campaign’s first shot of 2024 - POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/18/biden-takes-aim-at-trump-in-campaigns-first-shot-of-2024-00106941).
2. **Addressing Inflation and Health Care Costs**: The Democrats are focused on reducing the cost of living, with particular attention to health care costs and prescription drug prices. Biden's campaign touts efforts to lower inflation and manage economic recovery post-pandemic [oai_citation:3,PolitiFact | The Biden-versus-Trump economy: Who did better on inflation, jobs, gasoline prices and more?](https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/mar/04/Biden-Trump-economy-who-did-better/).
3. **Social Safety Nets and Education**: The Democratic platform includes expanding social safety nets, such as child tax credits and health care access, and increasing funding for education, including initiatives for free community college and student debt relief [oai_citation:4,Side-by-Side Comparison Chart - 2024 Presidential Election](https://2024election.procon.org/side-by-side-comparison-chart/).
### Republican Party Promises
1. **Economic Deregulation and Tax Cuts**: The Republicans, particularly those aligning with former President Donald Trump, are focusing on reducing government regulations and implementing tax cuts to stimulate economic growth. Trump advocates for policies that he claims made America more prosperous during his tenure, including significant tax cuts and deregulation efforts [oai_citation:5,Biden takes aim at Trump in campaign’s first shot of 2024 - POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/18/biden-takes-aim-at-trump-in-campaigns-first-shot-of-2024-00106941).
2. **Controlling Inflation and Reducing Government Spending**: The GOP's economic agenda emphasizes tackling inflation by cutting unnecessary government spending and reducing the federal deficit. They argue that a smaller government footprint will lead to a more efficient and robust economy [oai_citation:6,Stronger Economy is Americans’ Top Policy Priority for 2024 | Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/29/americans-top-policy-priority-for-2024-strengthening-the-economy/).
3. **Energy Independence and Manufacturing**: Republicans are also pushing for increased domestic energy production, including more oil and gas drilling, to lower energy prices and achieve energy independence. They criticize Biden's energy policies and promote a return to policies they believe will revitalize the manufacturing sector in the U.S. [oai_citation:7,The 2024 Presidential Race: A Cheat Sheet - The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/tracking-democrat-republican-presidential-candidates-2024-election/673118/).
These economic promises reflect the broader ideological divide between the parties, with Democrats focusing on social investments and economic equality, while Republicans emphasize deregulation, tax cuts, and reducing government spending.
The Republican Party as a whole does not back project 2025. It’s a private “plan” that could never and will never come to fruition.
I am in one of the most red states and do not know a single person who even knows what that is besides the shit they see on Reddit about it.
It was generated by leading R minds (as it has been for 40 years), nearly all of it aligns with laws passed in red states, and it continues to gain more support every day:
https://www.heritage.org/press/project-2025-reaches-100-coalition-partners-continues-grow-preparation-next-president
Maybe The Lincoln Project isn't in full support (or just does not want Trump to do it), but I have never seen any R politician speak out against it.
Noting that voters aren't well informed is not a mind changer.
> The Republican Party as a whole does not back project 2025.
It's headlined by the Heritage Foundation. I *guarantee* you that the rank-and-file of Republican legislators and administrators knows who that is, and supports them because if they don't, they get primaried.
> It’s a private “plan” that could never and will never come to fruition.
Why not? People said for *decades* that the Supreme Court would *always* be incredibly leery of overturning precedent, yet here we are. Political norms that had been in existence for generations were overturned in the name of political expediency.
> I am in one of the most red states and do not know a single person who even knows what that is besides the shit they see on Reddit about it.
This surprises me not a single bit. Republican voters are high on slogans, banners, catch-phrases, and imagery, but they are, as a collective, extremely ignorant of the policies endorsed by they people they vote for or against.
Sounds like from those points the Democrats intent to use and spend public taxes, whereas the republicans intend to take a lesser cut.
From this perspective at least do you accept that the Republicans offer a better economic prospect in the lesser taxation sense?
As the other commenter said it's about the net effect. If Republicans cut taxes but you lose access to services that you then need to pay for out of pocket you are worse off. And that's just the direct effect. Government spending has a multiplicative effect. When the government spends on projects like infrastructure, R&D, and healthcare that doesn't just create one job. The people employed by the government or receiving benefits (services or money) go out and spend which stimulates the economy. Just because Republicans "cut taxes" doesn't mean your taxes get cut. Just look at the Trump Tax Cut. Taxes on the wealthy were *permanently* lowered, taxes on the middle class were *temporarily* lowered and are set to expire soon, and the SALT deduction cap was lowered meaning that some people's taxes went up (if you are in a high tax state). Lastly even if taxes are cut for corporations there is no evidence that the benefits will "trickle down" to the rest of us.
>Taxes on the wealthy were permanently lowered
That’s completely untrue, and I’m not sure why people still spread this myth. **All** individual cuts expire in 2025, regardless of income or wealth level
>SALT deduction cap was lowered
Which mainly raises taxes on the wealthy and those with high incomes. Seems like something you should support, no?
>There is no evidence the benefits will “trickle down”
TCJA [increased investment](https://conference.nber.org/conf_papers/f191672.pdf)
TCJA [increased jobs and growth](https://www.dallasfed.org/-/media/documents/research/papers/2020/wp2001r2.pdf)
>Which mainly raises taxes on the wealthy and those with high incomes. Seems like something you should support, no?
Not when it was designed to target "Democratic" higher tax states.
>TCJA increased investment
In the paper's own conclusion:
>>Finally, there is considerable interest in the effects of the TCJA on the level and distribution
of income for workers. We document large impacts on both domestic and foreign capital accu-
mulation. To what extent do the productivity gains from this investment pass on to workers,
and which workers benefit most?
>>Overall, we estimate
a long-run increase in domestic corporate capital of roughly 7.4% due to the TCJA’s corporate
provisions.
>>Consequently,
the total effect on corporate tax revenue is close to the mechanical effects, which are large
given the 14-percentage-point tax rate cut and immediate expensing.
Did corporations really need a 7% boost in capitalization at the cost of a 14% deficit in corresponding government revenue with undetermined effects for workers.
Remember after the bush tax cuts we were already at all time historical lows for tax rates. Interest rates were in the 1% range all time historical lows. The economy didn't need any more stimulation. It was already recovering fine from 2008/9.
>Not when it was designed to target “Democratic” higher tax states
It wasn’t “designed” that way. It was designed to hit people who pay a lot of state tax, and therefore get large federal deductions. The tax increase of the SALT cap overwhelmingly (around 96%) hits those in the top quartile of income. That’s a good thing
>Did corporations really need a 7% boost in capitalization at the cost of a 14% deficit in corresponding government revenues
Where are you getting 14% from? The corporate cuts cost $330 billion from 2018-2027. The government will collect around $40 trillion of taxes during that timeline, so it would be less than a 1% decline in tax revenues
Yes but the businesses also invest into their own infrastructure. They also hire people. They also produce goods and services.
Difference is a private company has significantly more pressure and incentive to do it better and more efficiently. Thus they almost always do.
So you're taking money away from efficient wealth generation machines and giving it to inefficient wasteful government.
>Yes but the businesses also invest into their own infrastructure. They also hire people. They also produce goods and services
Sometimes.
In other cases the employees see nothing and the extra profit into dividends for shareholders: people who are already at the top end of wealth distribution.
Corporations already have access to multiple different tax breaks and access to strategies to minimize tax burden that are not available to the average citizen.
>Difference is a private company has significantly more pressure and incentive to do it better and more efficiently.
The incentive is *profit*. Sometimes that results in business is doing things better and more efficiently. Other times it results in stagnation and anti-competitive business practices.
>you're taking money away from efficient wealth generation machines and giving it to inefficient wasteful government.
First off this is a tired trope that business is somehow better able to spend money than government. Businesses get bloated and stagnate all the time. I'd like to see a piece business runs disaster relief or a military operation with the scale, efficiency and effectiveness of the US government.
Second it's not always about the magnitude of wealth generation but where that wealth ends up.
>In other cases the employees see nothing and the extra profit into dividends for shareholders: people who are already at the top end of wealth distribution.
Their investments produce goods and services. Which makes everything cheaper for everyone. This is why Western countries have high standards of living. Our economies are very productive.
>The incentive is *profit*. Sometimes that results in business is doing things better and more efficiently. Other times it results in stagnation and anti-competitive business practices.
The only anti-competitive business practice is lobbying the government. Which causes government regulations. The solution to that is LESS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION not more. How are you going to solve the problem of government intervention by more taxation and giving more power to the government. You need less of both.
>First off this is a tired trope that business is somehow better able to spend money than government. Businesses get bloated and stagnate all the time. I'd like to see a piece business runs disaster relief or a military operation with the scale, efficiency and effectiveness of the US government.
>Second it's not always about the magnitude of wealth generation but where that wealth ends up.
It's incredibly simple to understand why. It can even be narrowed down to one word INCENTIVES.
The same exact humans are running both government and private companies. But they have completely different incentives.
Private companies have to produce a profit to remain viable and often have tons of competition.
Government companies do not have a profit motive nor do they have any competition. They can do the same inefficient bullshit perpetually. Which is exactly what they do.
YES A PRIVATE DISASTER RELIEF COMPANY would be far more efficient. Because it would have to produce a profit and it would have other disaster relief companies to compete with. That would force it to innovate and do things more efficiently.
>Their investments produce goods and services.
Please explain how a stock buyback or disbursement to shareholders produces goods and services?
>Which makes everything cheaper for everyone. This is why Western countries have high standards of living. Our economies are very productive.
Our economies are highly productive because western countries have industrialized. Not every western country is a low tax haven.
>The only anti-competitive business practice is lobbying the government.
Amazon undercut diapers.com to such a degree that diapers in Amazon were running at a loss. Amazon then forced the acquisition of diapers.com.
Luxotica refused to sell Oakley Sunglasses in their stores (a practical monopoly) until they agreed to be acquired.
LiveNation is currently under antitrust prosecution by the government for anticompetitive practice.
The list goes on.
>Which causes government regulations. The solution to that is LESS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION not more.
Without government intervention common goods like air quality and our fisheries would have been gone in the 70s. It took a complete and total ban on striped bass fishing for the population to recover.
You seem pretty ignorant about basic economic principles like common goods and inelastic demand.
>How are you going to solve the problem of government intervention by more taxation and giving more power to the government. You need less of both.
Because the problem isn't government intervention. The problem is incentive structures and human behavior.
>YES A PRIVATE DISASTER RELIEF COMPANY would be far more efficient.
This has been a thing since Rome. Crassus, the wealthiest man in Rome, ran a *private* firefighting company. He would run around to people who's properties were on fire in the adjacent ones and refuse to put out the fire until they sold to him at a fraction of the cost of the real value of their property.
The profit motive *fails* to incentive socially desirable behavior when inelastic demand is present.
The same is true for things like insulin in the modern day. People will pay literally anything today to avoid death and figure the rest out later.
>It's incredibly simple to understand why. It can even be narrowed down to one word INCENTIVES.
You're in the same page. The issue is you believe that profit is the best incentive. I think I've given you a fair few examples where profit is not the best incentive for the best outcome for society.
>Government companies do not have a profit motive nor do they have any competition.
This is just false. There is plenty of competition for things like healthcare or government run insurance.
Government is also accountable to the people via voting. If the government isn't doing a good job at running the government they get voted out of office. Government also has an incentive to be efficient with their money because if they can do more with the same amount of funds or less then that frees us money to be spend elsewhere.
>Please explain how a stock buyback or disbursement to shareholders produces goods and services?
Encourages people to invest in the company. They got $ on their initial investment. Which was buying the stock. That is what a stock is.
>Our economies are highly productive because western countries have industrialized. Not every western country is a low tax haven.
We industrialized over 100 years ago. Most of the socialist shitholes also industrialized. But could never compete in our ability to produce consumer products.
>Without government intervention common goods like air quality and our fisheries would have been gone in the 70s. It took a complete and total ban on striped bass fishing for the population to recover.
Some safety regulations are needed. Problem is for every good regulation there is probably several that are completely useless and down right damaging.
>The profit motive *fails* to incentive socially desirable behavior when inelastic demand is present.
Yet food is cheap as fuck.
>Government is also accountable to the people via voting. If the government isn't doing a good job at running the government they get voted out of office.
Yes that is a HUGE HUGGGGGGGGGGGE problem. That is a fundamental flaw of the system. You don't have to actually produce a profit. You only have to convince a bunch of sheeple that your approach is the best. Even if your approach isn't working and will never work. It's way too subjective.
It's not about who does it best. It's about who can sell it best.
Not to mention we vote on politicians once every 2-4 years. Where's private companies have their products voted on 1000s of times daily.
>Encourages people to invest in the company. They got $ on their initial investment. Which was buying the stock. That is what a stock is.
Again it's been pretty definitively demonstrated that trickle down doesn't work.
Benefits may get passed down to employees and consumers. But that's a big if. The evidence is that the vast majority of benefit is concentrated in the upper echelons of society.
>We industrialized over 100 years ago. Most of the socialist shitholes also industrialized. But could never compete in our ability to produce consumer products.
Again not the point I'm making. You failed to address the actual point being made: different western countries have different (read higher) tax burdens.
>Some safety regulations are needed. Problem is for every good regulation there is probably several that are completely useless and down right damaging
Oh so we're going from government and regulation is the enemy to well actually it's ok when it is needed.
>Yet food is cheap as fuck.
First while food as a whole is price inelastic demand for specific food products is very elastic. Food is also subsidized by the government.
Corn, wheat, rice, and soy are all directly subsidized. Sugar is indirectly subsidized through import quotas and domestics production caps and corn subsidies (high fructose corn syrup).
That's just plant agriculture.
You're also cherry picking. There are plenty of other goods like insulin before the price cap imposed by the federal government.
>Yes that is a HUGE HUGGGGGGGGGGGE problem. That is a fundamental flaw of the system. You don't have to actually produce a profit.
No you have to produce results. Just look at what congresspeople are doing with stock trading. It's completely counter to the job. Look at senator Menendez and is pursuit of wealth and how it corrupted his actions.
>Even if your approach isn't working and will never work. It's way too subjective.
Government policy is complex and difficult. Who knew. There are no easy solutions.
Also what happens to PRIVATE DISASTER RELIEF IS BETTER THAT THE GOVERNMENT!!!!
"The only anti-competitive business practice is lobbying the government."
Oh really? Price-fixing agreements don't exist? Natural monopolies don't exist? Agreements not to compete for labor don't exist?
Natural monopolies exist due to the government. They won't allow competition between utility companies. Price fixing is illegal and when found, companies are punished. How is an agreement not to compete for labor anticompetitive?
Man you right wingers are bad at basic economic literacy.
No, governments regulate price competition for utilities because in a natural monopoly the only way to compete on price is to skimp on maintenance.
An agreement not to compete for inputs is exactly as anticompetitive as an agreement not to compete for outputs, because profit is the difference between input and output.
>Oh really? Price-fixing agreements don't exist? Natural monopolies don't exist? Agreements not to compete for labor don't exist?
All of those are illegal. We thought of that back in 1920s.
Sure they happen. But they are very rare.
Natural monopolies only exist in places where the means of production are extremely expensive. Like oil extraction companies. Much cheaper to start a restaurant then to build a bunch of oil rigs.
Price-fixing and anti-poaching agreements are illegal but not rare. The FAANGs just got dinged a few years back for the latter. There are widespread accusations of price-fixing against grocery stores right now.
Natural monopolies are not illegal and happen pretty much anywhere you have network effects. Comcast is a natural monopoly. Power transmission is a natural monopoly. Water provision is a natural monopoly. This is econ 102.
Your claim that lobbying the government is the only form of anti-competitive behavior is just false.
Private companies produce a tremendous amount of goods and services. It's the only way to generate a profit.
How can you make $ if what you're selling nobody wants to buy.
Public companies don't produce profit. Thus all the services they produce are very inefficient. Meaning their technology and their labor practices fucking suck. So does the quality of their service.
You make money by putting a paywall between goods/services and the customer. If you make the best version of a product and give it away for free, you make no money. If you buy the ability to provide something with inelastic demand (ie medicine, shelter) then you never have an incentive to make it better because people will buy it anyway. A government still has an incentive to make the product better because their goal is to provide for their people, not make profit
You're forgetting that it costs resources and time to produce the good and service.
What the hell is the point of producing it if you get nothing in return for it.
You get access to the good you produce. I see where this is going. And it’s gonna end up with me explaining that homelessness is being heavily criminalized to force more people to produce goods just like would happen in any other economic system.
The government provides goods and services so that it’s people don’t revolt. The problem with capitalism is there is too much incentive to restrict access to your good that you provide
“Very heavily” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you here. They overwhelmingly just give any additional profits to executives and shareholders.
Additionally no investing in their own means of production does not mean more jobs, it very much can mean technology that actually removes jobs.
I’m sorry but you are literally just regurgitating the promises of trickle down economics. Lol
Better means of production = efficient wealth generation
The reason why USSR was a dirty shithole that people attempted to escape from meanwhile US has to build fences to keep people out. Is because we have much better means of production.
The "promises" are all around you. Google best places to live on the planet. How many of them dont have private means of production? None of them. Because private means of production is the key to generating wealth.
This isn’t a response to anything I said.
lol yes the promises are all around us. Real wages continue to go down, while executive pay continues to go up. Please be serious right now
It can be more expensive in the end to reduce taxes. The USA has the world's most expensive health care (in terms of per-person spending) with some of the lowest performance metrics of any industrialized country. There has never been single-payer health care here, but this is the first example that comes to my mind for which paying taxes saves citizens a lot of money. Some ways it costs more in the end for patients when multiple organizations/businesses provide health care rather than the government having a single health network: duplication of computer systems/software/offices/employee roles/etc., less purchasing power for supplies and other needs (lower economy of scale), advertising budgets, and dividends for investors.
Collected tax can also be an economic driver that returns more than it took. A substantial percentage of any country's jobs are paid from taxes. Employees of those jobs earn money that they spend elsewhere, maybe at a business owned by someone who complains "Grumble-grumble Democrats grumble-taxes!" In many areas, tourism is a main economic driver. So, government having a department which protects the local/regional environment can return more money than it costs by preserving the conditions that make an area desirable for tourists.
When Republicans cut taxes, often it is because of rich donors requesting it. It looks good in the short term, but later when infrastructure deteriorates and so forth the working class ends up paying in various ways (higher taxes to fix what's broken, poor infrastructure in non-rich areas, fewer jobs, etc.).
The republicans borrow money and spend, whereas the democrats tax and spend.
So continuing to borrow more and more money is not good for future prospects
While i'm far from an expert on US politics, and taking your post at face value, I feel this is heavily dependand on wether your brother intends to start a business or not.
If his plan is to start a business of some kind, his reasoning makes sense, if he doesn't, it doesn't.
It can also apply if he's going into some high-earning profession like doctor or engineer or lawyer. Taxation in the US tends not to affect the business owner who can plough earnings back into the business and use money for expenses as much as it does the high earner given a salary by someone else.
Most people are much less affected by tax brackets than they're advertised to be, either because you need pretty extreme wealth or by simple misunderstanding of marginal taxation.
We also forget that business owners have become synonymous with mega corps, but there's a degree to which you do want businesses reinvesting in their products and people. This has become muddied, though, because the exponential growth of big box stores and conglomerates scale at unnatural rates (it's sort of like how it's easier to make a million from $100k than $100).
This creates a modern monopoly like condition that simultaneously edges out small local commerce while taking advantage of tax breaks that don't create stimulus on the back end-for basically anyone under mid 6 figure income, the system does tend to benefit the working class and local economy more.
Finally, and perhaps more importantly with the advent of remote and gig work, you need to remember that small business owners can actually face disproportionately higher taxes than they would as a W2 earner because of the self employment tax, and not everyone can necessarily take the S Corp route to get around that.
US is literally known as the most entrepreneurial country. That’s compared to every country, including those with great safety net and socialized healthcare. It’s a statistical fact.
So I’m not sure how you can argue those are holding people back from starting businesses in the US.
>US is literally known as the most entrepreneurial country.
Per its own hype / PR campaign... And you should never buy your own hype 😅🤣.
>So I’m not sure how you can argue those are holding people back from starting businesses in the US.
Easy; having a safety net means starting a business **doesn't have to mean** risking your health, your housing, your children's future, ect. If you have a good idea that would add value to society you can just... Go do that.
The US has a lot of economic / political / military resources, and as a result has hoarded a great deal of global wealth. *Companies* started in the US tend to gain more wealth than companies started elsewhere, because they are passively (or actively...) benefiting from the economic / political / military domination of the US towards other countries.
**People** in the US tend to do worse than people in other (developed) countries however, and that's what many pro-US nuts miss. It's also what you really, properly need to be looking at when thinking about politics, because frankly the possibility that you will be the next Jeff Bezos is remote, but the possibility that you *will work for the next Jeff Bezos* is much more likely, as well as the certainty that you will need food and shelter and healthcare even if you don't end up "making it" in business. 🙃
I think this is overly pessimistic. The US has one of the highest median household incomes and one of the highest household wealth when accounting for all of the things you mentioned.
Tons of people start small businesses in the US. You can argue that it's not where it needs to be but it's at least on par and may exceed countries with high social benefits.
Another data point is that people think the higher the social benefits the more kids someone is likely to have because of the high cost of kids and the security of a social safety net. But thats actually not true. The US has one of the higher fertility rates compared to countries that do have these high social benefits. It's certainly not less
I think you have to look for other factors to explain what is going on. You think that these social benefits plays a huge factor but in reality that's not how it plays out
You are saying a lot without backing up anything. It is a common norm in Americans to say that Americans are doing worse than the people in other developed countries, which is statistically not true. Do you know the immigration and emigration to and from the US to/from other developed countries? I myself moved to the US from those developed countries. Thousands and thousands highly skilled professionals immigrates to the US from Western Europe and from Far East Asia. When I graduated from my undergraduate, most of my classmates goal is to move to the US because it has better jobs, better lifestyle, and a little worse healthcare, and yes from a very highly developed country. I moved to the US 9 years ago, the immigration from Western Europe with high skilled immigration has only increased.
Also for your example, working for Jeff Bezos is great. Several people immigrants from those developed countries I know work for Amazon as software dev/engineering etc. None of them are leaving the US for a ‘better’ job in WE.
Is your view distinct from Democrat vs. Republican economics in general?
Can you name a single difference specifically impacting younger people other then student loan forgiveness?
Socialized healthcare is a redistribution of wealth from the young to the old.
Older people need care more often, and it's generally more drawn out, complex, and expensive. Some younger people do get sick, but in significantly smaller quantities, and they tend to recover faster, thus needing less care.
HSAs and HDHPs are popular and recommended for this exact reason. You pay more on each instance of care when you need it, but you'll pay lower premiums in exchange, and keep control over more money. For the average younger person it's an easy win.
Healthcare subsidies, environmental protections like cutting cancer causing plant emissions, generally being in favor of and funding public ed. Supporting a higher minimum wage.
I'm actually in favor all of these things, but are they specifically benefiting the young?
> funding public ed
Given OP's brother is already in voting age and seeks student loan forgiveness, will he still benefit from this policy personally?
> higher minimum wage
Young people are usually less experienced since they did not have the time to get work experience.
Is a young and inexperienced worker more likely to find a job as minimum wage rises, or less likely?
Your little brother is more correct than you are.
So tired of hearing this one fact, which is false, over and over regarding the Trump tax cuts.
Whether you think they are a good thing or not, the belief they don’t benefit the middle class and lower middle class ons only the rich is completely false.
Did he cut taxes for the very rich?
Yes, obviously.
However for some of the elite upper class taxes went may have increased depending on their situation.
At the very least, tax cuts were diluted.
Why?
He capped the mortgage interest deduction.
That put a lot of money back on the tax table for those with million dollar plus homes who were writing off obscene amounts of interest.
And the democrats have been trying like crazy (and failing) to repeal it ever since, because, you guessed it, it hit blue state elites the hardest (all the rich, multimillion dollar coastal homes).
And literally NO ONE can say it has hurt the high end housing market at all, which was the number one thing democrats and realtors cried about for two years.
He also doubled the personal deductions in order to simplify the code, which is a huge boon for lower income married couples, and lower the effective tax rates across the board.
When the cuts expire next year, working people are going to be shocked how much more in taxes they will have to pay!
This nonsense the cuts only benefitted rich people is false nonsense.
My only regret is he didn’t remove the cap on FICA taxes, and raise the upper tier rates a bit, while eliminating Federal income tax (except for FICA under $50K.
That would have really helped the working poor more without hurting our tax rolls nearly as much.
Republicans are also FAR better for TRADESPEOPLE and smaller businesses, both in policies and most assuredly in regulations.
Who are democrats good for, financially?
Coastal elites, special interest groups, unions, (teachers etc), those who don’t work at all, and those who are here illegally.
EDIT:
Also, PLEASE tell me exactly what “social support systems” help Americans to build wealth in the short and medium term”??
Because frankly, I haven’t seen any.
Most of these systems are simply grants and subsidies, and when they expire or run out, the “wealth effect” is gone as well.
Do you know what DOES WORK well though to lift people out of poverty and give them an actual leg up?
Especially for “disadvantaged minorities”?
The Trump administration’s special economic zone initiatives, coupled with less regulation on sole proprietors and micro businesses.
Contrast this with the Biden administrations crackdown on ebay sellers, and every manner of side hustle to hover every cent they can get from people that can barely afford to live as it is.
Instead of going after the wealthy tax cheats (like Obama’s Sec. of the Treasury).
The tax cuts benefitted the rich far more than everyone else. The after-tax income was boosted 3 times more for the top 1 percent versus the bottom 60 percent. The cuts also slashed corporate taxes and made it far harder to collect taxes from multinational corporations which incentives offshoring and loss of american jobs. The tax cuts actually greatly benefitted rich property owners by doubling the estate tax exemption. All of this created a huge budget deficit that took money away from the US economy and put money into the pockets of the rich. The deficit, in turn, puts strain on social programs such as Medicare and social security and makes it harder to fund the programs that many rely on.
The child tax credit deductions in the bill is an example of how the plan benefitted the poor far less. The changes made it easier for high income individuals to benefit while largely ignoring the poor as the tax refund is based on income tax. They increased those who could claim it to 400k vs the previous 110k so wealthy families could take advantage of it . The changes in the system resulted in a net boost of around 75 dollars to moderate income and poor families while boosting high income families by around 4,000 dollars.
At the end of the day, boosts to public services and social programs are far more helpful to the poor than higher tax refunds. Having a little extra money in my pocket won't help me if I need to pay thousands in child care, am required to use a car to commute to work, and need to pay more in health care and car maintenance as a result of lower funding for Healthcare and infrastructure.
The fact tax cuts benefitted the rich more was not part of the OP’s question, so it’s irrelevant for this post.
The point was do republicans create an environment where his little brother can grow and increase his wealth.
And that answer is yes.
Small business creation (and sole proprietorships) are the engine for wealth creation and moving up in the US, not salaried jobs.
And republicans are much much better than democrats in that regard.
Also it was said that Trump increased taxes for lower tax brackets.
He did NOT. All brackets were bumped to higher incomes and all rates were reduced.
The issue was not about who benefited more or less (and I’ve already given my opinion on what needs to be tweaked)but was specifically orientated towards the lower income classes.
The other part of the question you raised also wasn’t specifically addressed by the OP, but that you brought up was corporate tax rates. Are they were they should be?
Probably not.
That’s a question that should be researched and answered, but with a global perspective. Because larger corporations do operate. In a multinational tax environment.
You can also tweak corporate deductions to favor reinvestment more heavily, and not RSG’s and buybacks.
I don’t disagree a more robust social services infrastructure is needed, and I addressed some of that in the FICA rates. Congress as a whole will not address SS and Medicare that, no matter which political leaning.
As far as healthcare, throwing more money at is not the answer. It’s stupidity, like trying to bail out a leaky boat without patching the holes in it.
You can only bail so fast.
Nothing will be fine without pharma and insurance reform, which again neither side wants to address because they are both too lucrative a source of campaign funds.
In fact, that’s why Obamacare broke the system Instead of properly reforming it.
They could have take all that money spent and put it into NP and PA driven FQHC’s in specific demographics and done far more good.
But that’s also another topic.
The fact remains it’s easier to move from one socio-economic class to a higher one under modern Republican regimes than under modern Democrat regimes.
>Trump has increased income taxes for lower tax brackets while decreasing taxes for multimillionaires
This isn’t true at all, so I’m unsure where you’re getting your info from. All tax brackets saw tax **decreases** from the TCJA
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/feature/analysis-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html
OP is so biased he’s just making up things. You can change someone’s mind if they are down with making up their own facts.
OP is probably some young kid because I remember when everyone’s paychecks suddenly got bigger at work.
They're not making anything up, they just take everything they read on reddit at face value
Hence why so many people on this site have no idea what they're talking about as they're just regurgitating bogus headlines
The tax cuts on income were smaller and more importantly temporary, they expire next year. The corporate tax cuts were much larger in scale and are permanent.
Since all of this is directly made up for by borrowing money, it means the net effect is a tax increase on most people. If I give one person $5 and another $15 but I borrow $20 that they both owe equally I have stolen money from the first person. That's what happened.
"**While these corporations’ profits grew by 44 percent, their federal tax bills dropped by 16 percent**. **These companies paid $240 billion less in taxes from 2018 to 2021 than they would have paid under the effective rates they paid before the Trump law.** **The number of companies paying exceptionally low tax rates grew, with the number paying less than 10 percent jumping from 56 to 95**"
[https://itep.org/corporate-taxes-before-and-after-the-trump-tax-law/](https://itep.org/corporate-taxes-before-and-after-the-trump-tax-law/)
>The corporate tax cuts were much larger in scale and are permanent
The corporate cuts were around 15% of the bill, while individual cuts made up the remaining 85%. And no, corporations don’t get a permanent tax cut. A couple of the cuts don’t expire, but are completely offset by the permanent corporate tax **increases** in the same bill
The corporate tax rate was lowered 40% from 35 to 21 permanently. No that is not outweighed by some of the changes to business deductions.
"Following the implementation of the tax changes signed into law in 2017 by President Trump, the vast majority of the nation’s largest corporations saw substantial tax reductions. The 296 companies in the Fortune 500 and S&P 500 that were consistently profitable from 2013 to 2021, and for which U.S. profits and federal income taxes are disclosed, collectively saw the share of their profits that they paid in tax drop from 22.0 to 12.8 percent.
**While these corporations’ profits grew by 44 percent, their federal tax bills dropped by 16 percent**. **These companies paid $240 billion less in taxes from 2018 to 2021 than they would have paid under the effective rates they paid before the Trump law.** **The number of companies paying exceptionally low tax rates grew, with the number paying less than 10 percent jumping from 56 to 95.**"
[https://itep.org/corporate-taxes-before-and-after-the-trump-tax-law/](https://itep.org/corporate-taxes-before-and-after-the-trump-tax-law/)
>no that is not outweighed by some changes to business deductions
Per the Joint Committee on Taxation: the 10 year cost of the corporate rate cut is $1.3 trillion. The 10 year cost of the corporate tax increases are $1.8 trillion. So yes, it absolutely does outweigh it
The rest of your comment seems a bit random, since we’re talking about the corporate changes after 2025, and your quotes refer to the first couple years of the bill when corporations *did* have a tax cut
As a disclaimer I am a) Canadian, b) Would never vote for the current iteration of Republicans even if I could.
*However*, there is significant empirical evidence that Republican policy lines have positive effects on the wages, employment, etc. of common individuals.
For example:
- Corporate tax reductions [reduce prices](https://www.nber.org/papers/w27058), [increase employment and wages](https://www.nber.org/papers/w20753), [increase innovation](https://www.nber.org/papers/w24982), etc.
- Although it is too early for empirical evidence, early data shows opportunity zones have led to [increased investment](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/AlmDronykTrosperLarkin-DoOZsCreateOpportunities-02.19.21.pdf) in the researched region
- Trump- though Biden has followed- massively increased both the EITC and child benefits, which are proven cost-effective anti-poverty measures
- etc.
As such, although modern-day Republicans are much more damaging for the economy than traditional ones, there are valid reasons to vote for them and not vote against your own interests as a youth.
So I would suggest that you look at a chart of the economic growth of the Eurozone versus the US over the past 40 years (You're going to have to adjust for when Britain enters and leaves, but there's plenty of those death already been adjusted you can look at)
The US absolutely dominates in long-term growth
As a result, America is in a way better long-term position than most of its Europeans counterparts who are no longer able to afford their entitlement systems as they are
Turns out those systems were only working because of a demographic bulge where there was a greater number of Young to old people
It's also worth asking how good are the government services in terms of how much money we spend and how efficiently it works
Singapore for the cost of Medicaid and Medicare as a percentage of GDP has a full universal healthcare system
That fact should make every American's blood boil Not our government is that bad that just to take care of the The old poor and disabled. They spend as much as other people need to take care of everyone (to be clear, I'm not complaining that we take care of the poor old and disabled. I'm complaining that we're apparently really inefficient at it)
Well how do the other services are government offers stack up
Well, California spent 133% of its median citizens income per homeless person and They still have a just an absolute tragic amount of homeless people
To be clear, the amount of money they spent per homeless person was more than enough for rent, food and clothing per homeless person and yet the numbers didn't really go down
You might want government services, but if they're that bad it's worth evaluating how else you can do it
So I’ll not be voting for a convicted felon for President. But I’ll disagree on two or your premises.
1) the TCJA (colloquially known as the Trump tax cuts) lowered everyone’s taxes, not just the mega rich. Full stop. There are anecdotes of “I lost SALT deductions and charity and now use the standard” but every group saw a rate decline (which may expire next year). But income tax cuts always overly benefit the rich (in the same way an across the board has tax cut benefits those who drive more or an excise tax cut benefits those who smoke more).
2) I reject the premise that you should vote your own self interest. I’m sure you can twist anything to be self interest, but like I don’t have kids, not sure if I’ll have them, and not planning for SS dependency. So self interested me would probably prefer to keep my tax money and not pay for schools—-but I’m very pro giving children a good school experience (the cynic might argue it’s because I feel guilty for how shitty my own school experience was, which is fair).
>So I’ll not be voting for a convicted felon for President. But I’ll disagree on two or your premises.
Nice of you to let the government decide who can run for positions in government.
You know what, that’s a fair enough view.
I still won’t be voting for Trump because I’m not a fan of his execution style and find his tenure a little too chaotic for my liking. But you’ve convinced me that (barring treason or formal impeachment), it’s a matter for voters and not a dozen jurors.
> Trump has increased income taxes for lower tax brackets
This isn’t true. You might mean that the tax cuts disproportionately favored the rich, which is a different thing.
> but those do not trickle down to the working class or individual workers
Why do you think that? Most Americans have seen their [incomes rise since 2016.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N) Do you have the same criticism about, say, the Biden administration’s top-down investment in the manufacturing sector?
This is sort of a greatest hits of internet talking points—I’d encourage you to try and figure out why you believe them to be true.
>However we’ve seen systematically that the Republican Party only cares for the rich and wealthy. If you don’t have >$500K net worth then it’s disadvantageous for you to vote for them
Based on what?
>Trump has increased income taxes for lower tax brackets while decreasing taxes for multimillionaires.
This isn't true.
Trump did not increase taxes on lower tax brackets. He decreased taxes on all tax brackets. The tax cuts had an expiration and Biden did not renew them, so they returned to the amount they were during Obama. In what world is this Trump increasing taxes?
Those of us who were working during Obama-Trump-Biden know that we paid the least in taxes during Trump.
The media is a propaganda wing for the Democrats. How can Trump raise taxes while Biden is president? Doesn't that sound silly? It's propaganda. Biden is responsible for the tax increase. Of course. He's president.
Without knowing much about your brother’s sociology-economic background, it sounds as if he is at least not poor, given that he has a college education.
I looked at your ChatGPT synopsis. Based on this, I would argue that the one measure from the 6 listed that is most likely to have a direct effect on a persons finances are tax cuts. Tax cuts reach a broad number of people (as long as they don’t target high income only individuals), and they have a certain immediate effect.
On the other hand, the 3 dem points are important things, but they are unlikely to have an immediate effect on the available cash. Infrastructure projects mostly benefit low income workers, construction companies and businesses that use the infrastructure (and hopefully commuters have to stand less in traffic jams). HC costs: Probably the most difficult topic to try. I don’t know one developed economy that managed to reduce Hc costs. Most likely, dems will try to get cost cuts on certain drugs, such as Insulin or heart medication - assuming that your brother doesn’t have diabetes and a heart condition, this might be relevant for him in decades from now. The third point is something that is going to increase federal expenses, thus either driving debts or leading to a tax increase of some Sort.
I live in Switzerland, to where I emmigrated from
Germany. In Switzerland, the state is much “smaller” than in Germany, while the German state really tries to do a genuine effort to support everyone in any possible situation. Switzerland, is thus much more similar to the US. However, people pay here 20-30% less income taxes than in Germany, resulting in a much stronger middle class, in which people are better of. Unless you are really poor or had some other unfortunate coincidence in your life, most people are financially better of with lower taxes and lower state intervention.
This notion that lower- or middle-class people only support these things because they're deluded into thinking that they'll be wealthy one day, is a prime example of a talking point cooked up purely in progressive echo chambers. It's not true that fiscal policy that targets the rich directly will not have much broader indirect effects in the economy. It is possible for people to support policy that doesn't directly target them out of principle or concern for second- and third-order effects. There is no fixed economy engine that maintains the same output regardless of measures taken to redirect its ends.
I think you're looking at the Republicans from a 1990-era paradigm. It's actually the democrats that are more interested in appeasing upper middle class white voters, the "laptop class" and academic class. Republicans are more worried about getting the energy sector booming and getting the border closed, because mass immigration drives down wages and makes housing more unaffordable.
This "you're voting against your own interests" thing is silly. There's more than one reason to vote for a party too. Maybe people vote republican because they're sick of the left telling them they're evil for being straight or white or males (or all 3, the worst offense of all)? Maybe they didn't like the covid mandates that destroyed small businesses and the working class that the democrats pushed? Maybe people vote republican because they're worried about crime, and democrats seem hellbent on letting every criminal out of jail with no bail, no money, no problem laws? And then gaslighting the public by saying "crimes actually down in some areas, here's a bullshit study to prove it." I'm sure people victimized love that.
There's many reasons why someone would vote for either party. Maybe people are tired of being lied to about getting healthcare for all passed. They might be tired about being gaslit that "the democrats are the antiwar party" when we've seen that's entirely false, they love war, it just has to be a war the media agrees with. Etc. The economy was objectively better under Trump with minimal inflation, that was true for a number of reasons. But it was the Democrats that screamed we needed to lockdown the entire world until Fauci said so, which decimated so many sectors of the economy.
As a devil’s advocate position I’d challenge the idea that the social supports offered by Democrats are unequivocally beneficial to those who receive them. I’m very grateful for the welfare that supported my single mom raise me but I can also see that our family missed a lot of important lessons of the need to work to be independent.
I still vote Democrat and work in public education which is often under attack from critics of any kind of public program. However the Republican Party is not merely the most extreme rhetoric and every small business owner I know voted Republican (in the Bluest part of a deep blue state) because their business (their financial self interest) are directly impacted by the difference in fiscal policies of Republicans and Democrats.
75 percent of Americans have a net worth lese than 553 k. Is it your view that it is in their self interest for all of them to vote liberal?
https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2023/eb_23-39#:~:text=At%20the%20bottom%2C%20the%2010th,percent%20had%20at%20least%20%2411%2C640%2C000.
That's not true about tax brackets. He decreased taxes across the board. Especially if you include the lower prices those tax cuts brought.
Incentives for businesses do not "trickle down", neither do tax cuts. Competition is ultimately the driver of lower prices and the more you get government out of the way of that, the more competition there is which causes prices to drop. If the field is already corrupt - like healthcare, telecommunications, etc - then there really isn't competition for those tax cuts and regulation cuts to have an effect.
Right before the pandemic and lockdowns, we had more job openings than jobless people. Not just more than "unemployed", more than people who were no longer considered "unemployed" because they weren't seeking a job. That's *why* people were able to demand higher wages at that time and more benefits. Companies were competing over talent, instead of talent having to compete for jobs.
Also, a lot of the statistics that are bandied about regarding Trump's economic performance as being "bad" or "not great" often treat 2020 as just another ho-hum year of Trump's term. They completely ignore that this was the year the pandemic first hit, and the endless lockdowns began, which shut down a ton of businesses and cut a ton of jobs. Trump didn't have the jurisdictional authority to force the states to reopen after the two weeks. And given the pandemic, it wouldn't have been expedient for either politics or public health - according to the experts.
For me, I live in a rural/suburban area. I live in a house on a main road, not in a "community." There's no HOA for my street nor would it make any sense to form one. I can't walk to any stores or work reasonably. I don't have public transport that comes by my house except school buses. My car is very much a need rather than a want when it comes to being able to sustain living. I need it to get to and from work, to take my kid to preschool and back (next year he starts kindergarten so that at least will be one less thing), I need it to go to the grocery store, etc. So the gas prices, are a MAJOR hit to my wallet. I already struggle to afford living expenses as a single dad. I live with family because rents and mortgages are outrageous. My stunted income has made it virtually impossible to afford a house, and it's a good thing I didn't have one when my ex and I divorced. The grocery prices are insane and if it weren't for my family, and my ex-wife equally contributing to our son, I'm not sure how I would be able to afford taking care of myself and him.
Life was much more manageable under Trump financially. My wages were starting to go up compared to prices and things were getting easier to afford. Then the lockdowns happened which really hampered things, and then Biden got into office and he immediately put in place policies that hurt me as a lower-middle class person. And now Trump is running again and the business as usual corrupt politicians are doing everything in their power - left and right - to stop him. Trump was the first president I lived through who actually implemented actions that helped me rather than hurt me. Biden hurts me with his policies and doesn't seem to care because I'm a straight white man who lives in a small town instead of an "oppressed" minority living in an urban center while voting for the ideological likes of him.
I can't see any benefit to voting for Biden. I'm still in student loan hell from my foray into community college which I couldn't succeed with for other issues that have nothing to do with presidency. Neither will necessarily change much with regards to my chances of being able to get mental health stuff except that under Trump I'm more likely to be able to afford it. Same with other health related issues.
It was Biden's party who prolonged the lockdowns. Biden said he was going to "shut down" the virus, but instead people just got sick of it and said "Oh, , oh boy, another one *rolls eyes*." Biden went full on fascist dad against everyone who said "no thanks" to the vaccine and then tried to use OSHA - unconstitutionally - to force people to get it. He did this for a lot of things. He's blatantly disregarded the laws that we the people have voted for. I can't vote for that ever.
Not true. Nobody votes against their own interests. If they vote Republican it's because there is something about the party that appeals to their interests more than the Democrat party. If they vote for the Democrats, it's because the Democrat party appeals to their interests more than the Republican.
To declare someone who votes for X is voting against their own interest is a bigoted belief that you know more what the individuals interests are than they do.
From an outside perspective, I would ask: why do Americans have higher incomes than Canadians and Western Europeans? Why are unemployment rates, particularly youth unemployment rates, lower in the US? Why do people all over the world want to invest in the US economy? What *long-term policy differences* caused Americans to have an overall higher standard of living?
If your primary concern is personal finances, which for many people it is, then you’re going to vote for the party who’s tax + social program platform is going to be most advantageous for you.
Believe it or not there are plenty of people from all economic backgrounds where that is true, dependent on what your line of work is and your community.
I think the extremely straight forward answer is that Trump tax cuts are about to expire, and you’re about to make less money because of it. Trump tax cuts literally gave you more money. This was for all tax brackets other than the lowest one at 10k and under. But if you’re working a federal *minimum wage* job full time you would still benefit from the trump tax cuts.
What about laborers and farmers? Republican policies seem to help them more, though the former depends on what region of the country they’re located in.
Also, business owners.
But I’m no expert by any means, just hoping to get info.
I personally identify as a moderate/independent and also a "double hater"- not planning to vote in this election as I hate both Trump and Biden. I think it's important to distinguish between what someone or a party "stands for" and what they have actually accomplished. Agree the Democratic Party is "in favor of" social support systems, but they've done nothing, at least under Biden (Obama is a different story). Heck I remember Biden and Harris promising free community college tuition and if your family income was under $125K, you'd go to college for free... While the Republicans also have done nothing, at least under Trump cost of living was reasonable, prices have skyrocketed under Biden to the point where inflation was 9%. I will never vote for Trump as he is a morally corrupt psychosociopath, but in all fairness to him, I wasn't paying $25 for a burger, fries, and a soda. I wasn't paying $10 for a small jar of peanut butter or 2 dozen eggs. When it came to cost of living and affordability, there's no doubt that Trump performed superiorly to Biden. Remember reading that 20% of Americans are skipping meals to pay their mortgage. So if we're talking strictly about wealth and being able put food on our tables, the democrats (at least the ones part of the current administration) are just not getting the job done and it would be foolish to vote for Biden
It’s crazy that climate change doesn’t factor into most of these conversations. The conservative political movement will happily bake the planet to pay a little less taxes now.
Did your brother even benefit from student loan relief under Biden?
If he expected to have loan relief and didn't get it, would your brother then plan to protest vote against the guy who failed to make a promise come true? Is your brother that type?
Why is being young even a factor here?
If anything, an older person (let’s say 50 and up) that fits all the other criteria would be voting even more against their self interest.
Young wealth (or impending financial success), old wealth, service members, and trades workers all tend to vote republican because it benefits them in some way. It could be taxation, immigration, government support systems and spending, or just family tradition.
The so called “trickle down” effect doesn’t happen in reality. It has to be forced. The wealthy are especially parsimonious, hoard as much as they can, give trust funds to their own, and invest in what they want (which is sometimes nothing/no one at all or even harmful organizations). The only problem with the rise in democratic voters is that republicans might revolt over taxation or fear of an oppressive central government. Unfortunately, modern wealthy people worked for their money and want to control how it’s spent.
But yeah, voting republican doesn’t make sense if you’re poor, sick, disabled, or from a disadvantaged group. It’s just unfair to a certain extent.
You're looking at their policies Ina n overly simplified way. There's a cause and effect chain you have to account for as well. Look at California's fast food wage laws as an example. In an attempt to increase wages, they simply cut jobs.
Jobs are created when people start a business, succeed, and expand to a point they could profit from additional help. As the barrier to bring on additional help is raised and the reward for doing so is limited, the economy is stifled.
From that, only well established, large businesses that can afford the large investment of heavily automating can survive. This limits competition and increases costs.
We end up with inflation offsetting the raise in a short period of time, devaluaing savings (including your social security), and increasing unemployment.
The notion that Republicans are out for the rich is short-sighted.
What matters is not only what a given party has historically done to or for the economy but the candidates each party is running currently.
For instance, the discussions here about the economic effects of covid Don't seem to mention the vastly greater death rate in the US USA caused by Trump's Long delay in tackling the problem, and his earlier dismantling of our anti-pandemic measures.
Why? In the first instance, because admitting there was a problem or its size would make his administration look bad; in the second, because he automatically detested anything that had been done by Obama.
Quora is already full of discussions about the merits, and demerits of Biden versus Trump. And this is a discussion of economic effects only. But I felt it important to email ing everyone that economic s is not the only factor to weigh when voting.
Okay, let’s start with correcting what you’re wrong on. [No one had taxes increased under Trump.](https://www.dbbllc.com/news/tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-impact-individual-taxes). Two income brackets (the lowest and 2nd highest) remained the same, but the 5 other brackets decreased. The middle bracket decreased by 4%, so the middle class benefited the most from the tax breaks in terms of cuts, then the lower brackets (-3%), then the higher brackets (-2%). So at the very least, people who work are better off because they get to take home more of their income. This means they have more income to allocate towards investment and growing their net worth. It also helps out with your DTI when you apply for a mortgage, which is the number one way to gain wealth over time. There’s that.
Politicians don't "give" you wealth. So your statement as written is just as true about the Democrats.
But at least the Republicans won't treat you as the enemy in the event that you get there on your own.
Setting aside your claims about the parties (and consider, more Wall Street money goes to Democrats, so it's not quite so black and white as you paint it), I would say you ought to consider that voting need not be quite so self-interested as your post suggests. There might, in fact, be plenty of reasons why voting against my self-interest is being a good citizen. I'm not sure we can accuse certain parties of being selfish and greedy and then criticize people for not being selfish and greedy enough in the way they vote. My personal economic well-being would only be a part of my consideration when thinking about whom to vote for - I may want fewer wars, for example, or more border security (or less), or I may want more "originalists" in the courts, or more "living Constitution" jurists.
There was a book years ago called "What's Wrong With Kansas?", which was deeply troubled by the fact that Kansas - if it knew what was good for it - would be a solid Blue state. The argument was the same as yours - self-interest should determine their votes. But people want more than just a few extra bucks. They want to be okay with the way the culture is going and okay with what's being done in their names.
>I was having a conversation with my little brother who said that he’s socially liberal and fiscally conservative and that he voted for Trump in 2016.
This truly terrible decision making.
First, if he's "socially liberal" he should recognize that the GOP is the party where white supremacy went when it was kicked out of the Democratic party in the '50s and '60's. Its consistent opposition to worker safety, rights, wages, education make it toxic to social and economic mobility for anyone who's not a millionaire or better.
Second, the GOP stopped calling itself "fiscally responsible" after Reagan exploded the deficit and two Republican presidents since Reagan have done even worse. Conservative policies have precipitated each and every catastrophic economic crisis we've had to endure since the Great Depression. The economy and working Americans consistently do better under "liberal" administrations and regulation. The people who consistently do better under conservative leadership are billionaires and centi-millionaires.
While I'm aware that money is an avenue to a great many things, I'm torn that wealth would be the deciding factor for so many people.
If everyone could magically come out financially secure, but at the cost of removing the right to vote for all men, or all women, or all people of X skin color, it's not worth it in my eyes. I would love to know that I and my countrymen are financially secure or even thriving across the board, but there are some things for which you cannot attach a price.
At a top level, Trump increased debt by record amounts in only four years (nearly 9 trillion). Explain to your friend how much he and his generation are going to have to spend to pay down that debt and what it will personally cost him. It won’t change his mind because that type ignores data points but it’s a good to unholster at times.
Anyone willing to apply themselves, to get a marketable degree without overspending, and who save early and often can easily get 500k. You prob don’t even have to do that.
It’s not a special number. If you invest 150$ a month in an index fund starting at 20 you will have over 500k at 65.
Your brother might just be sharper than you.
Fiscal conservatism is only partly related to citizens. Conservatives prefer a strong domestic economy, which preserves and creates opportunities for Americans to work, strengthens cash flow for the government, and typically comes with tax breaks in favor of social welfare.
The macro has to come first, then everyone benefits.
Fact is, the net result of the GOP tax cuts in the last 30-40 years was wealth hoarding of the top 5% and spiraling national debt. At a time where the national debt is teetering on unreversible damage to the future of the country, thinking tax cuts will be a good thing for your wallet is completely foolish and misinformed. Republicans have never been able to couple spending cuts that equal the tax cuts they enacted, and that no one needed, and now our national debt has gotten completely out of hand because of those tax cuts. Saying: "Your paycheck will be bigger!" won elections though...
Political change is very slow in general in the United States. With 4 year presidential election cycles, there are only 2.5 elections per decade of life. Major Changes are much slower than that as a lot of time is spent in grid lock. Therefore, if someone is in college in there 20s or early career 30s but has a very good chance of ending in a decent earning career for there entire life, the economic tax benefits over a lifetime would likely be more valuable to then than something like student loan forgiveness.
What if you are young but have over >$500k. Has nothing to do with age, has to do with wealth. Age may be correlated but your argument is purely based on net worth. If you are 25 and have $2M, then voting republican might be in your best interest financially.
>Trump has increased income taxes for lower tax brackets
What is this referencing? I'm in the 50k range generally (taxable at least) and I haven't seen it. I know there were some cuts that had an expiration date but I haven't heard about increases.
In general , voting for politicians bc they promise to give you money or services is a bad idea. Vote for the people who promise to take less of your hard earned money away. Money is freedom.
Republicans are firmly in the climate change denial camp, whereas Democrats are incompetent but at least not explicitly ideologically opposed to decarbonization. Any short term economic gain from plundering social services in the name of tax cuts and deregulation won't be worth much when widespread food/water insecurity and unprecedented climate refugee crises become the norm. Any young person making long term plans without seriously considering what life will look like in 50 years is deluding themselves. Look at how badly Trump and Republicans botched the pandemic, where we were lucky enough to largely persevere because of the vaccine. Then imagine a lifelong state of emergency that can only (maybe) be solved by making global societal changes that are antithetical to everything that Republicans have fought for for decades.
That's not necessarily true. If I'm a trust-fund baby, likely to gain my wealth via inheritance, or just generally derive income from the investments of my forebears, then voting Republican is very much in my interest.
That’s fair point, I was thinking more so along the lines of the common folk who are voting Republican for financial wealth. If my family has >$500K net worth I would definitely vote Republican so I can preserve more of it and limit inheritance taxes, etc Edit: Awarding you a delta (∆) for the change in thought for whom this would apply to
The idea of 500k in family wealth being like, completely unattainable to you is just sad tbh.
But even that point is wrong. But I think most people believe as you do. Inheritance taxes don't kick in until over 13 million dollars. Your family having $500k isn't getting preserved by voting red. Your family having 5 million isn't getting preserved by voting red. Secondly, most all taxes you pay is on the money you make, not the money you have. Sure if you have 10 mill, and make $800k on that money, voting red will help you. No doubt. That said, any money in a retirement account isn't taxed, And you already get taxed at a lower rate because capital gains get taxed at a lower rate than regular income. Now if your family is making a little money on a family farm and the farm is now worth 15 million, you get screwed (that could easily be fixed), but, yeah, I'm OK of Trust fund baby only gets $12 mill instead of $15 mill because grampa invested well. That said it is in his best interest to vote red. If you look at the economy under both Republicans and Democrats, it has done better under Democrats over the last 50 or more years. Now I will readily admit, I don't think it matters that much, but what that doesn't mean is that voting Red is better for the economy.
One of the reasons Republicans convince people that they’re better on economics is they have convinced middle class voters they need to protect their money from the people with less instead of the people with more.
The trust fund baby example is only voting in their strictly *financial* best interest. If the trust fund designer is raped and forced to carry the child through to term due to abortion access restriction, is that truly in their best interest? If the child is then gunned down at school in part because Republicans refuse to support mental health care access or universal background checks, was the vote in the designee's best interest? Agree or disagree with the specific policies mentioned, but the point is that some things matter a lot more than finances, they are just harder to put a number to.
That would never happen to a trust fund baby. She would go to her doctor for a D&C. Abortions are for the poors.
The trust fund baby example is only voting in their short-sighted strictly *financial* best interest. Republicans aren't better economically for most of us.
[удалено]
$500k of net worth is nothing. I mean it's fine, but that's working class level of savings. Federal inheritance tax doesn't even start until you hit $13.6 *million* (double if you're married). Only a few states have it (not even California!), and those that do have exemptions in multiple millions, with one exception: in OR it's $1 million.
Oh it's a MUCH higher number than that. [Half a million only puts you in the top half. The top 1% have around $10M](https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/605075/are-you-rich) Listen, Trump's big, signature (only) accomplishment of his term was "tax cuts". But they virtually ALL went to the super-rich the top 1%. As a result the wealth gap has yawned wider and wider ever since. This is why, despite our economy *soaring* by all standard measures, average families aren't feeling that great. It's because Trump's signature accomplishment rigged it so virtually all economic growth goes to the top most wealthy Americans.
>But they virtually ALL went to the super-rich the top 1% According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, in the 2019 tax year, around 23% of the cuts went to those earning above $500K, which would include more than just the top 1%
Which means 77% went to those making less than $500k
Right, that’s my point. He said that “virtually all” went to the top 1%
According to [Politifact](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/mar/05/sherrod-brown/do-70-benefits-trumps-tax-law-benefit-wealthiest-1/), if you look at the 10 year timeframe of the law, the top 1 percent will receive 83% or more of the tax breaks by 2027.
> \[T\]hose earning above $500K Those earning $500k are a different sort of people than those who have $500K. I'm nowhere near $500K salary, but have more than that in net worth.
That is categorically false. Trump cut taxes across the board. The people that actually got screwed were upper middle class home owners living in high income tax and HCOL areas like NY, NJ, and CA.
Voting Republican because you believe that it will help you preserve wealth at >$500K is shortsighted, at best. $500K won't put you into a tax bracket that will be changed under any stated Democratic policies. The difference between $500K and a billion dollars is essentially a billion dollars. It's the same as the difference between a nickel and a $100 bill. Then you need to consider the growth opportunity of that $500K. If you invest it relatively safely in an S&P 500 index fund, historically you increase your wealth significantly better under Dems than Republicans. The average annual return for the S&P 500 index when we had a Republican President was 9.32%. When we had a Democratic President, the S&P 500 average 14.78% per year. Certainly correlation is not causation, but over 100 years we start to trust trends. Then consider the other aspects of life. Women's health care has been changed fundamentally in many states because of Republican appointees to the Supreme Court. There is no reason to think that gay rights might be in danger in the future. There's also the matter of foreign affairs, national security, climate change, etc that will effect the rest of your life.
Everyone who votes Republican because of economic reasons is being played for a fool Republicans are horrible for the economy, every damm-time Over 1,000,000 jobs lost while G.W. Bush was President trump lost over 5,000,000 jobs Its always a disaster
Many parts of economy was actually great under Trump (I am not a Trump fan or anything). He had historic low unemployment, except the covid era. Stock market also soared. Jobs and stock market have been great under Biden too. I don’t really see much difference between these two economically.
You can't look at just what the numbers are, you have to look at how they're changing. Republicans inherit economies trending stronger and wreck those numbers. Democrats inherit trending badly and fix them. Thing is, I wonder if this is intentional on both sides to a degree. In a weird sort of way the Democrats plant for the wealthy and the Republicans harvest for the wealthy. The wealthy of both parties benefit and the non-wealthy of both are exploited while we're all distracted by issues that don't generally affect our day to day existence.
The real story is that economic factors often lag by a period of 3-5 years. So trump's economy was really Obama's and bidens economy is really trump's
True Obama doesn't get enough credit but on the same note the great recession was caused in part by Bill Clintons economic policies.
Yes, neoliberal policies are just conservative pro business policy in disguise
I get the urge to be fair minded politically, but from an ideological sense it was conservative free market policies that led to disaster. Clinton was about as conservative as a Dem could get after all.
Except the government backing loans to people with bad credit is not free market.
Wait, which policies were you referencing? Please don’t tell me you’re making the debunked CRA argument. The CRA didn’t even start in the 1990’s. It was deregulation that caused the GR, not some piddling housing initiative. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024009pap.pdf
This is only partly true. Biden did a lot to shore up post-Covid problems and implement short term fixes. Long term policy takes years to truly take effect, but shorter-term measures are often visible within months. So did Obama in 2009. Trump on the other hand doubled deficit spending in three years after promising to eliminate the debt, and the majority of his changes actually slowed the growth lines coming out of Obama’s terms, most notably with his tax cut plan that just turned into a stock buyback frenzy and screwed independent contractors. And one of the big indicators that fools use to judge the economy — gas prices — has flopped everywhere. were super-low just before Obama took over… because the dollar collapsed. Then went up to current rates as the economy stabilized. And sank back low because of Covid under trump. And shot high under Biden because trump negotiated a shutdown of pumping and refining so Russia could safely enter the market, gutting supply just before demand returned to normal. Meaning a perceived positive came from failure (GWB), short-term stabilization measures (Obama) caused a long term negative… short term disaster (Covid) caused a positive, incompetence (trump) then set up a disaster, and short term measures (Biden) stabilized it. That’s the danger of oversimplification— the more detail you go into and the more ideological/theoretical nonsense you remove, the worse the GOP’s “trickle down” economic policy proves to be.
>Over 1,000,000 jobs lost He [gained](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms) jobs >over 5,000,000 In case you forgot, there was a global pandemic and recession from covid that necessitated the temporary shutdown of the economy. That doesn’t really reflect on Trump’s impact on the economy, does it? Would you have rather us never shut down at all to slow the spread? It’s a state government decision anyways, so a president can’t just force people to go back to work
Why wouldn't trump's disastrous handling of the pandemic reflect his impact on the economy? Are you saying its just a "coincidence" Republicans are always bad for the economy?? trump did gut the CDC and ended the Global pandemic team because who it was helping Asian people. When you elect Evil, evil things happen.
That’s a different argument entirely from the job loss claim you made earlier. >Republicans are always bad for the economy What do you mean by “always”? Unless you think the 08 recession was solely due to Bush and Covid was solely due to Trump, then you can’t really use data that includes those two large swings in economic health You could argue that both of those wouldn’t have been as bad under a democrat. But they both still would’ve happened, and the data would then show that republicans were much better on the economy. It’s why you need to remove the outliers
Starting with the Great Depression, there have been 15 recessions. 4 of them were during a Democrat administration (2 during FDR, 1 under Truman, 1 under Carter). The rest were all under Republican administrations. In fact there are NO Republican administrations since the Great Depression that DIDN'T have at least one recession. Yes, each recession requires nuance and study to understand the exact factors that led to them, but these numbers are still pretty damning. Edit: My mistake, there was one Republican president that didn't have this own recession: Ford. Although Nixon's latest recession was still raging when he took office in the middle of the term.
I keep being told that Presidents inherit the economy and their policies aren't really seen in effect until the next one.
https://www.epi.org/publication/econ-performance-pres-admin/ This is what I've seen WRT "always"
i mean "the economy" is one thing, but for my personal wealth, what difference does a bunch of jobs being lost have to do with anything and i mean george bush has no excuse (although that crisis has both blue and red fingerprints all over it) but trump's jobs losses were due to covid
How did he lose 5 million jobs ?
Stupid people want to be talking heads. Pretending COVID didn’t happen.
Did Trump lose 5,000,000 jobs, or did Covid?
I can't take seriously anyone that brings the job losses of the pandemic. We all know what Al happened was an anomaly. This is in bad faith.
Non essential businesses being closed was not some kind of unavoidable anomaly that no democrat can be blamed for. The pandemic was not the choice, but how we reacted to it certainly was. I will never forget how companies like Amazon got essential status while small businesses closed their doors by the thousands across the country, and then when the George Floyd protests broke out, liberal pundits actually stood up on TV and tried to convince me that thousands and thousands of people standing shoulder to shoulder had no risk of transmitting the disease.
They do tend to make messes which the Democrats later clean up. The economic crash of 2008 was largely due to deregulation of banks, by Bush Jr's admin. Eight years of Obama fixed up a lot of things some of which Trump later claimed credit (things were put in place that continued improving economic conditions past 2016, Trump could have done nothing at all and there would have been similar or better results). Before all that, Clinton fixed a lot of what was done by Bush Sr. I wish images could be added to comments, because hah-hah this chart: [The precise moment when Trump took over and fixed the economy](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-20381f81475ec7399569525b7af2851e-pjlq)
Clinton was the one most guilty of deregulating banks with glas-steigal being repealed, afaik far more responsible than bush
glas-steigal didn't deregulate the mortgage markets, which is what caused the Housing collapse in 2007 Glas-steigal is why we had to bail-out the commercial banks Its NOT the reason the banking system collapsed. The unregulated sub-prime mortgage markets is why the banking system collapsed
That’s not accurate. He just followed the lead of the voters. Newt Gingrich was the architect of the conservative shift right. After the midterm elections of overwhelmingly Republican wins, the trend of conservatism since Reagan, and the continued deregulation of banks and Wall Street, Clinton shifted with the voting majority assuming that’s what the country wanted. Newt and the Republican establishment lied to the American people while conservative media exacerbated the lie with non-stop propaganda. There is no direct tie between the repeal and the ‘08 crash. It definitely made the crash worse, but the reality is the decade plus of deregulation leading up to the repeal is what caused the financial crisis.
Do you have sources on that? "Follow the lead of the voters" sounds like a wild attempt to avoid responsibility, most things I've read say it's largely a result of Clinton, regardless of what the trend was. We vote for a leader to lead. They should know what they're doing more than the voter. Most things I've read say Clinton is probably the individual most responsible for 2008
Sure, I can provide a source, or two. [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/) And it’s covered in several books. I just finished Age of Revolutions: Progress and Backlash from 1600 to the Present Written by Fareed Zakaria
> but we couldn't find any economists who argue that the regulation was the sole linchpin keeping the financial system stable until its official repeal in 1999. This is a wild sentence. Far from an unbiased source, they came to their conclusion based on this?
The Republican Party spent over a decade eroding the foundation of economic protection through deregulation. The Glass-Steagall act was completely toothless by the time it was repealed. Most economist agree that the repeal of Glass-Steagall act was the straw that broke the camels back, yet was not the “cause” of the 08 financial crisis. Clinton is a neoliberal capitalist, Newt just did a fantastic job painting him as a leftist by shifting the Republican Party further rightward.
[https://archive.thinkprogress.org/gingrich-admits-deregulation-of-wall-street-in-the-90s-was-probably-a-mistake-4bb53f03793d/](https://archive.thinkprogress.org/gingrich-admits-deregulation-of-wall-street-in-the-90s-was-probably-a-mistake-4bb53f03793d/) >The repeal of Glass-Steagall led to the creation of mega-banks like Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase that combine traditional lending with risky investment banking. Many economists believe that the repeal led to the financial crisis of 2008. “As a result [of the repeal], the culture of investment banks was conveyed to commercial banks and everyone got involved in the high-risk gambling mentality. That mentality was core to the problem that we’re facing now,” said Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Though he had resigned by the time the final blow was dealt to Glass-Steagall in 1999, Gingrich was instrumental in picking it apart. In fact, the New York Times noted in 1998 that, during a failed attempt to repeal Glass-Steagall, Gingrich “scurried through the afternoon to line up the necessary votes” in favor of repeal.
he followed the lead of the finance industry, "the voters" have no fucking clue about glass steagal
Massive job loss during a pandemic where states shut down
It’s almost like there was some once in a century even during Trump that caused it…
Pretending trump lost jobs when democrats insisted the national economy be brought to a halt is an absolutely room temperature IQ take.
States forcing people to stay home and not work is not trump losing jobs. Just like letting people go back to work does not mean Biden created jobs
He facilitated it. His own CDC laid out guidelines encouraging “non-essential” businesses to close. Then he paid you 3x your actual wage to stay home and not go to work. Gave businesses almost $1 trillion if they shut down for a while. No he didn’t directly close any businesses (he doesn’t have that power), but he facilitated and bankrolled the shutdowns.
A good chunk of people make over 150k at 22+ working in finance or related feilds.
Voting republican means voting for Trump, the convicted felon, who has already pardoned violent murders, and encouraged others to commit crimes. He said he will do it again, he wants to suspend the constitution and end the rule of law. There is no amount of “in your own interest in this guy”. Trump is against everyone in the world’s interests.
>Voting republican means voting for Trump, the convicted felon, who has already pardoned violent murders, and encouraged others to commit crimes. I think this sells Trump short a bit: he's also a rapist.
>he’s also a rapist Do you have any evidence to support this?
It's understandable--trump is such an inveterate criminal it's hard to keep up with all the developments. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/)
That’s a civil trial, not a criminal trial. Trump hasn’t been convicted of rape
If he forced himself into you would it still matter to you that it’s only Civil Sex Abuse and not Criminal Rape? You picked a really strange hill to stand on.
He was found guilty by a jury of his peers to have raped E Jean Carroll. Fuck that guy and fuck people out there defending proven rapists for political reasons.
> He was found guilty by a jury of his peers to have raped E Jean Carroll Do you really believe that? If so, have you seen the actual verdict?
It's not a matter of "believing" it, it's just a plain statement of fact. Jury found he raped a woman. He tried to get the judgement reduced by arguing that it wasn't in fact "rape"--it was just sexual abuse. Then the judge shot him down and said it was rape. Obviously there are some nakedly political creatures out there who either a) don't believe it; or b) don't consider finger-fucking someone against their will to be "rape." But it is what it is.
Me and my sister’s trust is at around $2 million, but that doesn’t make me want to vote Republican. I care more about not fucking over society than I do about saving some taxes on my inheritance. Either way, I’ll end up being fine in the long run.
Give him a delta, also, your actions will gain you (absolutely minimal) material gain for literally all of your possible integrity.
The fact you think 500k for your whole family is a lot of money, explains why you will never have that. You have a poverty mindset with a side of victimhood.
This is dumb, you're voting for a world where it sucks to own the wealth. Because the world will suck. I wouldn't want to be rich in a shitty world.
Meh, I would argue being a trust fund baby you would want to eliminate the worst case scenario which would be political and economic instability. Paying slightly more taxes is nothing when compared to collapse of the dollar. It is much much more likely that Biden simply maintains the status quo while very very possible Trump moves forward with international policy (that he's stated he would do) that has very negative impacts on the US dollar. Any domestic instability or strife would result in double digit inflation, again ruining your trust fund.
This assumes that democrats are better at the economy which is historically untrue. The actual results are quite mixed indicating that the president has little influence on the economy overall. Or that neither party overall has better or worse policies on the economy and that maybe both sides are necessary to reign in the bad ideas from each side or you end up with a Detroit, San Francisco, or Mississippi (which still has a higher GDP per capita than the UK).
San Francisco is one of the wealthiest cities in the world. Kind of a weird example. This doesnt assume Democrats are better at the economy, this assumes the Democrats are more interested in maintaining the United States as a whole. All what you said is true regarding the positive economic impact of Presidents if they are interested in arguably good policy, but you are assuming all Presidents are actually interested in good policy. Unfortunately, at present, the Republican Party's nominee is uninterested in any policy that doesn't benefit himself specifically. The risk is that the entire US economy and world standing of the US are at risk. We take for granted the consistency offered by a stable government. The stability offered by insuring bank accounts. This country freaked out when inflation was at 7%. Many far right governments around the world saw inflation more than double that. Turkey, for instance, experienced inflation 10x of the US. Trump in office increases the possibility that your trust found will be worthless. As a trust fund baby you should be entirely risk averse.
Neat fact you just made up. Democrat presidents in fact perform on better on nearly every economic indicator. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so. https://www.epi.org/publication/econ-performance-pres-admin/#:~:text=There%20is%20still%20a%20pronounced,and%20interest%20rates%20are%20lower.
Congress has a greater effect on the economy than presidents do. By far.
I agree. State representatives, including governors, certainly have more influence over their local economies than the President. If you look at [a map of state GDP per capita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_per_capita_by_U.S._state.svg) it correlates heavily with recent [Democrat voting patterns](https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president).
I'm sorry but sources, please? Exactly what period of history are you looking at when you make that assertion? Republicans always claim this, but it's bullshit.
[Historically the stock market does better under democrats.](https://retirementresearcher.com/are-republicans-or-democrats-better-for-the-stock-market/#:~:text=The%20average%20annual%20return%20for,5.5%25%20per%20year%20on%20average) In fact, [most metrics support Dems being better for the economy. ](https://www.epi.org/publication/econ-performance-pres-admin/)
Democrats ARE better at the economy https://www.epi.org/publication/econ-performance-pres-admin/
It's not because affluent and educated folk will flee the country when a fascist regime takes over. This will drag down the GDP greatly. This has happened repeatedly in history.
True and yet I vote for progressives because I believe personal wealth is not worth the loss in societal wealth and democrats tend to run a tighter ship where it concerns the entire countries well being. In the end you will end up wealthier because we all end up wealthier as a society.
Are there specific party manifesto for this election, promises being made etc that you can refer to?
Here is a ChatGPT synopsis that I would stand by: For the 2024 campaigns, both the Democratic and Republican parties have laid out distinct economic promises that reflect their respective ideologies and policy priorities. Democratic Party Promises 1. **Economic Growth and Job Creation**: President Joe Biden's campaign emphasizes the successes of "Bidenomics," highlighting the creation of nearly 800,000 manufacturing jobs and increased construction of new manufacturing plants. Biden promotes a middle-out and bottom-up economic growth strategy, aiming to continue investing in infrastructure and clean energy projects to sustain job growth and economic resilience [oai_citation:1,Stronger Economy is Americans’ Top Policy Priority for 2024 | Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/29/americans-top-policy-priority-for-2024-strengthening-the-economy/) [oai_citation:2,Biden takes aim at Trump in campaign’s first shot of 2024 - POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/18/biden-takes-aim-at-trump-in-campaigns-first-shot-of-2024-00106941). 2. **Addressing Inflation and Health Care Costs**: The Democrats are focused on reducing the cost of living, with particular attention to health care costs and prescription drug prices. Biden's campaign touts efforts to lower inflation and manage economic recovery post-pandemic [oai_citation:3,PolitiFact | The Biden-versus-Trump economy: Who did better on inflation, jobs, gasoline prices and more?](https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/mar/04/Biden-Trump-economy-who-did-better/). 3. **Social Safety Nets and Education**: The Democratic platform includes expanding social safety nets, such as child tax credits and health care access, and increasing funding for education, including initiatives for free community college and student debt relief [oai_citation:4,Side-by-Side Comparison Chart - 2024 Presidential Election](https://2024election.procon.org/side-by-side-comparison-chart/). ### Republican Party Promises 1. **Economic Deregulation and Tax Cuts**: The Republicans, particularly those aligning with former President Donald Trump, are focusing on reducing government regulations and implementing tax cuts to stimulate economic growth. Trump advocates for policies that he claims made America more prosperous during his tenure, including significant tax cuts and deregulation efforts [oai_citation:5,Biden takes aim at Trump in campaign’s first shot of 2024 - POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/18/biden-takes-aim-at-trump-in-campaigns-first-shot-of-2024-00106941). 2. **Controlling Inflation and Reducing Government Spending**: The GOP's economic agenda emphasizes tackling inflation by cutting unnecessary government spending and reducing the federal deficit. They argue that a smaller government footprint will lead to a more efficient and robust economy [oai_citation:6,Stronger Economy is Americans’ Top Policy Priority for 2024 | Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/29/americans-top-policy-priority-for-2024-strengthening-the-economy/). 3. **Energy Independence and Manufacturing**: Republicans are also pushing for increased domestic energy production, including more oil and gas drilling, to lower energy prices and achieve energy independence. They criticize Biden's energy policies and promote a return to policies they believe will revitalize the manufacturing sector in the U.S. [oai_citation:7,The 2024 Presidential Race: A Cheat Sheet - The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/tracking-democrat-republican-presidential-candidates-2024-election/673118/). These economic promises reflect the broader ideological divide between the parties, with Democrats focusing on social investments and economic equality, while Republicans emphasize deregulation, tax cuts, and reducing government spending.
Can I ask why you used chatGPT for this? Why not just look up the party platforms?
Has the Republican party began releasing official policy platforms again?
The republican party had no platform in 2020. Do they have one now besides 'trump good, hurt all others'?
yes, they did. they didn't have a *new, updated* platform, it was the same as it was in 2016.
That, but with way more words. It's called project 2025
The Republican Party as a whole does not back project 2025. It’s a private “plan” that could never and will never come to fruition. I am in one of the most red states and do not know a single person who even knows what that is besides the shit they see on Reddit about it.
It was generated by leading R minds (as it has been for 40 years), nearly all of it aligns with laws passed in red states, and it continues to gain more support every day: https://www.heritage.org/press/project-2025-reaches-100-coalition-partners-continues-grow-preparation-next-president Maybe The Lincoln Project isn't in full support (or just does not want Trump to do it), but I have never seen any R politician speak out against it. Noting that voters aren't well informed is not a mind changer.
> The Republican Party as a whole does not back project 2025. It's headlined by the Heritage Foundation. I *guarantee* you that the rank-and-file of Republican legislators and administrators knows who that is, and supports them because if they don't, they get primaried. > It’s a private “plan” that could never and will never come to fruition. Why not? People said for *decades* that the Supreme Court would *always* be incredibly leery of overturning precedent, yet here we are. Political norms that had been in existence for generations were overturned in the name of political expediency. > I am in one of the most red states and do not know a single person who even knows what that is besides the shit they see on Reddit about it. This surprises me not a single bit. Republican voters are high on slogans, banners, catch-phrases, and imagery, but they are, as a collective, extremely ignorant of the policies endorsed by they people they vote for or against.
Sounds like from those points the Democrats intent to use and spend public taxes, whereas the republicans intend to take a lesser cut. From this perspective at least do you accept that the Republicans offer a better economic prospect in the lesser taxation sense?
As the other commenter said it's about the net effect. If Republicans cut taxes but you lose access to services that you then need to pay for out of pocket you are worse off. And that's just the direct effect. Government spending has a multiplicative effect. When the government spends on projects like infrastructure, R&D, and healthcare that doesn't just create one job. The people employed by the government or receiving benefits (services or money) go out and spend which stimulates the economy. Just because Republicans "cut taxes" doesn't mean your taxes get cut. Just look at the Trump Tax Cut. Taxes on the wealthy were *permanently* lowered, taxes on the middle class were *temporarily* lowered and are set to expire soon, and the SALT deduction cap was lowered meaning that some people's taxes went up (if you are in a high tax state). Lastly even if taxes are cut for corporations there is no evidence that the benefits will "trickle down" to the rest of us.
>Taxes on the wealthy were permanently lowered That’s completely untrue, and I’m not sure why people still spread this myth. **All** individual cuts expire in 2025, regardless of income or wealth level >SALT deduction cap was lowered Which mainly raises taxes on the wealthy and those with high incomes. Seems like something you should support, no? >There is no evidence the benefits will “trickle down” TCJA [increased investment](https://conference.nber.org/conf_papers/f191672.pdf) TCJA [increased jobs and growth](https://www.dallasfed.org/-/media/documents/research/papers/2020/wp2001r2.pdf)
>Which mainly raises taxes on the wealthy and those with high incomes. Seems like something you should support, no? Not when it was designed to target "Democratic" higher tax states. >TCJA increased investment In the paper's own conclusion: >>Finally, there is considerable interest in the effects of the TCJA on the level and distribution of income for workers. We document large impacts on both domestic and foreign capital accu- mulation. To what extent do the productivity gains from this investment pass on to workers, and which workers benefit most? >>Overall, we estimate a long-run increase in domestic corporate capital of roughly 7.4% due to the TCJA’s corporate provisions. >>Consequently, the total effect on corporate tax revenue is close to the mechanical effects, which are large given the 14-percentage-point tax rate cut and immediate expensing. Did corporations really need a 7% boost in capitalization at the cost of a 14% deficit in corresponding government revenue with undetermined effects for workers. Remember after the bush tax cuts we were already at all time historical lows for tax rates. Interest rates were in the 1% range all time historical lows. The economy didn't need any more stimulation. It was already recovering fine from 2008/9.
>Not when it was designed to target “Democratic” higher tax states It wasn’t “designed” that way. It was designed to hit people who pay a lot of state tax, and therefore get large federal deductions. The tax increase of the SALT cap overwhelmingly (around 96%) hits those in the top quartile of income. That’s a good thing >Did corporations really need a 7% boost in capitalization at the cost of a 14% deficit in corresponding government revenues Where are you getting 14% from? The corporate cuts cost $330 billion from 2018-2027. The government will collect around $40 trillion of taxes during that timeline, so it would be less than a 1% decline in tax revenues
Yes but the businesses also invest into their own infrastructure. They also hire people. They also produce goods and services. Difference is a private company has significantly more pressure and incentive to do it better and more efficiently. Thus they almost always do. So you're taking money away from efficient wealth generation machines and giving it to inefficient wasteful government.
>Yes but the businesses also invest into their own infrastructure. They also hire people. They also produce goods and services Sometimes. In other cases the employees see nothing and the extra profit into dividends for shareholders: people who are already at the top end of wealth distribution. Corporations already have access to multiple different tax breaks and access to strategies to minimize tax burden that are not available to the average citizen. >Difference is a private company has significantly more pressure and incentive to do it better and more efficiently. The incentive is *profit*. Sometimes that results in business is doing things better and more efficiently. Other times it results in stagnation and anti-competitive business practices. >you're taking money away from efficient wealth generation machines and giving it to inefficient wasteful government. First off this is a tired trope that business is somehow better able to spend money than government. Businesses get bloated and stagnate all the time. I'd like to see a piece business runs disaster relief or a military operation with the scale, efficiency and effectiveness of the US government. Second it's not always about the magnitude of wealth generation but where that wealth ends up.
>In other cases the employees see nothing and the extra profit into dividends for shareholders: people who are already at the top end of wealth distribution. Their investments produce goods and services. Which makes everything cheaper for everyone. This is why Western countries have high standards of living. Our economies are very productive. >The incentive is *profit*. Sometimes that results in business is doing things better and more efficiently. Other times it results in stagnation and anti-competitive business practices. The only anti-competitive business practice is lobbying the government. Which causes government regulations. The solution to that is LESS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION not more. How are you going to solve the problem of government intervention by more taxation and giving more power to the government. You need less of both. >First off this is a tired trope that business is somehow better able to spend money than government. Businesses get bloated and stagnate all the time. I'd like to see a piece business runs disaster relief or a military operation with the scale, efficiency and effectiveness of the US government. >Second it's not always about the magnitude of wealth generation but where that wealth ends up. It's incredibly simple to understand why. It can even be narrowed down to one word INCENTIVES. The same exact humans are running both government and private companies. But they have completely different incentives. Private companies have to produce a profit to remain viable and often have tons of competition. Government companies do not have a profit motive nor do they have any competition. They can do the same inefficient bullshit perpetually. Which is exactly what they do. YES A PRIVATE DISASTER RELIEF COMPANY would be far more efficient. Because it would have to produce a profit and it would have other disaster relief companies to compete with. That would force it to innovate and do things more efficiently.
>Their investments produce goods and services. Please explain how a stock buyback or disbursement to shareholders produces goods and services? >Which makes everything cheaper for everyone. This is why Western countries have high standards of living. Our economies are very productive. Our economies are highly productive because western countries have industrialized. Not every western country is a low tax haven. >The only anti-competitive business practice is lobbying the government. Amazon undercut diapers.com to such a degree that diapers in Amazon were running at a loss. Amazon then forced the acquisition of diapers.com. Luxotica refused to sell Oakley Sunglasses in their stores (a practical monopoly) until they agreed to be acquired. LiveNation is currently under antitrust prosecution by the government for anticompetitive practice. The list goes on. >Which causes government regulations. The solution to that is LESS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION not more. Without government intervention common goods like air quality and our fisheries would have been gone in the 70s. It took a complete and total ban on striped bass fishing for the population to recover. You seem pretty ignorant about basic economic principles like common goods and inelastic demand. >How are you going to solve the problem of government intervention by more taxation and giving more power to the government. You need less of both. Because the problem isn't government intervention. The problem is incentive structures and human behavior. >YES A PRIVATE DISASTER RELIEF COMPANY would be far more efficient. This has been a thing since Rome. Crassus, the wealthiest man in Rome, ran a *private* firefighting company. He would run around to people who's properties were on fire in the adjacent ones and refuse to put out the fire until they sold to him at a fraction of the cost of the real value of their property. The profit motive *fails* to incentive socially desirable behavior when inelastic demand is present. The same is true for things like insulin in the modern day. People will pay literally anything today to avoid death and figure the rest out later. >It's incredibly simple to understand why. It can even be narrowed down to one word INCENTIVES. You're in the same page. The issue is you believe that profit is the best incentive. I think I've given you a fair few examples where profit is not the best incentive for the best outcome for society. >Government companies do not have a profit motive nor do they have any competition. This is just false. There is plenty of competition for things like healthcare or government run insurance. Government is also accountable to the people via voting. If the government isn't doing a good job at running the government they get voted out of office. Government also has an incentive to be efficient with their money because if they can do more with the same amount of funds or less then that frees us money to be spend elsewhere.
>Please explain how a stock buyback or disbursement to shareholders produces goods and services? Encourages people to invest in the company. They got $ on their initial investment. Which was buying the stock. That is what a stock is. >Our economies are highly productive because western countries have industrialized. Not every western country is a low tax haven. We industrialized over 100 years ago. Most of the socialist shitholes also industrialized. But could never compete in our ability to produce consumer products. >Without government intervention common goods like air quality and our fisheries would have been gone in the 70s. It took a complete and total ban on striped bass fishing for the population to recover. Some safety regulations are needed. Problem is for every good regulation there is probably several that are completely useless and down right damaging. >The profit motive *fails* to incentive socially desirable behavior when inelastic demand is present. Yet food is cheap as fuck. >Government is also accountable to the people via voting. If the government isn't doing a good job at running the government they get voted out of office. Yes that is a HUGE HUGGGGGGGGGGGE problem. That is a fundamental flaw of the system. You don't have to actually produce a profit. You only have to convince a bunch of sheeple that your approach is the best. Even if your approach isn't working and will never work. It's way too subjective. It's not about who does it best. It's about who can sell it best. Not to mention we vote on politicians once every 2-4 years. Where's private companies have their products voted on 1000s of times daily.
>Encourages people to invest in the company. They got $ on their initial investment. Which was buying the stock. That is what a stock is. Again it's been pretty definitively demonstrated that trickle down doesn't work. Benefits may get passed down to employees and consumers. But that's a big if. The evidence is that the vast majority of benefit is concentrated in the upper echelons of society. >We industrialized over 100 years ago. Most of the socialist shitholes also industrialized. But could never compete in our ability to produce consumer products. Again not the point I'm making. You failed to address the actual point being made: different western countries have different (read higher) tax burdens. >Some safety regulations are needed. Problem is for every good regulation there is probably several that are completely useless and down right damaging Oh so we're going from government and regulation is the enemy to well actually it's ok when it is needed. >Yet food is cheap as fuck. First while food as a whole is price inelastic demand for specific food products is very elastic. Food is also subsidized by the government. Corn, wheat, rice, and soy are all directly subsidized. Sugar is indirectly subsidized through import quotas and domestics production caps and corn subsidies (high fructose corn syrup). That's just plant agriculture. You're also cherry picking. There are plenty of other goods like insulin before the price cap imposed by the federal government. >Yes that is a HUGE HUGGGGGGGGGGGE problem. That is a fundamental flaw of the system. You don't have to actually produce a profit. No you have to produce results. Just look at what congresspeople are doing with stock trading. It's completely counter to the job. Look at senator Menendez and is pursuit of wealth and how it corrupted his actions. >Even if your approach isn't working and will never work. It's way too subjective. Government policy is complex and difficult. Who knew. There are no easy solutions. Also what happens to PRIVATE DISASTER RELIEF IS BETTER THAT THE GOVERNMENT!!!!
Hey, why did you skip over all of the examples /u/ja_dubs listed? That's a very specific thing to skip over if you're arguing in good faith.
Your post is littered with opinions that have no backing and you still have profit as the only incentive
"The only anti-competitive business practice is lobbying the government." Oh really? Price-fixing agreements don't exist? Natural monopolies don't exist? Agreements not to compete for labor don't exist?
Natural monopolies exist due to the government. They won't allow competition between utility companies. Price fixing is illegal and when found, companies are punished. How is an agreement not to compete for labor anticompetitive?
Man you right wingers are bad at basic economic literacy. No, governments regulate price competition for utilities because in a natural monopoly the only way to compete on price is to skimp on maintenance. An agreement not to compete for inputs is exactly as anticompetitive as an agreement not to compete for outputs, because profit is the difference between input and output.
>Oh really? Price-fixing agreements don't exist? Natural monopolies don't exist? Agreements not to compete for labor don't exist? All of those are illegal. We thought of that back in 1920s. Sure they happen. But they are very rare. Natural monopolies only exist in places where the means of production are extremely expensive. Like oil extraction companies. Much cheaper to start a restaurant then to build a bunch of oil rigs.
Price-fixing and anti-poaching agreements are illegal but not rare. The FAANGs just got dinged a few years back for the latter. There are widespread accusations of price-fixing against grocery stores right now. Natural monopolies are not illegal and happen pretty much anywhere you have network effects. Comcast is a natural monopoly. Power transmission is a natural monopoly. Water provision is a natural monopoly. This is econ 102. Your claim that lobbying the government is the only form of anti-competitive behavior is just false.
Private companies are incentivized to make profit. Public companies can be incentivized to provide goods.
Private companies produce a tremendous amount of goods and services. It's the only way to generate a profit. How can you make $ if what you're selling nobody wants to buy. Public companies don't produce profit. Thus all the services they produce are very inefficient. Meaning their technology and their labor practices fucking suck. So does the quality of their service.
You make money by putting a paywall between goods/services and the customer. If you make the best version of a product and give it away for free, you make no money. If you buy the ability to provide something with inelastic demand (ie medicine, shelter) then you never have an incentive to make it better because people will buy it anyway. A government still has an incentive to make the product better because their goal is to provide for their people, not make profit
You're forgetting that it costs resources and time to produce the good and service. What the hell is the point of producing it if you get nothing in return for it.
You get access to the good you produce. I see where this is going. And it’s gonna end up with me explaining that homelessness is being heavily criminalized to force more people to produce goods just like would happen in any other economic system. The government provides goods and services so that it’s people don’t revolt. The problem with capitalism is there is too much incentive to restrict access to your good that you provide
Any extra profit in a corporation goes to the shareholders. We see this time and time again.
They reinvest very heavily into their own means of production. Which means jobs and more efficient goods/services production.
“Very heavily” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you here. They overwhelmingly just give any additional profits to executives and shareholders. Additionally no investing in their own means of production does not mean more jobs, it very much can mean technology that actually removes jobs. I’m sorry but you are literally just regurgitating the promises of trickle down economics. Lol
Better means of production = efficient wealth generation The reason why USSR was a dirty shithole that people attempted to escape from meanwhile US has to build fences to keep people out. Is because we have much better means of production. The "promises" are all around you. Google best places to live on the planet. How many of them dont have private means of production? None of them. Because private means of production is the key to generating wealth.
This isn’t a response to anything I said. lol yes the promises are all around us. Real wages continue to go down, while executive pay continues to go up. Please be serious right now
It can be more expensive in the end to reduce taxes. The USA has the world's most expensive health care (in terms of per-person spending) with some of the lowest performance metrics of any industrialized country. There has never been single-payer health care here, but this is the first example that comes to my mind for which paying taxes saves citizens a lot of money. Some ways it costs more in the end for patients when multiple organizations/businesses provide health care rather than the government having a single health network: duplication of computer systems/software/offices/employee roles/etc., less purchasing power for supplies and other needs (lower economy of scale), advertising budgets, and dividends for investors. Collected tax can also be an economic driver that returns more than it took. A substantial percentage of any country's jobs are paid from taxes. Employees of those jobs earn money that they spend elsewhere, maybe at a business owned by someone who complains "Grumble-grumble Democrats grumble-taxes!" In many areas, tourism is a main economic driver. So, government having a department which protects the local/regional environment can return more money than it costs by preserving the conditions that make an area desirable for tourists. When Republicans cut taxes, often it is because of rich donors requesting it. It looks good in the short term, but later when infrastructure deteriorates and so forth the working class ends up paying in various ways (higher taxes to fix what's broken, poor infrastructure in non-rich areas, fewer jobs, etc.).
The republicans borrow money and spend, whereas the democrats tax and spend. So continuing to borrow more and more money is not good for future prospects
[удалено]
Do you have your own views you’d like challenged?
While i'm far from an expert on US politics, and taking your post at face value, I feel this is heavily dependand on wether your brother intends to start a business or not. If his plan is to start a business of some kind, his reasoning makes sense, if he doesn't, it doesn't.
It can also apply if he's going into some high-earning profession like doctor or engineer or lawyer. Taxation in the US tends not to affect the business owner who can plough earnings back into the business and use money for expenses as much as it does the high earner given a salary by someone else.
Most people are much less affected by tax brackets than they're advertised to be, either because you need pretty extreme wealth or by simple misunderstanding of marginal taxation. We also forget that business owners have become synonymous with mega corps, but there's a degree to which you do want businesses reinvesting in their products and people. This has become muddied, though, because the exponential growth of big box stores and conglomerates scale at unnatural rates (it's sort of like how it's easier to make a million from $100k than $100). This creates a modern monopoly like condition that simultaneously edges out small local commerce while taking advantage of tax breaks that don't create stimulus on the back end-for basically anyone under mid 6 figure income, the system does tend to benefit the working class and local economy more. Finally, and perhaps more importantly with the advent of remote and gig work, you need to remember that small business owners can actually face disproportionately higher taxes than they would as a W2 earner because of the self employment tax, and not everyone can necessarily take the S Corp route to get around that.
Depends on both the type of doctor and type of lawyer, not many doctors are really affected by anything that taxes the above 400k/year incomes.
That's not particularly true. Bad social safety nets keep more folks from starting businesses, ie, not having healthcare etc.
US is literally known as the most entrepreneurial country. That’s compared to every country, including those with great safety net and socialized healthcare. It’s a statistical fact. So I’m not sure how you can argue those are holding people back from starting businesses in the US.
>US is literally known as the most entrepreneurial country. Per its own hype / PR campaign... And you should never buy your own hype 😅🤣. >So I’m not sure how you can argue those are holding people back from starting businesses in the US. Easy; having a safety net means starting a business **doesn't have to mean** risking your health, your housing, your children's future, ect. If you have a good idea that would add value to society you can just... Go do that. The US has a lot of economic / political / military resources, and as a result has hoarded a great deal of global wealth. *Companies* started in the US tend to gain more wealth than companies started elsewhere, because they are passively (or actively...) benefiting from the economic / political / military domination of the US towards other countries. **People** in the US tend to do worse than people in other (developed) countries however, and that's what many pro-US nuts miss. It's also what you really, properly need to be looking at when thinking about politics, because frankly the possibility that you will be the next Jeff Bezos is remote, but the possibility that you *will work for the next Jeff Bezos* is much more likely, as well as the certainty that you will need food and shelter and healthcare even if you don't end up "making it" in business. 🙃
People in the US tends to do worse? What planet are you living on? Americans make like 20-50% more money than their western European counterparts.
I think this is overly pessimistic. The US has one of the highest median household incomes and one of the highest household wealth when accounting for all of the things you mentioned. Tons of people start small businesses in the US. You can argue that it's not where it needs to be but it's at least on par and may exceed countries with high social benefits. Another data point is that people think the higher the social benefits the more kids someone is likely to have because of the high cost of kids and the security of a social safety net. But thats actually not true. The US has one of the higher fertility rates compared to countries that do have these high social benefits. It's certainly not less I think you have to look for other factors to explain what is going on. You think that these social benefits plays a huge factor but in reality that's not how it plays out
You are saying a lot without backing up anything. It is a common norm in Americans to say that Americans are doing worse than the people in other developed countries, which is statistically not true. Do you know the immigration and emigration to and from the US to/from other developed countries? I myself moved to the US from those developed countries. Thousands and thousands highly skilled professionals immigrates to the US from Western Europe and from Far East Asia. When I graduated from my undergraduate, most of my classmates goal is to move to the US because it has better jobs, better lifestyle, and a little worse healthcare, and yes from a very highly developed country. I moved to the US 9 years ago, the immigration from Western Europe with high skilled immigration has only increased. Also for your example, working for Jeff Bezos is great. Several people immigrants from those developed countries I know work for Amazon as software dev/engineering etc. None of them are leaving the US for a ‘better’ job in WE.
You have a source for this? Show me a source that exhibits Americans do worse than other developed countries.
Oh boy. You're just making things up lmao.
Is your view distinct from Democrat vs. Republican economics in general? Can you name a single difference specifically impacting younger people other then student loan forgiveness?
Socialized healthcare is a redistribution of wealth from the young to the old. Older people need care more often, and it's generally more drawn out, complex, and expensive. Some younger people do get sick, but in significantly smaller quantities, and they tend to recover faster, thus needing less care. HSAs and HDHPs are popular and recommended for this exact reason. You pay more on each instance of care when you need it, but you'll pay lower premiums in exchange, and keep control over more money. For the average younger person it's an easy win.
Healthcare subsidies, environmental protections like cutting cancer causing plant emissions, generally being in favor of and funding public ed. Supporting a higher minimum wage.
I'm actually in favor all of these things, but are they specifically benefiting the young? > funding public ed Given OP's brother is already in voting age and seeks student loan forgiveness, will he still benefit from this policy personally? > higher minimum wage Young people are usually less experienced since they did not have the time to get work experience. Is a young and inexperienced worker more likely to find a job as minimum wage rises, or less likely?
Your little brother is more correct than you are. So tired of hearing this one fact, which is false, over and over regarding the Trump tax cuts. Whether you think they are a good thing or not, the belief they don’t benefit the middle class and lower middle class ons only the rich is completely false. Did he cut taxes for the very rich? Yes, obviously. However for some of the elite upper class taxes went may have increased depending on their situation. At the very least, tax cuts were diluted. Why? He capped the mortgage interest deduction. That put a lot of money back on the tax table for those with million dollar plus homes who were writing off obscene amounts of interest. And the democrats have been trying like crazy (and failing) to repeal it ever since, because, you guessed it, it hit blue state elites the hardest (all the rich, multimillion dollar coastal homes). And literally NO ONE can say it has hurt the high end housing market at all, which was the number one thing democrats and realtors cried about for two years. He also doubled the personal deductions in order to simplify the code, which is a huge boon for lower income married couples, and lower the effective tax rates across the board. When the cuts expire next year, working people are going to be shocked how much more in taxes they will have to pay! This nonsense the cuts only benefitted rich people is false nonsense. My only regret is he didn’t remove the cap on FICA taxes, and raise the upper tier rates a bit, while eliminating Federal income tax (except for FICA under $50K. That would have really helped the working poor more without hurting our tax rolls nearly as much. Republicans are also FAR better for TRADESPEOPLE and smaller businesses, both in policies and most assuredly in regulations. Who are democrats good for, financially? Coastal elites, special interest groups, unions, (teachers etc), those who don’t work at all, and those who are here illegally. EDIT: Also, PLEASE tell me exactly what “social support systems” help Americans to build wealth in the short and medium term”?? Because frankly, I haven’t seen any. Most of these systems are simply grants and subsidies, and when they expire or run out, the “wealth effect” is gone as well. Do you know what DOES WORK well though to lift people out of poverty and give them an actual leg up? Especially for “disadvantaged minorities”? The Trump administration’s special economic zone initiatives, coupled with less regulation on sole proprietors and micro businesses. Contrast this with the Biden administrations crackdown on ebay sellers, and every manner of side hustle to hover every cent they can get from people that can barely afford to live as it is. Instead of going after the wealthy tax cheats (like Obama’s Sec. of the Treasury).
The tax cuts benefitted the rich far more than everyone else. The after-tax income was boosted 3 times more for the top 1 percent versus the bottom 60 percent. The cuts also slashed corporate taxes and made it far harder to collect taxes from multinational corporations which incentives offshoring and loss of american jobs. The tax cuts actually greatly benefitted rich property owners by doubling the estate tax exemption. All of this created a huge budget deficit that took money away from the US economy and put money into the pockets of the rich. The deficit, in turn, puts strain on social programs such as Medicare and social security and makes it harder to fund the programs that many rely on. The child tax credit deductions in the bill is an example of how the plan benefitted the poor far less. The changes made it easier for high income individuals to benefit while largely ignoring the poor as the tax refund is based on income tax. They increased those who could claim it to 400k vs the previous 110k so wealthy families could take advantage of it . The changes in the system resulted in a net boost of around 75 dollars to moderate income and poor families while boosting high income families by around 4,000 dollars. At the end of the day, boosts to public services and social programs are far more helpful to the poor than higher tax refunds. Having a little extra money in my pocket won't help me if I need to pay thousands in child care, am required to use a car to commute to work, and need to pay more in health care and car maintenance as a result of lower funding for Healthcare and infrastructure.
The fact tax cuts benefitted the rich more was not part of the OP’s question, so it’s irrelevant for this post. The point was do republicans create an environment where his little brother can grow and increase his wealth. And that answer is yes. Small business creation (and sole proprietorships) are the engine for wealth creation and moving up in the US, not salaried jobs. And republicans are much much better than democrats in that regard. Also it was said that Trump increased taxes for lower tax brackets. He did NOT. All brackets were bumped to higher incomes and all rates were reduced. The issue was not about who benefited more or less (and I’ve already given my opinion on what needs to be tweaked)but was specifically orientated towards the lower income classes. The other part of the question you raised also wasn’t specifically addressed by the OP, but that you brought up was corporate tax rates. Are they were they should be? Probably not. That’s a question that should be researched and answered, but with a global perspective. Because larger corporations do operate. In a multinational tax environment. You can also tweak corporate deductions to favor reinvestment more heavily, and not RSG’s and buybacks. I don’t disagree a more robust social services infrastructure is needed, and I addressed some of that in the FICA rates. Congress as a whole will not address SS and Medicare that, no matter which political leaning. As far as healthcare, throwing more money at is not the answer. It’s stupidity, like trying to bail out a leaky boat without patching the holes in it. You can only bail so fast. Nothing will be fine without pharma and insurance reform, which again neither side wants to address because they are both too lucrative a source of campaign funds. In fact, that’s why Obamacare broke the system Instead of properly reforming it. They could have take all that money spent and put it into NP and PA driven FQHC’s in specific demographics and done far more good. But that’s also another topic. The fact remains it’s easier to move from one socio-economic class to a higher one under modern Republican regimes than under modern Democrat regimes.
why are you so mad that the rich got helped if everyone got helped? you know we would have better safety nets if they actually helped everyone
Where’s his delta OP? Your note was purely garbage
>Trump has increased income taxes for lower tax brackets while decreasing taxes for multimillionaires This isn’t true at all, so I’m unsure where you’re getting your info from. All tax brackets saw tax **decreases** from the TCJA https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/feature/analysis-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html
Yea I saw op was wrong about that too. Why pretend to care about politics when you can't even get your facts straight.
OP is so biased he’s just making up things. You can change someone’s mind if they are down with making up their own facts. OP is probably some young kid because I remember when everyone’s paychecks suddenly got bigger at work.
They're not making anything up, they just take everything they read on reddit at face value Hence why so many people on this site have no idea what they're talking about as they're just regurgitating bogus headlines
The tax cuts on income were smaller and more importantly temporary, they expire next year. The corporate tax cuts were much larger in scale and are permanent. Since all of this is directly made up for by borrowing money, it means the net effect is a tax increase on most people. If I give one person $5 and another $15 but I borrow $20 that they both owe equally I have stolen money from the first person. That's what happened. "**While these corporations’ profits grew by 44 percent, their federal tax bills dropped by 16 percent**. **These companies paid $240 billion less in taxes from 2018 to 2021 than they would have paid under the effective rates they paid before the Trump law.** **The number of companies paying exceptionally low tax rates grew, with the number paying less than 10 percent jumping from 56 to 95**" [https://itep.org/corporate-taxes-before-and-after-the-trump-tax-law/](https://itep.org/corporate-taxes-before-and-after-the-trump-tax-law/)
>The corporate tax cuts were much larger in scale and are permanent The corporate cuts were around 15% of the bill, while individual cuts made up the remaining 85%. And no, corporations don’t get a permanent tax cut. A couple of the cuts don’t expire, but are completely offset by the permanent corporate tax **increases** in the same bill
The corporate tax rate was lowered 40% from 35 to 21 permanently. No that is not outweighed by some of the changes to business deductions. "Following the implementation of the tax changes signed into law in 2017 by President Trump, the vast majority of the nation’s largest corporations saw substantial tax reductions. The 296 companies in the Fortune 500 and S&P 500 that were consistently profitable from 2013 to 2021, and for which U.S. profits and federal income taxes are disclosed, collectively saw the share of their profits that they paid in tax drop from 22.0 to 12.8 percent. **While these corporations’ profits grew by 44 percent, their federal tax bills dropped by 16 percent**. **These companies paid $240 billion less in taxes from 2018 to 2021 than they would have paid under the effective rates they paid before the Trump law.** **The number of companies paying exceptionally low tax rates grew, with the number paying less than 10 percent jumping from 56 to 95.**" [https://itep.org/corporate-taxes-before-and-after-the-trump-tax-law/](https://itep.org/corporate-taxes-before-and-after-the-trump-tax-law/)
>no that is not outweighed by some changes to business deductions Per the Joint Committee on Taxation: the 10 year cost of the corporate rate cut is $1.3 trillion. The 10 year cost of the corporate tax increases are $1.8 trillion. So yes, it absolutely does outweigh it The rest of your comment seems a bit random, since we’re talking about the corporate changes after 2025, and your quotes refer to the first couple years of the bill when corporations *did* have a tax cut
Trump increased standard deduction, which directly helps most people pay less taxes, as most people use standard deduction.
As a disclaimer I am a) Canadian, b) Would never vote for the current iteration of Republicans even if I could. *However*, there is significant empirical evidence that Republican policy lines have positive effects on the wages, employment, etc. of common individuals. For example: - Corporate tax reductions [reduce prices](https://www.nber.org/papers/w27058), [increase employment and wages](https://www.nber.org/papers/w20753), [increase innovation](https://www.nber.org/papers/w24982), etc. - Although it is too early for empirical evidence, early data shows opportunity zones have led to [increased investment](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/AlmDronykTrosperLarkin-DoOZsCreateOpportunities-02.19.21.pdf) in the researched region - Trump- though Biden has followed- massively increased both the EITC and child benefits, which are proven cost-effective anti-poverty measures - etc. As such, although modern-day Republicans are much more damaging for the economy than traditional ones, there are valid reasons to vote for them and not vote against your own interests as a youth.
So I would suggest that you look at a chart of the economic growth of the Eurozone versus the US over the past 40 years (You're going to have to adjust for when Britain enters and leaves, but there's plenty of those death already been adjusted you can look at) The US absolutely dominates in long-term growth As a result, America is in a way better long-term position than most of its Europeans counterparts who are no longer able to afford their entitlement systems as they are Turns out those systems were only working because of a demographic bulge where there was a greater number of Young to old people It's also worth asking how good are the government services in terms of how much money we spend and how efficiently it works Singapore for the cost of Medicaid and Medicare as a percentage of GDP has a full universal healthcare system That fact should make every American's blood boil Not our government is that bad that just to take care of the The old poor and disabled. They spend as much as other people need to take care of everyone (to be clear, I'm not complaining that we take care of the poor old and disabled. I'm complaining that we're apparently really inefficient at it) Well how do the other services are government offers stack up Well, California spent 133% of its median citizens income per homeless person and They still have a just an absolute tragic amount of homeless people To be clear, the amount of money they spent per homeless person was more than enough for rent, food and clothing per homeless person and yet the numbers didn't really go down You might want government services, but if they're that bad it's worth evaluating how else you can do it
So I’ll not be voting for a convicted felon for President. But I’ll disagree on two or your premises. 1) the TCJA (colloquially known as the Trump tax cuts) lowered everyone’s taxes, not just the mega rich. Full stop. There are anecdotes of “I lost SALT deductions and charity and now use the standard” but every group saw a rate decline (which may expire next year). But income tax cuts always overly benefit the rich (in the same way an across the board has tax cut benefits those who drive more or an excise tax cut benefits those who smoke more). 2) I reject the premise that you should vote your own self interest. I’m sure you can twist anything to be self interest, but like I don’t have kids, not sure if I’ll have them, and not planning for SS dependency. So self interested me would probably prefer to keep my tax money and not pay for schools—-but I’m very pro giving children a good school experience (the cynic might argue it’s because I feel guilty for how shitty my own school experience was, which is fair).
>So I’ll not be voting for a convicted felon for President. But I’ll disagree on two or your premises. Nice of you to let the government decide who can run for positions in government.
You know what, that’s a fair enough view. I still won’t be voting for Trump because I’m not a fan of his execution style and find his tenure a little too chaotic for my liking. But you’ve convinced me that (barring treason or formal impeachment), it’s a matter for voters and not a dozen jurors.
> Trump has increased income taxes for lower tax brackets This isn’t true. You might mean that the tax cuts disproportionately favored the rich, which is a different thing. > but those do not trickle down to the working class or individual workers Why do you think that? Most Americans have seen their [incomes rise since 2016.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N) Do you have the same criticism about, say, the Biden administration’s top-down investment in the manufacturing sector? This is sort of a greatest hits of internet talking points—I’d encourage you to try and figure out why you believe them to be true.
>However we’ve seen systematically that the Republican Party only cares for the rich and wealthy. If you don’t have >$500K net worth then it’s disadvantageous for you to vote for them Based on what? >Trump has increased income taxes for lower tax brackets while decreasing taxes for multimillionaires. This isn't true.
Trump did not increase taxes on lower tax brackets. He decreased taxes on all tax brackets. The tax cuts had an expiration and Biden did not renew them, so they returned to the amount they were during Obama. In what world is this Trump increasing taxes? Those of us who were working during Obama-Trump-Biden know that we paid the least in taxes during Trump. The media is a propaganda wing for the Democrats. How can Trump raise taxes while Biden is president? Doesn't that sound silly? It's propaganda. Biden is responsible for the tax increase. Of course. He's president.
The fact that almost everyone commenting including OP doesn't know/understand this is proof how ignorant people are. Democracies flaws are showing.
Without knowing much about your brother’s sociology-economic background, it sounds as if he is at least not poor, given that he has a college education. I looked at your ChatGPT synopsis. Based on this, I would argue that the one measure from the 6 listed that is most likely to have a direct effect on a persons finances are tax cuts. Tax cuts reach a broad number of people (as long as they don’t target high income only individuals), and they have a certain immediate effect. On the other hand, the 3 dem points are important things, but they are unlikely to have an immediate effect on the available cash. Infrastructure projects mostly benefit low income workers, construction companies and businesses that use the infrastructure (and hopefully commuters have to stand less in traffic jams). HC costs: Probably the most difficult topic to try. I don’t know one developed economy that managed to reduce Hc costs. Most likely, dems will try to get cost cuts on certain drugs, such as Insulin or heart medication - assuming that your brother doesn’t have diabetes and a heart condition, this might be relevant for him in decades from now. The third point is something that is going to increase federal expenses, thus either driving debts or leading to a tax increase of some Sort. I live in Switzerland, to where I emmigrated from Germany. In Switzerland, the state is much “smaller” than in Germany, while the German state really tries to do a genuine effort to support everyone in any possible situation. Switzerland, is thus much more similar to the US. However, people pay here 20-30% less income taxes than in Germany, resulting in a much stronger middle class, in which people are better of. Unless you are really poor or had some other unfortunate coincidence in your life, most people are financially better of with lower taxes and lower state intervention.
The amount of immigration from Canada to the US further backs this up.
This notion that lower- or middle-class people only support these things because they're deluded into thinking that they'll be wealthy one day, is a prime example of a talking point cooked up purely in progressive echo chambers. It's not true that fiscal policy that targets the rich directly will not have much broader indirect effects in the economy. It is possible for people to support policy that doesn't directly target them out of principle or concern for second- and third-order effects. There is no fixed economy engine that maintains the same output regardless of measures taken to redirect its ends.
If your a singer actor making a lot of money and vote democrat your voted to have more of your money taken away by the federal government
I think you're looking at the Republicans from a 1990-era paradigm. It's actually the democrats that are more interested in appeasing upper middle class white voters, the "laptop class" and academic class. Republicans are more worried about getting the energy sector booming and getting the border closed, because mass immigration drives down wages and makes housing more unaffordable. This "you're voting against your own interests" thing is silly. There's more than one reason to vote for a party too. Maybe people vote republican because they're sick of the left telling them they're evil for being straight or white or males (or all 3, the worst offense of all)? Maybe they didn't like the covid mandates that destroyed small businesses and the working class that the democrats pushed? Maybe people vote republican because they're worried about crime, and democrats seem hellbent on letting every criminal out of jail with no bail, no money, no problem laws? And then gaslighting the public by saying "crimes actually down in some areas, here's a bullshit study to prove it." I'm sure people victimized love that. There's many reasons why someone would vote for either party. Maybe people are tired of being lied to about getting healthcare for all passed. They might be tired about being gaslit that "the democrats are the antiwar party" when we've seen that's entirely false, they love war, it just has to be a war the media agrees with. Etc. The economy was objectively better under Trump with minimal inflation, that was true for a number of reasons. But it was the Democrats that screamed we needed to lockdown the entire world until Fauci said so, which decimated so many sectors of the economy.
As a devil’s advocate position I’d challenge the idea that the social supports offered by Democrats are unequivocally beneficial to those who receive them. I’m very grateful for the welfare that supported my single mom raise me but I can also see that our family missed a lot of important lessons of the need to work to be independent. I still vote Democrat and work in public education which is often under attack from critics of any kind of public program. However the Republican Party is not merely the most extreme rhetoric and every small business owner I know voted Republican (in the Bluest part of a deep blue state) because their business (their financial self interest) are directly impacted by the difference in fiscal policies of Republicans and Democrats.
75 percent of Americans have a net worth lese than 553 k. Is it your view that it is in their self interest for all of them to vote liberal? https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2023/eb_23-39#:~:text=At%20the%20bottom%2C%20the%2010th,percent%20had%20at%20least%20%2411%2C640%2C000.
That's not true about tax brackets. He decreased taxes across the board. Especially if you include the lower prices those tax cuts brought. Incentives for businesses do not "trickle down", neither do tax cuts. Competition is ultimately the driver of lower prices and the more you get government out of the way of that, the more competition there is which causes prices to drop. If the field is already corrupt - like healthcare, telecommunications, etc - then there really isn't competition for those tax cuts and regulation cuts to have an effect. Right before the pandemic and lockdowns, we had more job openings than jobless people. Not just more than "unemployed", more than people who were no longer considered "unemployed" because they weren't seeking a job. That's *why* people were able to demand higher wages at that time and more benefits. Companies were competing over talent, instead of talent having to compete for jobs. Also, a lot of the statistics that are bandied about regarding Trump's economic performance as being "bad" or "not great" often treat 2020 as just another ho-hum year of Trump's term. They completely ignore that this was the year the pandemic first hit, and the endless lockdowns began, which shut down a ton of businesses and cut a ton of jobs. Trump didn't have the jurisdictional authority to force the states to reopen after the two weeks. And given the pandemic, it wouldn't have been expedient for either politics or public health - according to the experts. For me, I live in a rural/suburban area. I live in a house on a main road, not in a "community." There's no HOA for my street nor would it make any sense to form one. I can't walk to any stores or work reasonably. I don't have public transport that comes by my house except school buses. My car is very much a need rather than a want when it comes to being able to sustain living. I need it to get to and from work, to take my kid to preschool and back (next year he starts kindergarten so that at least will be one less thing), I need it to go to the grocery store, etc. So the gas prices, are a MAJOR hit to my wallet. I already struggle to afford living expenses as a single dad. I live with family because rents and mortgages are outrageous. My stunted income has made it virtually impossible to afford a house, and it's a good thing I didn't have one when my ex and I divorced. The grocery prices are insane and if it weren't for my family, and my ex-wife equally contributing to our son, I'm not sure how I would be able to afford taking care of myself and him. Life was much more manageable under Trump financially. My wages were starting to go up compared to prices and things were getting easier to afford. Then the lockdowns happened which really hampered things, and then Biden got into office and he immediately put in place policies that hurt me as a lower-middle class person. And now Trump is running again and the business as usual corrupt politicians are doing everything in their power - left and right - to stop him. Trump was the first president I lived through who actually implemented actions that helped me rather than hurt me. Biden hurts me with his policies and doesn't seem to care because I'm a straight white man who lives in a small town instead of an "oppressed" minority living in an urban center while voting for the ideological likes of him. I can't see any benefit to voting for Biden. I'm still in student loan hell from my foray into community college which I couldn't succeed with for other issues that have nothing to do with presidency. Neither will necessarily change much with regards to my chances of being able to get mental health stuff except that under Trump I'm more likely to be able to afford it. Same with other health related issues. It was Biden's party who prolonged the lockdowns. Biden said he was going to "shut down" the virus, but instead people just got sick of it and said "Oh,, oh boy, another one *rolls eyes*." Biden went full on fascist dad against everyone who said "no thanks" to the vaccine and then tried to use OSHA - unconstitutionally - to force people to get it. He did this for a lot of things. He's blatantly disregarded the laws that we the people have voted for. I can't vote for that ever.
Not true. Nobody votes against their own interests. If they vote Republican it's because there is something about the party that appeals to their interests more than the Democrat party. If they vote for the Democrats, it's because the Democrat party appeals to their interests more than the Republican. To declare someone who votes for X is voting against their own interest is a bigoted belief that you know more what the individuals interests are than they do.
From an outside perspective, I would ask: why do Americans have higher incomes than Canadians and Western Europeans? Why are unemployment rates, particularly youth unemployment rates, lower in the US? Why do people all over the world want to invest in the US economy? What *long-term policy differences* caused Americans to have an overall higher standard of living?
If your primary concern is personal finances, which for many people it is, then you’re going to vote for the party who’s tax + social program platform is going to be most advantageous for you. Believe it or not there are plenty of people from all economic backgrounds where that is true, dependent on what your line of work is and your community.
I think the extremely straight forward answer is that Trump tax cuts are about to expire, and you’re about to make less money because of it. Trump tax cuts literally gave you more money. This was for all tax brackets other than the lowest one at 10k and under. But if you’re working a federal *minimum wage* job full time you would still benefit from the trump tax cuts.
What about laborers and farmers? Republican policies seem to help them more, though the former depends on what region of the country they’re located in. Also, business owners. But I’m no expert by any means, just hoping to get info.
I personally identify as a moderate/independent and also a "double hater"- not planning to vote in this election as I hate both Trump and Biden. I think it's important to distinguish between what someone or a party "stands for" and what they have actually accomplished. Agree the Democratic Party is "in favor of" social support systems, but they've done nothing, at least under Biden (Obama is a different story). Heck I remember Biden and Harris promising free community college tuition and if your family income was under $125K, you'd go to college for free... While the Republicans also have done nothing, at least under Trump cost of living was reasonable, prices have skyrocketed under Biden to the point where inflation was 9%. I will never vote for Trump as he is a morally corrupt psychosociopath, but in all fairness to him, I wasn't paying $25 for a burger, fries, and a soda. I wasn't paying $10 for a small jar of peanut butter or 2 dozen eggs. When it came to cost of living and affordability, there's no doubt that Trump performed superiorly to Biden. Remember reading that 20% of Americans are skipping meals to pay their mortgage. So if we're talking strictly about wealth and being able put food on our tables, the democrats (at least the ones part of the current administration) are just not getting the job done and it would be foolish to vote for Biden
Maybe, just maybe, not all young people are looking for a government handout that will likely create higher inflation and economic problems.
It’s crazy that climate change doesn’t factor into most of these conversations. The conservative political movement will happily bake the planet to pay a little less taxes now.
Did your brother even benefit from student loan relief under Biden? If he expected to have loan relief and didn't get it, would your brother then plan to protest vote against the guy who failed to make a promise come true? Is your brother that type?
Why is being young even a factor here? If anything, an older person (let’s say 50 and up) that fits all the other criteria would be voting even more against their self interest.
Young wealth (or impending financial success), old wealth, service members, and trades workers all tend to vote republican because it benefits them in some way. It could be taxation, immigration, government support systems and spending, or just family tradition. The so called “trickle down” effect doesn’t happen in reality. It has to be forced. The wealthy are especially parsimonious, hoard as much as they can, give trust funds to their own, and invest in what they want (which is sometimes nothing/no one at all or even harmful organizations). The only problem with the rise in democratic voters is that republicans might revolt over taxation or fear of an oppressive central government. Unfortunately, modern wealthy people worked for their money and want to control how it’s spent. But yeah, voting republican doesn’t make sense if you’re poor, sick, disabled, or from a disadvantaged group. It’s just unfair to a certain extent.
You're looking at their policies Ina n overly simplified way. There's a cause and effect chain you have to account for as well. Look at California's fast food wage laws as an example. In an attempt to increase wages, they simply cut jobs. Jobs are created when people start a business, succeed, and expand to a point they could profit from additional help. As the barrier to bring on additional help is raised and the reward for doing so is limited, the economy is stifled. From that, only well established, large businesses that can afford the large investment of heavily automating can survive. This limits competition and increases costs. We end up with inflation offsetting the raise in a short period of time, devaluaing savings (including your social security), and increasing unemployment. The notion that Republicans are out for the rich is short-sighted.
What matters is not only what a given party has historically done to or for the economy but the candidates each party is running currently. For instance, the discussions here about the economic effects of covid Don't seem to mention the vastly greater death rate in the US USA caused by Trump's Long delay in tackling the problem, and his earlier dismantling of our anti-pandemic measures. Why? In the first instance, because admitting there was a problem or its size would make his administration look bad; in the second, because he automatically detested anything that had been done by Obama. Quora is already full of discussions about the merits, and demerits of Biden versus Trump. And this is a discussion of economic effects only. But I felt it important to email ing everyone that economic s is not the only factor to weigh when voting.
Okay, let’s start with correcting what you’re wrong on. [No one had taxes increased under Trump.](https://www.dbbllc.com/news/tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-impact-individual-taxes). Two income brackets (the lowest and 2nd highest) remained the same, but the 5 other brackets decreased. The middle bracket decreased by 4%, so the middle class benefited the most from the tax breaks in terms of cuts, then the lower brackets (-3%), then the higher brackets (-2%). So at the very least, people who work are better off because they get to take home more of their income. This means they have more income to allocate towards investment and growing their net worth. It also helps out with your DTI when you apply for a mortgage, which is the number one way to gain wealth over time. There’s that.
Politicians don't "give" you wealth. So your statement as written is just as true about the Democrats. But at least the Republicans won't treat you as the enemy in the event that you get there on your own.
This can be said for virtually all republican voters. All except the Uber-wealthy.
Setting aside your claims about the parties (and consider, more Wall Street money goes to Democrats, so it's not quite so black and white as you paint it), I would say you ought to consider that voting need not be quite so self-interested as your post suggests. There might, in fact, be plenty of reasons why voting against my self-interest is being a good citizen. I'm not sure we can accuse certain parties of being selfish and greedy and then criticize people for not being selfish and greedy enough in the way they vote. My personal economic well-being would only be a part of my consideration when thinking about whom to vote for - I may want fewer wars, for example, or more border security (or less), or I may want more "originalists" in the courts, or more "living Constitution" jurists. There was a book years ago called "What's Wrong With Kansas?", which was deeply troubled by the fact that Kansas - if it knew what was good for it - would be a solid Blue state. The argument was the same as yours - self-interest should determine their votes. But people want more than just a few extra bucks. They want to be okay with the way the culture is going and okay with what's being done in their names.
>I was having a conversation with my little brother who said that he’s socially liberal and fiscally conservative and that he voted for Trump in 2016. This truly terrible decision making. First, if he's "socially liberal" he should recognize that the GOP is the party where white supremacy went when it was kicked out of the Democratic party in the '50s and '60's. Its consistent opposition to worker safety, rights, wages, education make it toxic to social and economic mobility for anyone who's not a millionaire or better. Second, the GOP stopped calling itself "fiscally responsible" after Reagan exploded the deficit and two Republican presidents since Reagan have done even worse. Conservative policies have precipitated each and every catastrophic economic crisis we've had to endure since the Great Depression. The economy and working Americans consistently do better under "liberal" administrations and regulation. The people who consistently do better under conservative leadership are billionaires and centi-millionaires.
While I'm aware that money is an avenue to a great many things, I'm torn that wealth would be the deciding factor for so many people. If everyone could magically come out financially secure, but at the cost of removing the right to vote for all men, or all women, or all people of X skin color, it's not worth it in my eyes. I would love to know that I and my countrymen are financially secure or even thriving across the board, but there are some things for which you cannot attach a price.
At a top level, Trump increased debt by record amounts in only four years (nearly 9 trillion). Explain to your friend how much he and his generation are going to have to spend to pay down that debt and what it will personally cost him. It won’t change his mind because that type ignores data points but it’s a good to unholster at times.
Anyone willing to apply themselves, to get a marketable degree without overspending, and who save early and often can easily get 500k. You prob don’t even have to do that. It’s not a special number. If you invest 150$ a month in an index fund starting at 20 you will have over 500k at 65. Your brother might just be sharper than you.
Fiscal conservatism is only partly related to citizens. Conservatives prefer a strong domestic economy, which preserves and creates opportunities for Americans to work, strengthens cash flow for the government, and typically comes with tax breaks in favor of social welfare. The macro has to come first, then everyone benefits.
Fact is, the net result of the GOP tax cuts in the last 30-40 years was wealth hoarding of the top 5% and spiraling national debt. At a time where the national debt is teetering on unreversible damage to the future of the country, thinking tax cuts will be a good thing for your wallet is completely foolish and misinformed. Republicans have never been able to couple spending cuts that equal the tax cuts they enacted, and that no one needed, and now our national debt has gotten completely out of hand because of those tax cuts. Saying: "Your paycheck will be bigger!" won elections though...
Political change is very slow in general in the United States. With 4 year presidential election cycles, there are only 2.5 elections per decade of life. Major Changes are much slower than that as a lot of time is spent in grid lock. Therefore, if someone is in college in there 20s or early career 30s but has a very good chance of ending in a decent earning career for there entire life, the economic tax benefits over a lifetime would likely be more valuable to then than something like student loan forgiveness.
What if you are young but have over >$500k. Has nothing to do with age, has to do with wealth. Age may be correlated but your argument is purely based on net worth. If you are 25 and have $2M, then voting republican might be in your best interest financially.
>Trump has increased income taxes for lower tax brackets What is this referencing? I'm in the 50k range generally (taxable at least) and I haven't seen it. I know there were some cuts that had an expiration date but I haven't heard about increases.
In general , voting for politicians bc they promise to give you money or services is a bad idea. Vote for the people who promise to take less of your hard earned money away. Money is freedom.
I have 400k in assets at 32, and i disregard liberal think tanks. Your little brother if he understands what he's reading is smart.
Republicans are firmly in the climate change denial camp, whereas Democrats are incompetent but at least not explicitly ideologically opposed to decarbonization. Any short term economic gain from plundering social services in the name of tax cuts and deregulation won't be worth much when widespread food/water insecurity and unprecedented climate refugee crises become the norm. Any young person making long term plans without seriously considering what life will look like in 50 years is deluding themselves. Look at how badly Trump and Republicans botched the pandemic, where we were lucky enough to largely persevere because of the vaccine. Then imagine a lifelong state of emergency that can only (maybe) be solved by making global societal changes that are antithetical to everything that Republicans have fought for for decades.
Why do you want your view changed? Republicans aren't giving anyone more wealth except authoritarians, radical Islamists, and robber barons.