The debate "Trump vs. Clinton Only Policy Discussion" was started by
October 1, 2016, 7:25 pm.
16 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
dalton7532 posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, dalton7532 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
dalton7532, princess100 and 14 visitors agree.
10 visitors disagree.
show me where you saw that.
She is taxing more than the rich.
yes, on the wealthy who have been prospering during our tough times. that isn't a secret and is something that will help the nation.
besides, increase is a meaningless word after the cuts of the 80s/90s
She plans to increase taxes incredibly to pave the way for new spending.
did Reagan promote his tax agenda? much like every president has done, and Hillary plans on. did Reagan redo the tax code as you are implying?
and it's not the tax cuts on ordinary Americans that I am concerned with, Donald plans to cut taxes on everyone, including huge tax cuts to the top. those are the ones that bother me, especially considering the growth those at the top have seen while everyone else was struggling.
Hillary also has a plan to alleviate the middle/lower class tax burden. but Trump will bankrupt the nation while making himself very rich.
I provided that Science Daily excerpt, which is supported by many figures across the board. Check it. "A new study by University of Chicago Booth School of Business Assistant Professor of Economics Owen Zidar...The tax cuts for ordinary Americans spur increased economic activity in the form of durable consumption, investment, and labor force participation, Zidar says. The effects hold at both the state and federal levels and are larger in states with high unemployment rates." - Science Daily
Nemiroff, past presidents have executed their tax plan. (Look how Reagan's tax plan would be executed.) It is complete idiocy to think a new president won't be able to. There is no point on arguing on it because this is just one of the weird things you go on a tangent on just to disagree with Trump and praise Hillary. Also, let's discuss health care and inner cities because if we continue to talk about taxes, it would just be back and forth unless you can bring up some more points and evidence.
welcome back dalton, shall we resume this discussion?
also we have the non policy trump v hillary debate that we can also continue on as well.
you provided no sources, reputable or not.
I offered small businesses complete tax freezes for their first year or 2, the most dangerous do or die years in a businesses life. and I've repeatedly said that if we ditch the loopholes we may be able to lower the tax on the rich a little. AFTER THE LOOPHOLES ARE CLOSED, NOT BEFORE.
and the rest of the Republicans are very important if you plan on rewriting the tax code because THEY ARE THE ONES WHO WRITE IT, not trump.
you also completely failed to address the actual numbers provided by existentialist regarding a Republican economists assessment of the 2 tax plans and their consequences.
This is actually the tax policy the little guy wants Nemiroff, pertaining to small business and lower income brackets. I could care less about the current Republicans or Democrats in office. They are idiots. Also, whoever said my "talking points" were not supported by analytics is a liar, I just provided a repubatle source that confirmed my stance.
I hope you realize their is only one corporate tax rate. I will repeat this again, small businesses prefer Donald Trump's plan over Hillary's. Your plans offer really no relief that small businesses actually want, and you have just basically admitted bigger corporations are more durable when it comes to taxation. Who is the one getting screwed?
I think the biggest problem with how the wealthy get taxed is not how much they get taxed, but if they pay the taxes they owe. If the case was there was no corporate loopholes, we can afford to lower all income tax percentages.
You're repeating talking points that aren't supported by analytics.
If we look at Trump's economic plan (taxes, trade, immigration, and government spending) we see that a full adoption of his plan would result in a "lengthy recession"; a loss of 3.5 million jobs, an unemployment rate somewhere around 7%, his plan would also increase the deficit.
If we look at Hillary's plan (same variables)
the economy would create 10.4 million jobs during her presidency, that's 3.2 million more than is expected under current laws. Predicted GDP growth goes from 2.3% to 2.7%
The author of these reports is a former economics adviser of John McCain. The projections are the result of a forecasting model similar to those used by the Federal Reserve and Congressional Budget Office.
Now, things get a little wonky if we look at partial implementation of each candidate's plans. However, the overall theme is Trump's plans shrink the economy while Hillary's grows the economy.
both candidates are talking about changing the tax code, but 1 (hillary) is pushing for a few exemptions, small changes that she can push for, and veto anything that gets out of hand. it is something doable.
Trump wants an overhaul, which ideally would be nice, but would also be completely out of his hands. he can't write laws, and unlike him (or his words atm) the traditional Republican controlled Congress push stupid changes like eliminating the estate tax that will help Noone who needs it. between the 2 of them, we will be bankrupt and our debt will be out of control. he can't control what he is promising. magic beans.
and yes, Walmart is killing mom and pop shops in perfectly legitamete free market ways. the economics of scale. but we don't want that. Walmart is not dependant on the community. once the money dries up, they can just leave, go elsewhere. we want to promote. a free market is an excellent base, but it is not something sacred. we have to regulate it, and government needs to intervene. whether promoting the future of our energy by investing in renewables, or promoting mom and pop shops over corporations, we need to do what is best for us and our future, libertarians be damned.
I would like to stay on taxes for a bit if you don't mind. although we agree on a few very general concepts, we are on different planets.
yes trump wants to keep the top at the highest of his proposed brackets.... but the drop in their is massive, and 10% off their tax rate is greater than the entire INCOME of people on the bottom.
now, if the situation was that we were all suffering from this recession, and the wealthy were having a hard time with the rest of us, maybe they are holding back, and could help the economy with a tax break... but they are not. they are doing stupendously well, and have invested as much as the demand of our struggling economy can return them. why are we cutting their taxes at all?
also corporate tax? as in all of them? no.
the giant corporations are also doing fine. I'm not looking to help them. and corporate profits through capital gains is how the wealthy, particularly the cream among them make the vast majority of their wealth, not income. I'd be down with helping small businesses with maybe a temporary tax freeze during their early start up years, but I though we were in agreement regarding giant conglomerates, who will be the true beneficiaries of Trump's plan.
This is my problem with republican tax policy. they claim to be doing it for the little guy, but through competitive advantage, scew them royally. I would like for you to address these 2 issues if you don't mind
Do you want to discuss healthcate next? We have a weird form of agreement on this policy.
I am going to try to clear up some inconsistencies on your part. Last time we debated this subject on Trump's tax plan, you came to the same conclusion that you didn't trust Trump because you thought he advocated raising taxes the rich and lowering taxes on the rich.
However, I mentioned income tax and corporate tax are two seperate things, and that Trump wanted to lower the corporate tax rate for all businesses and he wanted to lower but still have the rich pay the highest porportion of their income in the 3 bracket system. I do not know if this is the same scenerio and you just forgot, or you found new evidence that he changed completely on the subject of taxation. Please explain further.
Also, if you want to have an intellectually honest debate, you have to be intellectually honest with yourself. Both candidates are arguing for changing our tax code, and both can very well do that with the help of the legislative branch. No magic beans are being offered. Moreover, I agree with mostly you said on taxing the rich. However, there is something here and there I disagree with.
Mom and Pop stores are dying for much bigger reasons than just taxation. Let's be real here. Goods are far more expensive at these little stores than for lets say Wal-Mart. It is supply and demand that plays a factor. A product's demand will be affected by its price. Is this true or not true?
I also find it hard to think that small businesses would be hurt by a low corporate tax rate, especially if they are dying by the current one now. This is especially hard to believe when they wealthy would be paying a higher income tax rate than anyother demographic. If you have any counter evidence, I would love to see it.
yes Hillary has said nothing about simplifying the tax code, although technically that would be the job of Congress, not the president.... no? the tax code is a law and only the legislature can affect that. so Trump is selling you magic beans no?
and Republican love of the estate tax, or as they dubbed it "the death tax" is legendary. the promote everywhere from their tax shows to presidential debates. I find it very difficult to believe you are unfamiliar with it. as a patriot who wants to preserve the economy of this nation and the power of the people I would never support a restructuring of the tax code under a Republican controlled Congress.
Trump has gone both ways repeatedly. he has both advocated to tax the rich and to cut taxes on the rich. honestly I can't trust someone who promotes both sides.
yes he wants to cut taxes on small businesses, he also wants to cut taxes on massive conglomerates, which are often in competition with small businesses (Walmart destroying local mom and pop shops for example). as someone who prides himself on economic knowledge, you do understand the concept of competitive advantage? if you help someone alittle, and you help their competitor a lot more, your killing the guy you helped alittle due to the competitive advantage they lose.
people want to tax the wealthy because
1. they have the ability to pay the taxes. if someone is living paycheck to paycheck, every tax dollar hurts. the wealthy on the other hand, while obviously not eager to pay more, will lose a little surplus but nothing of need.
2. taxing the wealthy has been correlated with economic growth. wealth in the long term is not a 0 sum game, and as Henry Ford discovered (through self interest, not charity) that by promoting the health of those not at the top, those at the top profit immensely.
3. the wealthy profit the most from our economy and system, and not only from their own innovation, but from the undervalued labor of their employees. it was shown that millionaires/billionaires who are self made are often very charitable (gates, zuckerburg) but those spoiled shitheads who inherent their wealth are very uncharitable. these same people can hardly be considered to by hard working innovators if they made their wealth through inheretance, yet you lump them in with the hard workers who actually earn their wealth (and often don't mind giving some of it back)
the combination of ability to pay, prosperity of the nation as a whole, and the fact that the majority of the wealthy DIDN'T EARN THEIR WEALTH AND DIDN'T WORK HARD FOR IT, makes taxing them more justified.
also in the words of Thomas Paine. (paraphrased) the private ownership of land, although allowed for effective agriculture and boon in overall wealth of nations CREATED UNJUSTLY the class of the impoverished whose EQUAL RIGHT to the earth which was created for all men has been stolen.
I am completely lost on why so many people want to tax the shit out of the wealthy disproportionately from how everybody else gets taxed. They are people too and they worked just as hard to get their money. Why should they be taxed proportionately higher than anyone else?
I do not know anything about republicans plans for estate taxes and ect. I do know, which is my main concern, how businesses will be taxed and how incomes would be taxed. I very mich like the plans put forth by the Republican presidential nominee.
Why do you always so arrogantly push away the fact that small businesses will have tremoundous relief under a Trump administration? It seems you could care less about that fact.
From what you said, it would actually seem like Trump is your guy on taxes, as he would help small businesses the most and make the tax code simpler. (Hillary would keep the business tax the same despite how its hurting small businesses.)
He has also pointed out many loopholes that he would remove that as of now, I don't think Hillary has mentioned. It seems as if you agree on Trump on alot of economic issues such as infrustracture(I assume that since you supported Bernie) and on policy such as taxes. Why can't you admit that Trump's policies on these issues are better than Hillary's?
I can't say I disagree, although I am at a loss as to how Trump's plan comes anywhere near this as his plan would be a massive tax cut to the very rich. He does also plan to cut taxes to the poor, but the relative windfall would fall mostly to the wealthy. I also worry about what such an across the board cuts to both wealthy and not will do to our budget and our debt.
I would also like to add some nuance. Taxes are just another cost, and what they get for us is as important as how much we pay. If our taxes go up $200 but save us $500 on health insurance, that is a win. if the FDA attains the funding to test the mysterious chemicals we blindly eat in our food, that is a win. the government can do a lot of good as long as we keep our eyes on it, a luxury we do not have with the private sector.
I also worry as to who decides which taxes to cut... the usual torch bearers of tax cuts, the right, often champion the cutting of corporate taxes and the estate tax, both taxes that rarely even affect the middle/poor. Their solution for the budget is to then cut services, which mainly comprise of services to help the middle/poor as well as regulatory enforcement which then allows the private sector to get away with murder, sometimes literally as with the potential poison in our food and the collapse of our economy. I have said repeatedly, I love Republican ideology, but the policies they suggest to carry out those ideas border on treason imo.
What we need to do is simplify the tax code, eliminate many of the deductions that allow many of the wealthy people and giant conglomerates to get away with paying nothing or next to nothing in taxes. that will bolster our treasury, and then we can cut taxes, maybe even on the wealthy once they actually start paying their fair share.
Hillary I believe will further complicate the code by adding more deductions for the middle/poor, but that will help those groups which are crucial to the economy. Trump will champion the tax cuts of the right which will only help those at the top. His chief of staff Chris Christie was just in a tax battle with his state congress. they wanted to raise the gas tax in order to replenish their broke infrastructure fund. he demanded tax cuts in other areas, they offered to cut the sales tax. but Christie vetoed it, demanding the estate tax be cut instead offering no help to most of the people.
I should be a bit more specific when I refer to lowering taxes in order to propel the economy. I want taxes to be reduced across the board for middle class and poverty stricken Americans. It has shown time and time again when you lower taxes for this particular group the economy will overall do better. I am not necessarily referring to helping the rich in order to help the poor.
We are crush by high tax rates, and daily life can improve so easily if we simplify the tax code and lower taxes.
Small businesses are the foremost affected by a high business tax rates, not big conglomerates. When I studied economics, I learned if we take the incentive away or make it harder from the average entrepreneurs, they will simply not sell their product. This is especially evident when we are a economy that is driven by profit margins.
It is quite common knowledge the middle class people want a major tax break as cited in many scientific polls. It is a known fact that lowering the taxes on the middle class creates substantial economic growth, not so much if we do the same for the rich.
"Tax cuts for ordinary Americans boost economic growth and create jobs, while tax breaks for the rich do little to help the economy" -Science Daily Article
If the majority of people and small businesses run the government, why shouldn't we have a tax plan they want? I know Trump's plan is not perfect to what people want because of how the wealthy get taxed. However, it is a hell of alot closer than Hillary's. Dont you think?
what policy? how about taxes?
I saw you trying to defend trickle down economics by citing Reagan's success.
Reagan did indeed cut taxes when he first got into office.. but then quite quickly realized the massive hole he was putting into the budget and proceeded to raise taxes several times.
Reagan was a smart man who knew how to listen to reason and not follow his ideals straight into the abyss. I believe today you would consider your great hero a RINO.
the fact of the matter is that tax cuts and deregulation began again in the first bush administration and continued through the Clinton and Bush 2 years. During those years the wealthy made massive profits while our economy grinded to a halt and began to recede, leading to the great recession. the wealthy have been the only class making gains, and yet nothing was "trickling down." it was not until Obama's liberal policies that our economy began to recover.
trickle down is a scam, meant to empower only those at the top. trickle up will work because those who are struggling need things. they need to fix their car, to buy an ac, to hire a tutor, to invest in their education, to buy a house. any gains made by those at the bottom will be instantly injected into the economy, revitalizing it, and will eventually make its way to the top, owner class. inevitably.
as a side bonus, it can also replace the welfare state as fewer and fewer people will need that government check.
Trump is for cutting taxes at an unheard of level in history, something that has been shown not to work and create ecobomic instability. a move that will benefit (surprise) mostly himself.