It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump v Clinton: Comparing their economic plans

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

The problem though is when these blowhards cut taxes and increase the deficit which everyone has done since JFK. Even Reagan who tauted supply side tax cuts really just borrowed from JFK accept he didnt "paying for" the cuts so they became massive deficits.

There is a lot of theory but simply put when you give lower middle class tax cuts the necessity of spending creates larger economic growth than when the very wealthy are given tax breaks. They dont need to spend the money for normal expenses. The money doesnt get spent on an economic impact level the same.


Corperate tax clarity and cuts would also help. However something has to give. You have to tax the wealthy a bit more in exchange for corperate cuts.

Spending is out of control in foriegn policy. Sending billions to the Sauds doesnt make sense even if it creates jobs to make weapons for them. We could save some serious money by reigning in foreign aid a bit.




posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

But everyone does pony up in one way, shape, or form.

Sales taxes, income taxes, business taxes, land taxes, fuel taxes, sin taxes... the list goes on and on into infinitum.

Everybody pays into at least one or more of each and every tax sitting on the books.


And you paying "less" taxes means you'll actually end up paying more in other areas, so at the end of the day you will not be any better off in terms of how much money you have sitting in your bank account. Cutting taxes is a short-term feel good illusion that fails economically in the long-term.

The ONLY way to truly cut people's everyday costs of living is for our governments to cut their expenditures (first, before even considering cutting taxes), but being ever-so-careful as to not at the same time, end up cutting into people's standard of living.

You can't cut taxes without having a remedial expenditure cut to balance out the drop in revenues.

It's a tricky balancing act.


edit on 10-10-2016 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Phage

I always will want to keep more of what I earn.

Personally? I'm for a flat tax. As another poster stated, everyone ponies up.


Problem again is the loss of revanue. Same as a consumption tax. Same as doing something like a G.I. You need to rewrite the whole tax code, which will tank the markets with uncertainty as the children fight about that.

Basically congress needs to go. Rand Pual cant even get them to put in a ballanced budget in 8 years.
edit on 10-10-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Based on the article I would say that Trump has the better plan for tax codes but is spectacularly wrong on tarrifs.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

As far as I'm concerned, neither candidate has come up with anything that's even close to being a viable "economic plan", particularly when it comes to longevity.

It looks to me like all they've done is paid out some lip service to each of their particular favourite flavours of demographics.

*shrug*


edit on 11-10-2016 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 02:06 AM
link   
While the President can set policy, everything else has to do with law (the making or interpretation thereof).

The President cannot, for basic starters:
1) Pass tax laws.
2) Pass spending laws.

edit on 10/11/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



The President cannot, for basic starters:
1) Pass tax laws.
2) Pass spending laws.



But they sure are having fun:

1) Passing out lip service
2) Passing out rose-tinted goggles
3) Passing out illusions that they'll get any of the above done



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 03:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

The problem though is when these blowhards cut taxes and increase the deficit which everyone has done since JFK. Even Reagan who tauted supply side tax cuts really just borrowed from JFK accept he didnt "paying for" the cuts so they became massive deficits.

There is a lot of theory but simply put when you give lower middle class tax cuts the necessity of spending creates larger economic growth than when the very wealthy are given tax breaks. They dont need to spend the money for normal expenses. The money doesnt get spent on an economic impact level the same.


Corperate tax clarity and cuts would also help. However something has to give. You have to tax the wealthy a bit more in exchange for corperate cuts.

Spending is out of control in foriegn policy. Sending billions to the Sauds doesnt make sense even if it creates jobs to make weapons for them. We could save some serious money by reigning in foreign aid a bit.


Two things about trying to tax the rich one they can easily move things out thr country and pay no taxes in fact many have. As long as they don't invest the money back into the US they will never pay taxes on money they made in say germany. Lowering there tax rate on thr other hand being that the US is thr highest in th world on corporate taxes. That money could be brought back an invested in the economy. Increasing the tax base. So you'll find that by say cutting corporate taxes I saw an article that suggested that thr economy would lose 5 trillion over ten years. But they expected a growth rate of 1 percent means the gov't would get an additional 2.5 trillion in new taxes over the same period. If it were to average 2 percent over ten years you would end up with a surplus. Reahan saw 3 and JFK 4 to 5 percent with his tax cuts. And this doesn't even count the jobs created that pay taxes.

Let's face it the only way to pay off the debt is to increase the number of people paying taxes both businesses and individuals. Trump has a plan to do this or so he claims using tax deductions and tariffs on cheap foreign goods. Hillary hasn't really got anything on her website that I saw to create jobs though she does mention creating jobs that the govT picks up the tab. This woild help them pay for college and as such increase there prospects for getting a better job. I'm guessing through her increase in taxes which should produce an extra 1.4 trillion in revenue provided the rich don't find a way to avoid it like leaving.
edit on 10/11/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 03:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

I disagree.

I don't believe that federal spending HAS to increase. If more people are working and are less reliant on government for support, then the justification for an increase in taxes is reduced.


I think you missed my point. It was that spending will not decrease. If you reduce spending from the feds, the states or private business will pick it up. You can't just stop funding road maintenance for example. That money will come from somewhere whether it's private companies opening up toll roads, states, cities, or the feds.

Shifting some numbers around on a paycheck doesn't mean you're keeping more of your money. This has been a popular political tool for years now actually. They cut income taxes, but then increase sales tax. The illusion is that you keep more, but the reality is that you're still being taxed just as much.


Thank you for pointing this fact out, that so many conservatives can't get through their pointy skulls. You can't just cut programs and expenses and think it will go away, not when the original need for the tax money still exists..

That said, looking at the two tax proposals, Clinton has the one more geared toward reality and problem solving. Or more specifically, in one area, and that is job retraining. Which I think we need more of, considering all the jobs becoming obsolete due to technology, more than anything.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

I disagree.

I don't believe that federal spending HAS to increase. If more people are working and are less reliant on government for support, then the justification for an increase in taxes is reduced.


I think you missed my point. It was that spending will not decrease. If you reduce spending from the feds, the states or private business will pick it up. You can't just stop funding road maintenance for example. That money will come from somewhere whether it's private companies opening up toll roads, states, cities, or the feds.

Shifting some numbers around on a paycheck doesn't mean you're keeping more of your money. This has been a popular political tool for years now actually. They cut income taxes, but then increase sales tax. The illusion is that you keep more, but the reality is that you're still being taxed just as much.


Thank you for pointing this fact out, that so many conservatives can't get through their pointy skulls. You can't just cut programs and expenses and think it will go away, not when the original need for the tax money still exists..

That said, looking at the two tax proposals, Clinton has the one more geared toward reality and problem solving. Or more specifically, in one area, and that is job retraining. Which I think we need more of, considering all the jobs becoming obsolete due to technology, more than anything.


I tend to agree for Trump's tax plan to work he would need to cut about 2 trillion in waist over ten years. And i know the gov't waists money but I don't know if that number is that high. But if he could find it than that alone would make a huge diffrence to his plan since it doesn't depend on possible growth at that point.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I agree that there are various ways for the government to cut spending.

I don't see that happening.

I will also agree that we'll all probably get hit in the back end for taxes. Our government is that greedy.

But if there is any opportunity to keep as much as I can from what I earn, I'll do so.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I think i said you would need to offset corperate tax cuts with an increase on individual income for the wealthiest.

In practice and reality we have learned giving the wealthy tax cuts does not impact the market as a whole. They dont reinvest the money at a rate enough to effect the market. This is just non partisan econmoic observation.

When the middle class particularly the lower middle class paying full taxes have cuts they immediately put the money back into the economy because they have been avoiding buying items they may require but cant afford.

The wealthy can move the money out sure. That is currently the law. They have to earn the money completely outside the country. Lowering corperate taxes and particularly simplifying the corperate tax code will invite more bussiness into the country which obviously leads to jobs and investment opportunity through shareholders.

Personally I am for a national sales tax, with a G.I. instead of any other bennifits. Elimanting or greatly reducing the IRS.

However, I umderstand this will never happen. Just like we wont reign in spending to pay for tax cuts.

As i have said JFK was the last person to really pay for his cuts closer to supply side taxation.

A tariff tax now will be crippling to the poor and possibly start a trade war. It would be easier to require a more ballanced trade approach. Requiring more purchasing of US commodity's.


edit on 11-10-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Margaret Thatcher famously stated that running a country is like running a home, and if you live to your means, you retain a lot of the benefit you earn.

As an earlier poster wrote, all civilised societies need to be paid for their maintenance and upkeep, and the people in those societies do so by paying taxes. In reality, there is only a requirement to pay for certain essential components of society to keep it ticking over nicely. The bug bear for me is that the essential components of society have been placed into private company hands. I am a big believer in a society keeping certain parts of itself in government hands for the economic and social health of the nation.

Military, police, medicine, electricity, gas, water, roads, the printing of money, and communications such as telephone and internet service (not the hardware) should always be under the aegis of the government, and absolutely never be placed into the hands of private companies. These are so important that they should not be considered as industries for 'private' profit, but supplied on the premise as minimum requirements for life in a technological civilised society. Of course, some of the services for their maintenance and upkeep can be, and would be, contracted out, but they should never come under private ownership. If these services require an owner, it should be the nation as a whole, and that government is mandated to ensure their correct distribution and access to all.

Private ownership of these services changes the premise and the dynamic for why they are supplied, and if they are not strictly regulated with legislation, the nation ultimately loses, and becomes disenfranchised from the essential minimum requirements for living and participating in society.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
I tend to agree for Trump's tax plan to work he would need to cut about 2 trillion in waist over ten years. And i know the gov't waists money but I don't know if that number is that high. But if he could find it than that alone would make a huge diffrence to his plan since it doesn't depend on possible growth at that point.


2 trillion over 10 years is trivial, that's just $200 billion/year. The real problem with Trumps plan is that he doesn't want to cut spending, he's proposed 22 trillion, I think it was in new spending over the next 10 years. Mostly having to do with the MIC.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join