When looking at tax plans, more needs to be considered than just the national debt. That includes the position of the country (a booming economy can afford higher taxes while a slumping economy typically reduces taxes to promote growth) and the effects that those plans will have on growth, investment etc.

Now unfortunately the Tax Policy Center has yet to release an analysis of Trump's updated proposal, however they have released a very in depth and very interesting (are macroeconomics interesting to people?) report on Trump's original tax plan.

A basic summary is that, while tax cuts brought on by spending cuts can increase growth, the large debt that would be incurred due to these plans would largely offset this growth, and because this deficit is unsustainable, necessary future increases in taxes to compensate could leave us in an even worse position than where we started in terms of GNP with a significantly higher national debt.

I doubt that the changes to Trump's tax plan were large enough to counteract these issues, however I will defer judgement until I see further information.

The best part is how naive people really are. Do you really think any president has ever had an impact on the economy? The Federal Reserve is the sole reason we have a good economy or a shitty one, no president can claim that in modern history. So saying that Trump is going to be "better" than Clinton for the economy is a lie. Neither one is going to matter in the end.

Obama has added 8 trillion, so lol GBush added 5 trillion....sounds normal

Obama will add 9-10 trillion by the time he has left and that is with no massive government spending programs since 2010.

Trump policies are wacky

However Hillary plays to spend a ton of money, I wonder how many trillions will they bring it.

Voting Clinton is choosing to be punched in the balls.
Voting Trump is choosing to be stabbed.


I think I'd choose the massage of Gary Johnson or the blow job of Jill Stein.

As a lot of people are comparing Obama's debt to Trump's projected debt, I wanted to make a quick comment. The projections such as the ones you see in this thread's, discuss change in projected debt, not total change in debt. There is a pretty big sizable difference between those two things, especially when you look at Obama's presidency.

Due to the state of the country when Obama came into office, between the War on Terror and the recession, our debt was skyrocketing, which is a large part of why national debt increased by so much over the course of his presidency (about $7tril if you account for all of his budgets). However, if you account for the impact that he actually had through legislation, Obama's debt contribution was actually about $1 trillion.

So what does this mean for Trump? Well a lot of Obama's debt was frontloaded so projections for the next 10 years are a lot lower than they were in 2008. That said, debt is still increasing. If it were to stay on the current path, debt would be at about $ 23 trillion in ten years. Trump's plans project to increase that by about $ 5 trillion, which means that total debt would increase by $ 8 trillion over the course of his presidency.

Saying that Trump's plan is just more of what we saw from Obama isn't really true, as Obama came in with rapidly increasing debt and made that a lot lower by the time he left (though worth noting that this was partly due to the deescalation of the war in Iraq as well as a natural bounce back of the economy, which is why his plans didn't "reduce debt") while Trump will be coming in with more slowly increasing debt and making that a lot higher by the time he leaves (assuming his plans pass).

Now what about Clinton's debt? Well pretty much all of her spending is actually covered by tax increases, so we are likely to remain on largely the same trajectory as we are on now. The deficit will continue to increase, but Clinton's impact on the debt will be around $0 (again, assuming her plans pass).

Sources: https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293
http://crfb.org/papers/promises-and-price-tags-preliminary-update

How can you say Hillary plans will be paid through tax increases?

How many Western governments have increased taxes on the rich and met the revenue projections?

I am not against raising taxes for the rich but I find that talking point 'pants on fire lie'


Yes Hillary plans wont be disastrous as Trump but to suggest a massive amount of increased government spending wont increase the debt by a penny is a absurd claim.

The debt level in the later years of Obama years has not increased because there has not been no large government spending plans at all lately and add in entitlement spending increases things will not be easy. 

I did provide a link which you are free to peruse. Her tax increases are projected to generate 1.55trillion which is roughly how much all of her other programs will cost (Figure 4 is a good breakdown).

And again, its worth noting that it technically will increase the national debt, just not above current projections.

Trump's plan is to reduce the number of brackets down to 3, and reduce the marginal rates (top down from 39.6% to 33%). He has said this can be afforded by eliminating certain tax credits / deductions, and capping others - not that he's actually pointed out what those are.

If he's being honest about the reduction/elimination of tax deductions, it could come out as a net wash in terms of revenues. (Afterall, if marginal rates are ~40% and billionaires are paying under 20%, there's some serious deductions that can be eliminated or capped). It has the added benefit of reducing the complexity of taxes - a complexity which is unique to America (for middle-class filers).

I'm not so sure you can trust him on that though, seeing as (I don't think) he's given any specifics, and I've actually seen him propose more deductions for childcare. So, yeah...

---------

As for the calculations in the article, ridiculous. It's impossible knowledge. Too many variables, too many assumed actions.

Warren if free to donate what ever he wants to the government. its allowed and they have a process for it in place alread. By saying it only it shows what he really wants. Big government that can be used to their advantage. Dont judge people by what they say, actions speak far louder. In fact anyone on the left that feels the government should tax them more, or that the government is best at helping people can freely donate what ever they want to the US government. There is nothing stopping them, nothing at all, the choice is all theirs. But they can't force others to do it, which is what they want.

Actual businesses sup[port Trump. You know small businesses. The pnes that keep people employed, the ones that actually make a product or service. You know what they say, those can do, and those that can't teach. Maybe thats why all these professors cant see the light, no experience in the real world. Many things look great on paper, especially when you dont actually have to show they work in real life with how real people will react to them. I mean look at cities run by the dems, less poor, less violence, more success right?