Conservatives who for 8 years have (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ed and squawked about the debt run up from the deficits Obama inherited have yet another double standard to ignore if they support Donald. His fiscal plans will add trillions more to the debt than Clinton's, according to several new analyses. They also demonstrate that despite Donald successfully conning millions into believing he is somehow against the establishment, his tax plans would greatly benefit the richest while Clinton's plans would mostly fall on the richest. Excerpts from three articles out in the last couple days: In a Forbes article today, titled: Trump Tax Plan Would Add Trillions To Debt; Clinton Plan Would Trim Deficits, Hike Taxes On Wealthy, reported on Tax Policy Center analyses of Donald's and Clinton's plans, and concluded: Clinton has proposed a significant tax increase on high- income households and businesses. Trump’s plan, while less ambitious than the version he released in 2015, would still largely benefit high-income households and result in a substantial boost in the federal debt. Trump’s latest plan would reduce federal revenues by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, with nearly half of the tax cuts going to the highest-income one percent of households. Clinton, by contrast, would boost federal revenue by $1.4 trillion over the next decade, with the bottom 80 percent of households receiving tax cuts and the top one percent paying over 90 percent of the net tax increase. ... With added interest, the Trump plan would add about $7.2 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Because Clinton’s tax plan would reduce interest costs, it would trim the debt by $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years (though her spending proposals would likely soak up much of that revenue). ... Under Trump’s plan, households would receive an average tax cut of about $3,000 in 2017, or 4.1 percent of after-tax income. While all income groups would get a tax cut on average, those in the top 1 percent would enjoy a tax cut of nearly $215,000—a 13.5 percent increase in their after-tax income. Middle-income households would receive a tax cut averaging about $1,000, or 1.8 percent of their after-tax income and low-income households would get a tax reduction of about $100, boosting their after-tax income by 0.8 percent. However, some single parents and large families would pay higher taxes under Trump’s proposal than they do today. http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway...d-trim-deficits-tax-the-wealthy/#7a71d594195f +++ And from the WSJ: A report from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, finds Mrs. Clinton’s proposed tax increases, primarily on businesses and the wealthiest American households, would cover most of the cost of $1.65 trillion in new proposed spending over the next decade, including $500 billion on college education and $300 billion each on infrastructure and paid family leave. The report finds that Mr. Trump, on the other hand, would cut spending by around $1.2 trillion over the next decade while reducing revenues by $5.8 trillion through his plans to cut taxes and repeal other taxes imposed by the Affordable Care Act. ... Including the costs of additional federal borrowing from Mr. Trump’s plans, the national debt would rise by $5.3 trillion over a decade relative to current policy, pushing the debt-to-GDP ratio to 105%, which is significantly higher than either Mrs. Clinton’s policies or the current trajectory for the debt ... http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016...t-debt-more-than-hillary-clinton-report-says/ +++ And in Fortune: The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers would pay $800,000 more in taxes on average under Clinton’s plan while Trump’s plan, their taxes would decline by more than $1 million. It found that Trump’s proposed cuts would cost $6.2 trillion over 10 years while Clinton’s would raise $1.4 trillion in new revenue over that time period — money the Democrat proposes using for new government programs. ... Clinton’s tax hikes would fall almost exclusively on businesses and taxpayers in the top 1 percent. The analysis found that some of the cuts in the plan — including a doubling of the child tax credit the Clinton campaign announced Tuesday morning — could lead to a 1 percent increase in income for the poorest 20 percent of U.S. households. Because of the way it changes standard deductions, the Trump proposal would actually raise taxes for an undetermined number of middle-class and lower-income households that have many children or are headed by a single parent, the analysis found. http://fortune.com/2016/10/11/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-tax-plans/ +++ Any way you cut it, Donald's plan will add trillions more to the debt that Clinton's. And his proposals will greatly benefit the m/billionaires like himself. Donald supporters who claim to be conservative and against higher debt, or think Donald is "anti-establishment," or that he will help the middle class over the richest, have yet more facts they will have to ignore.
I'll put that one in the hold department for now. I tend to be suspicious of uncorroborated claims like that. But the effect of their economic plans will have a huge impact on Americans over the next decade. People (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) that there isn't enough discussion on the issues, but they ignore stuff like this and concentrate on whether someone grabbed someone's (*)(*)(*)(*)(*).
Are you surprised that Leon Panetta and Erskine Bowles' Committee found that everything is better with Hillary?
I am not surprised that Donald's plans, which involve massive tax cuts along with huge spending increases on the military, would result in equivalently massive increases in the deficits and debt, according to these different analyses. We've seen that play a couple times before.
Not quite the same play as Trump is adding a couple of acts. Act 3: deport 11 million people at enormous expense causing an economic contraction and Act 4: a trade war with America's 2nd and 3rd largest trading partners.
So no you are not surprised that an analysis by a committee headed by former clinton administration officials finds that Clinton is puuuurfect? Trump's tax plan makes more sense. Despite saying that she is lowering taxes, she doesn't lower taxes on anybody. She just piles on the wealthy and doesn't plan to spend quite as much of it.
No, I am not surprised that Donald's plans, which involve massive tax cuts along with huge spending increases on the military, would result in equivalently massive increases in the deficits and debt, according to these different analyses. We've seen that play a couple times before. With almost $20 trillion in accumulated debt, this is not the time to be running up the deficits with massive tax cuts to m/billionaires, IMO. It's funny how conservatives only seem to be concerned about deficits when a Dem is in the WH
It is equally strange that the democrats who blamed the GOP for not letting Obama run up the debt with more spending are pretending to be deficit hawks. Trump plans to simplify the tax code. The only way to simplify the tax code is to eliminate deductions, credits, and special treatment, ergo, the analysis you rely on has no idea what he means by that since he has not spelled it out in detail. Making the first $30K of income for a couple tax free, however, will stimulate the economy because those are the people that consume. It is effectively a wage increase.
