4 ms·

Is this calculator accurate? It seems everyone no matter the income seems to benefit somehow. Or is it that Trump, like Reagan, is about to grow the US debt by

Is this calculator accurate? It seems everyone no matter the income seems to benefit somehow. Or is it that Trump, like Reagan, is about to grow the US debt by untold amounts?

adventured 9y ago
I'm not sure what the point of the Reagan debt reference is, Obama's eight years by far holds the record for the greatest public debt accumulation in US history, and that was accomplished just through sheer spending irresponsibility. The US is heading toward trillion dollar deficits no matter. There's absolutely nothing that can stop that, unless someone wants to dramatically slash entitlements - which is never going to happen. You can't raise taxes on the rich enough to find $1 trillion in new revenue. To plug the hole with tax revenue, it'll be necessary to dramatically raise taxes on everyone in the top 50% income wise, matching what other advanced welfare states do in taxing the middle class a lot more by necessity to pay for entitlements. The annual tax cut cost is going to be about $150 billion per year, roughly $1.5 trillion over the next ten years, assuming mediocre revenue gains from it. The eight Obama years added about $9 trillion in new public debt, and the US got absolutely nothing from that vast fiscal destruction (other than further eroded infrastructure, a mostly horrible healthcare plan, a trillion dollars in new student debt, zero gain in the median American net worth figure, and the greatest wealth gains in US history by the rich). You can't actually think $150 billion per year matters any longer. It's dramatically beyond game over for the US fiscally. Nobody even dares to bring up the idea of paying down the debt now. It's the Japan debt scenario full steam ahead, $30 trillion in public debt by 2027 no matter what happens. That means permanently low Fed rates, because the US will never be able to afford the interest on $30+ trillion otherwise. I'll take the 20% corporate income tax rate in exchange for the $150 billion per year cost (plus the big jump in the standard deduction); the $150 billion thrown onto the burning fiscal picture that started with the Bush years, got dramatically worse with the Obama years, and is going to continue through the Trump years, is simply meaningless at this point.
- jrs95 9y ago
  Ryan actually just announced entitlement reform is something they're going to attempt in 2018. It seems like it would be very difficult, but there is some chance that those will have substantial long term cuts. As for the Reagan reference in the parent comment, that's sort of a common comparison to criticize Republican tax (and often defense) policy since the 80s. There is somewhat of a common trend of cutting taxes far more than spending and increasing military expenditures simultaneously. Bush was a much worse offender here though, with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Is this calculator accurate? It seems everyone no matter the income seems to benefit somehow. Or is it that Trump, like Reagan, is about to grow the US debt by untold amounts?

adventured 9y ago

I'm not sure what the point of the Reagan debt reference is, Obama's eight years by far holds the record for the greatest public debt accumulation in US history, and that was accomplished just through sheer spending irresponsibility. The US is heading toward trillion dollar deficits no matter. There's absolutely nothing that can stop that, unless someone wants to dramatically slash entitlements - which is never going to happen. You can't raise taxes on the rich enough to find $1 trillion in new revenue. To plug the hole with tax revenue, it'll be necessary to dramatically raise taxes on everyone in the top 50% income wise, matching what other advanced welfare states do in taxing the middle class a lot more by necessity to pay for entitlements. The annual tax cut cost is going to be about $150 billion per year, roughly $1.5 trillion over the next ten years, assuming mediocre revenue gains from it. The eight Obama years added about $9 trillion in new public debt, and the US got absolutely nothing from that vast fiscal destruction (other than further eroded infrastructure, a mostly horrible healthcare plan, a trillion dollars in new student debt, zero gain in the median American net worth figure, and the greatest wealth gains in US history by the rich). You can't actually think $150 billion per year matters any longer. It's dramatically beyond game over for the US fiscally. Nobody even dares to bring up the idea of paying down the debt now. It's the Japan debt scenario full steam ahead, $30 trillion in public debt by 2027 no matter what happens. That means permanently low Fed rates, because the US will never be able to afford the interest on $30+ trillion otherwise. I'll take the 20% corporate income tax rate in exchange for the $150 billion per year cost (plus the big jump in the standard deduction); the $150 billion thrown onto the burning fiscal picture that started with the Bush years, got dramatically worse with the Obama years, and is going to continue through the Trump years, is simply meaningless at this point.

jrs95 9y ago
Ryan actually just announced entitlement reform is something they're going to attempt in 2018. It seems like it would be very difficult, but there is some chance that those will have substantial long term cuts. As for the Reagan reference in the parent comment, that's sort of a common comparison to criticize Republican tax (and often defense) policy since the 80s. There is somewhat of a common trend of cutting taxes far more than spending and increasing military expenditures simultaneously. Bush was a much worse offender here though, with Iraq and Afghanistan.