Trump's Tax Plan

[g5000]

Once you introduce one deduction you get interpretations of what should be a deduction...

Exactly. Once you allow someone to crack that door open even a tiny bit, the special interests will slam it wide open with cash bribes to campaign funds.

 

[Avorysuds]

I think the increments should be 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%. Everyone should be a taxpayer. And the rich should pay higher than 25% there should be no deductions or itemizing. One page. Put your adjusted gross income, apply the tax paid , the percentage where you are at and subtract accordingly.

I agree with your tax plan, with the exception of still needing a standard deduction.

right now it is about $17000 for a married couple.

There are several reasons why there has to be a standard deduction/personal exemption...

But most importantly, because income tax, ruled by a Supreme Court case, is the tax on one's earnings/profit, just like the corporate income tax, is a tax on the business's earnings/profit.

So, with a standard deduction, that covers the basic costs of feeding and housing oneself per year, same amount for everyone one, this would cover the interpretation of the SC on what income taxes have to be paid on....what the taxable income is...

yet still being able to kill all the other deductions, so it remains a progressive income tax, but without all the deduction loopholes given to the politicians highest bidders.

Once you introduce one deduction you get interpretations of what should be a deduction... A real life example would be the constitution that clearly limits federal powers now means we can force people to buy things.

The Standard Deduction/Personal Exemption is not like any of those Long Form/schedule Irs, deductions for the favored.

the only manipulation that can be done is a higher or lower or staying the same Standardized deduction.... and whatever happens with it, applies to everyone, equally.

So, even though they in congress do have some control over it, if it was just tied in to the cost of living automatically, then congress wouldn't have their hands tied to it?

It's not that i disagree with the idea, I see the possible abuse and further more I see it as unfair to those that choose to live a "better" or "more costly" life style. This goes back to subsidizing what you want more of. If you give people a "safe zone" in the tax structure it will create more people in that range.

I see the very first issue being people demanding a deduction being added for children, then housing size for having to house more than 2 people... and it begins!!! =)

 

[SwimExpert]

I think the US should not be allowed to run deficits. All taxes should be applied equally and any "extra" revenues are returned at the end of the year.

That's a recipe for disaster.

 

[g5000]

It's not that i disagree with the idea, I see the possible abuse and further more I see it as unfair to those that choose to live a "better" or "more costly" life style. This goes back to subsidizing what you want more of. If you give people a "safe zone" in the tax structure it will create more people in that range.

I see the very first issue being people demanding a deduction being added for children, then housing size for having to house more than 2 people... and it begins!!! =)

Those "subsidies" are a massive government behavioral control program. Buy the right refrigerator and get a tax credit!

And the explanation given for a child tax credit is an utterly bogus excuse for stealing Other People's Money. To buy into this bullshit scheme, you would have to be stupid enough to believe the human race was going extinct before the child tax credit.

"OPM cures ED!"

 

[Sallow]

Trump Plan Cuts Taxes for Millions

Under the Trump plan, no federal income tax would be levied against individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. The Trump campaign estimates that would reduce taxes to zero for 31 million households that currently pay at least some income tax. The highest individual income-tax rate would be 25%, compared with the current 39.6% rate.

To pay for the proposed tax benefits, the Trump plan would eliminate or reduce deductions and loopholes to high-income taxpayers, and would curb some deductions and other breaks for middle-class taxpayers by capping the level of individual deductions, a politically dicey proposition.

I hate it when specifics are not given. What deductions and "loopholes" would be eliminated? This is the most important thing to know about any tax plan in order to determine the total effect on taxpayers and revenues.

Mr. Trump also would end the “carried interest” tax break, which allows many investment-fund managers to pay lower taxes on much of their compensation.

Eliminating the carried interest tax break will probably only bring in an extra two billion dollars a year.

A significant revenue gain would come from a one-time tax on overseas profits that could encourage U.S. multinational corporations to return an estimated $2.1 trillion in cash now sitting offshore, largely to avoid U.S. taxes. His proposal would impose a mandatory 10% tax on all of that money

A one-time gain.

Mr. Trump also would impose an immediate tax on overseas earnings of American corporations; currently, such tax payments can be deferred.

All told, the campaign says the plan would be revenue neutral—neither raising nor lowering federal revenues—by the third year and then begin adding revenue.

On the individual side, Mr. Trump would consolidate the current seven rates to four, of 0%, 10%, 20% and 25%. Those changes alone would exempt all married couples making $50,000 or less from the income tax, as well as singles making $25,000 or less.

The 10% bracket would apply to incomes from $50,000 to $100,000 for a married couple; the current 10% bracket has a ceiling of $18,450. The new 25% top bracket would apply to married couples’ incomes in excess of $300,000, which currently are subject to rates as high as 39.6%. Mr. Trump also would cut the top capital gains rate to 20%, from the current 23.8%. And he would eliminate the alternative minimum tax.

Discuss.

This is going to cost big.

How does he plan to pay for it?

 

[auditor0007]

Trump Plan Cuts Taxes for Millions

Under the Trump plan, no federal income tax would be levied against individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. The Trump campaign estimates that would reduce taxes to zero for 31 million households that currently pay at least some income tax. The highest individual income-tax rate would be 25%, compared with the current 39.6% rate.

To pay for the proposed tax benefits, the Trump plan would eliminate or reduce deductions and loopholes to high-income taxpayers, and would curb some deductions and other breaks for middle-class taxpayers by capping the level of individual deductions, a politically dicey proposition.

I hate it when specifics are not given. What deductions and "loopholes" would be eliminated? This is the most important thing to know about any tax plan in order to determine the total effect on taxpayers and revenues.

Mr. Trump also would end the “carried interest” tax break, which allows many investment-fund managers to pay lower taxes on much of their compensation.

Eliminating the carried interest tax break will probably only bring in an extra two billion dollars a year.

A significant revenue gain would come from a one-time tax on overseas profits that could encourage U.S. multinational corporations to return an estimated $2.1 trillion in cash now sitting offshore, largely to avoid U.S. taxes. His proposal would impose a mandatory 10% tax on all of that money

A one-time gain.

Mr. Trump also would impose an immediate tax on overseas earnings of American corporations; currently, such tax payments can be deferred.

All told, the campaign says the plan would be revenue neutral—neither raising nor lowering federal revenues—by the third year and then begin adding revenue.

On the individual side, Mr. Trump would consolidate the current seven rates to four, of 0%, 10%, 20% and 25%. Those changes alone would exempt all married couples making $50,000 or less from the income tax, as well as singles making $25,000 or less.

The 10% bracket would apply to incomes from $50,000 to $100,000 for a married couple; the current 10% bracket has a ceiling of $18,450. The new 25% top bracket would apply to married couples’ incomes in excess of $300,000, which currently are subject to rates as high as 39.6%. Mr. Trump also would cut the top capital gains rate to 20%, from the current 23.8%. And he would eliminate the alternative minimum tax.

Discuss.

As always, the call for lower tax rates to boost tax revenues rarely works. It worked to an extent with Reagan's tax cuts because the top tax rates were so high to begin with. We don't have that problem today. The top tax rate is not at all unreasonable. In the end, this plan would further cut revenue which is not workable due to the fact that SS and Medicare alone are increasing the amount of revenue necessary just to balance the budget.

Raising taxes is like the federal reserve raising interest rates, you will see a dramatic cooling of the economy (not suggesting the economy is hot currently). The problem is welfare programs like SS and MC should have never been created as they are now the bulk of our expenditures and rising.

Without SS and Medicare, the US would be a full blown socialist state. With the top 20% controlling 90% of the wealth, programs like SS and Medicare are what keep the bottom 80% from starting a revolution. Now you could make a valid argument that SS should have been more of a savings type plan rather than a pay as you go plan, but we must also remember that both Dems and Republicans stole form the SS fund for nearly forty years. Had those excess funds been invested rather than stolen, there would be more than enough money to cover SS today and in the future.

 

[Avorysuds]

I think the US should not be allowed to run deficits. All taxes should be applied equally and any "extra" revenues are returned at the end of the year.

That's a recipe for disaster.

Couldn't be more of a disaster than we already have on our hands. I made up "my plan" on the spot, lol.

 

[auditor0007]

As always, the call for lower tax rates to boost tax revenues rarely works.

Trump's plan isn't to increase revenues through lower rates. His plan is to lower rates by eliminating deductions and loopholes thus resulting in higher revenues per bracket. The "lower rate" is a superficial smoke screen. Sure, the rate itself is lower. But the total tax liability will be equal to or greater than what you previously owed, due to the elimination of deductions and loopholes. The only people who really come out of this with lowered taxes are low income people, and lower middle class people. The higher your income, the more likely you are to encounter higher total taxes.

We both know that it never works like that. And the offset would at best be a push. More likely than not, taking away a few deductions would result in a small gain, not nearly enough to cover the loss in revenue due to the lower rates.

 

[Avorysuds]

Trump Plan Cuts Taxes for Millions

Under the Trump plan, no federal income tax would be levied against individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. The Trump campaign estimates that would reduce taxes to zero for 31 million households that currently pay at least some income tax. The highest individual income-tax rate would be 25%, compared with the current 39.6% rate.

To pay for the proposed tax benefits, the Trump plan would eliminate or reduce deductions and loopholes to high-income taxpayers, and would curb some deductions and other breaks for middle-class taxpayers by capping the level of individual deductions, a politically dicey proposition.

I hate it when specifics are not given. What deductions and "loopholes" would be eliminated? This is the most important thing to know about any tax plan in order to determine the total effect on taxpayers and revenues.

Mr. Trump also would end the “carried interest” tax break, which allows many investment-fund managers to pay lower taxes on much of their compensation.

Eliminating the carried interest tax break will probably only bring in an extra two billion dollars a year.

A significant revenue gain would come from a one-time tax on overseas profits that could encourage U.S. multinational corporations to return an estimated $2.1 trillion in cash now sitting offshore, largely to avoid U.S. taxes. His proposal would impose a mandatory 10% tax on all of that money

A one-time gain.

Mr. Trump also would impose an immediate tax on overseas earnings of American corporations; currently, such tax payments can be deferred.

All told, the campaign says the plan would be revenue neutral—neither raising nor lowering federal revenues—by the third year and then begin adding revenue.

On the individual side, Mr. Trump would consolidate the current seven rates to four, of 0%, 10%, 20% and 25%. Those changes alone would exempt all married couples making $50,000 or less from the income tax, as well as singles making $25,000 or less.

The 10% bracket would apply to incomes from $50,000 to $100,000 for a married couple; the current 10% bracket has a ceiling of $18,450. The new 25% top bracket would apply to married couples’ incomes in excess of $300,000, which currently are subject to rates as high as 39.6%. Mr. Trump also would cut the top capital gains rate to 20%, from the current 23.8%. And he would eliminate the alternative minimum tax.

Discuss.

As always, the call for lower tax rates to boost tax revenues rarely works. It worked to an extent with Reagan's tax cuts because the top tax rates were so high to begin with. We don't have that problem today. The top tax rate is not at all unreasonable. In the end, this plan would further cut revenue which is not workable due to the fact that SS and Medicare alone are increasing the amount of revenue necessary just to balance the budget.

Raising taxes is like the federal reserve raising interest rates, you will see a dramatic cooling of the economy (not suggesting the economy is hot currently). The problem is welfare programs like SS and MC should have never been created as they are now the bulk of our expenditures and rising.

Without SS and Medicare, the US would be a full blown socialist state. With the top 20% controlling 90% of the wealth, programs like SS and Medicare are what keep the bottom 80% from starting a revolution. Now you could make a valid argument that SS should have been more of a savings type plan rather than a pay as you go plan, but we must also remember that both Dems and Republicans stole form the SS fund for nearly forty years. Had those excess funds been invested rather than stolen, there would be more than enough money to cover SS today and in the future.

Who knows, we don't live in that alternate reality. There would have to be a lot of changes to keep the rich from being uber rich and the poor uber poor... But that's a lot of Government we would have to get rid of to get to that point and I just don't see that happening.

 

[g5000]

As always, the call for lower tax rates to boost tax revenues rarely works.

Trump's plan isn't to increase revenues through lower rates. His plan is to lower rates by eliminating deductions and loopholes thus resulting in higher revenues per bracket. The "lower rate" is a superficial smoke screen. Sure, the rate itself is lower. But the total tax liability will be equal to or greater than what you previously owed, due to the elimination of deductions and loopholes. The only people who really come out of this with lowered taxes are low income people, and lower middle class people. The higher your income, the more likely you are to encounter higher total taxes.

We both know that it never works like that. And the offset would at best be a push. More likely than not, taking away a few deductions would result in a small gain, not nearly enough to cover the loss in revenue due to the lower rates.

We give away $1.2 TRILLION every year in tax expenditures. That's hardly a "small gain" if you eliminate all of them.

If we left tax rates the same, we would have an $800 billion surplus every year.

That's plenty of cash to lower tax rates significantly.

 

[Avorysuds]

Trump Plan Cuts Taxes for Millions

Under the Trump plan, no federal income tax would be levied against individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. The Trump campaign estimates that would reduce taxes to zero for 31 million households that currently pay at least some income tax. The highest individual income-tax rate would be 25%, compared with the current 39.6% rate.

To pay for the proposed tax benefits, the Trump plan would eliminate or reduce deductions and loopholes to high-income taxpayers, and would curb some deductions and other breaks for middle-class taxpayers by capping the level of individual deductions, a politically dicey proposition.

I hate it when specifics are not given. What deductions and "loopholes" would be eliminated? This is the most important thing to know about any tax plan in order to determine the total effect on taxpayers and revenues.

Mr. Trump also would end the “carried interest” tax break, which allows many investment-fund managers to pay lower taxes on much of their compensation.

Eliminating the carried interest tax break will probably only bring in an extra two billion dollars a year.

A significant revenue gain would come from a one-time tax on overseas profits that could encourage U.S. multinational corporations to return an estimated $2.1 trillion in cash now sitting offshore, largely to avoid U.S. taxes. His proposal would impose a mandatory 10% tax on all of that money

A one-time gain.

Mr. Trump also would impose an immediate tax on overseas earnings of American corporations; currently, such tax payments can be deferred.

All told, the campaign says the plan would be revenue neutral—neither raising nor lowering federal revenues—by the third year and then begin adding revenue.

On the individual side, Mr. Trump would consolidate the current seven rates to four, of 0%, 10%, 20% and 25%. Those changes alone would exempt all married couples making $50,000 or less from the income tax, as well as singles making $25,000 or less.

The 10% bracket would apply to incomes from $50,000 to $100,000 for a married couple; the current 10% bracket has a ceiling of $18,450. The new 25% top bracket would apply to married couples’ incomes in excess of $300,000, which currently are subject to rates as high as 39.6%. Mr. Trump also would cut the top capital gains rate to 20%, from the current 23.8%. And he would eliminate the alternative minimum tax.

Discuss.

This is going to cost big.

How does he plan to pay for it?

Asking how things will be paid for is an interesting question. We are 18 trillion in debt but Hillary nor Sanders have even mentioned how they will pay that down let alone how they can afford their programs they wish to force on the people.

Likewise Republicans are in the same boat. I could argue Rand Paul of all candidates is different in that he provided a plan to get to paying down the deficit but that would derail this otherwise surprisingly good thread.

My point is, do you as a voter honestly care how a candidate will pay for their deficit spending? No matter the side or what caused the deficit spending?

 

[auditor0007]

I think the US should not be allowed to run deficits. All taxes should be applied equally and any "extra" revenues are returned at the end of the year.

That is a horrible idea, and here is the reason why. When the economy is in a downturn, tax revenues fall. In order to adhere to your plan, taxes would have to be raised when the economy is weak, which would actually hurt the economy rather than help it. The problem we seem to run into is that we do not tax enough when the economy is good. The reason Clinton was able to balance the budget was due to the fact that the economy was good and tax rates were not lowered. Of course as soon as Bush took over, he cut those tax rates, because we didn't need all that revenue, and then kaboom, deficits went through the roof. And then after Bush helped crash the economy, tax revenues fell even further, and then we ended up with a debt of $18 trillion, but it's all Obama's fault.

 

[Avorysuds]

As always, the call for lower tax rates to boost tax revenues rarely works.

Trump's plan isn't to increase revenues through lower rates. His plan is to lower rates by eliminating deductions and loopholes thus resulting in higher revenues per bracket. The "lower rate" is a superficial smoke screen. Sure, the rate itself is lower. But the total tax liability will be equal to or greater than what you previously owed, due to the elimination of deductions and loopholes. The only people who really come out of this with lowered taxes are low income people, and lower middle class people. The higher your income, the more likely you are to encounter higher total taxes.

We both know that it never works like that. And the offset would at best be a push. More likely than not, taking away a few deductions would result in a small gain, not nearly enough to cover the loss in revenue due to the lower rates.

We give away $1.2 TRILLION every year in tax expenditures. That's hardly a "small gain" if you eliminate all of them.

If we left tax rates the same, we would have an $800 billion surplus every year.

That's plenty of cash to lower tax rates significantly.

It's surprisingly simple to balance the budget, but shockingly impossible to get elected Reps and Dems to cut any spending to make that happen.

For Dems it's always to claim we need to cut military and raise taxes... Once in power they expand on military and other welfare programs while giving tax credits.

For Republicans it's always to claim we need to cut welfare spending and cut spending... Once in power they expand military and other welfare programs while giving tax credits.

 

[auditor0007]

As always, the call for lower tax rates to boost tax revenues rarely works.

Trump's plan isn't to increase revenues through lower rates. His plan is to lower rates by eliminating deductions and loopholes thus resulting in higher revenues per bracket. The "lower rate" is a superficial smoke screen. Sure, the rate itself is lower. But the total tax liability will be equal to or greater than what you previously owed, due to the elimination of deductions and loopholes. The only people who really come out of this with lowered taxes are low income people, and lower middle class people. The higher your income, the more likely you are to encounter higher total taxes.

We both know that it never works like that. And the offset would at best be a push. More likely than not, taking away a few deductions would result in a small gain, not nearly enough to cover the loss in revenue due to the lower rates.

We give away $1.2 TRILLION every year in tax expenditures. That's hardly a "small gain" if you eliminate all of them.

If we left tax rates the same, we would have an $800 billion surplus every year.

That's plenty of cash to lower tax rates significantly.

 

[auditor0007]

As always, the call for lower tax rates to boost tax revenues rarely works.

Trump's plan isn't to increase revenues through lower rates. His plan is to lower rates by eliminating deductions and loopholes thus resulting in higher revenues per bracket. The "lower rate" is a superficial smoke screen. Sure, the rate itself is lower. But the total tax liability will be equal to or greater than what you previously owed, due to the elimination of deductions and loopholes. The only people who really come out of this with lowered taxes are low income people, and lower middle class people. The higher your income, the more likely you are to encounter higher total taxes.

We both know that it never works like that. And the offset would at best be a push. More likely than not, taking away a few deductions would result in a small gain, not nearly enough to cover the loss in revenue due to the lower rates.

We give away $1.2 TRILLION every year in tax expenditures. That's hardly a "small gain" if you eliminate all of them.

If we left tax rates the same, we would have an $800 billion surplus every year.

That's plenty of cash to lower tax rates significantly.

If they actually did it. Taking away the home mortgage tax deduction actually makes sense, but it would hurt the economy as many taxpayers would not be able to afford to purchase a new home. Also, how would you address taking away that tax break to those who purchased a home in the last five years or so and need that deduction to make their payment. Without it, many people might actually no longer be able to afford their current mortgage. Then what?

 

[Avorysuds]

I think the US should not be allowed to run deficits. All taxes should be applied equally and any "extra" revenues are returned at the end of the year.

That is a horrible idea, and here is the reason why. When the economy is in a downturn, tax revenues fall. In order to adhere to your plan, taxes would have to be raised when the economy is weak, which would actually hurt the economy rather than help it. The problem we seem to run into is that we do not tax enough when the economy is good. The reason Clinton was able to balance the budget was due to the fact that the economy was good and tax rates were not lowered. Of course as soon as Bush took over, he cut those tax rates, because we didn't need all that revenue, and then kaboom, deficits went through the roof. And then after Bush helped crash the economy, tax revenues fell even further, and then we ended up with a debt of $18 trillion, but it's all Obama's fault.

You're right, my idea sucks. As I said I made it up on the spot. However Clinton never balanced the budget and he left Bush with a recession. Clinton also helped create the housing bubble contributing to the mal-investment that caused the 2008 collapse. The collapse was a correction, the stimulus was more mal-investment, low interest rates are even more mal-investment and today we sit in a incredibly weak economy built on over spending and debt.

The issue is overspending, it will always be overspending. Taxes don't need to go up, spending needs to go way down. The more you tax the less revenue you get per % of taxes raised, it's the law of diminishing results at work. The more welfare programs you create the more you have to tax... Once again the law of diminishing results, a welfare program grows in size and needs more money per person to achieve "similar" results as when the program was smaller.

If the Federal Government were not in the welfare business the up and down revenues would be meaningless... You would wipe out 2/3rds the expenditures we pay for every year just by getting rid of welfare. Spending through welfare is the problem, not low tax rates.

If you raised taxes on the rich you will find you get half or less of the revenues you thought you would. There is also blowback, the economy would cool.

 

[Avorysuds]

As always, the call for lower tax rates to boost tax revenues rarely works.

Trump's plan isn't to increase revenues through lower rates. His plan is to lower rates by eliminating deductions and loopholes thus resulting in higher revenues per bracket. The "lower rate" is a superficial smoke screen. Sure, the rate itself is lower. But the total tax liability will be equal to or greater than what you previously owed, due to the elimination of deductions and loopholes. The only people who really come out of this with lowered taxes are low income people, and lower middle class people. The higher your income, the more likely you are to encounter higher total taxes.

We both know that it never works like that. And the offset would at best be a push. More likely than not, taking away a few deductions would result in a small gain, not nearly enough to cover the loss in revenue due to the lower rates.

We give away $1.2 TRILLION every year in tax expenditures. That's hardly a "small gain" if you eliminate all of them.

If we left tax rates the same, we would have an $800 billion surplus every year.

That's plenty of cash to lower tax rates significantly.

If they actually did it. Taking away the home mortgage tax deduction actually makes sense, but it would hurt the economy as many taxpayers would not be able to afford to purchase a new home. Also, how would you address taking away that tax break to those who purchased a home in the last five years or so and need that deduction to make their payment. Without it, many people might actually no longer be able to afford their current mortgage. Then what?

Then you see how sick welfare has made our society. The economy is fake, without these new deductions people can't even afford the basics... Here is what I know, until a full collapse there is no chance that people will give up their welfare, and even then it's only a slight possibility people would give up their welfare. Welfare is not just food stamps, it's tax credits, it's any form of assistance by Government spending.

 

[longknife]

I don't care what system they decide upon. I think the income tax is what pisses off the vast majority of Americans.

We pay loads of hidden taxes on things we buy and don't seem to mind. So, I don't know which candidate is talking about it but I would like to see anything to repeal the income tax and replace it with being taxed for the things we buy and use - minus things we need to live such as food, clothing, and shelter.

 

[auditor0007]

I think the US should not be allowed to run deficits. All taxes should be applied equally and any "extra" revenues are returned at the end of the year.

That is a horrible idea, and here is the reason why. When the economy is in a downturn, tax revenues fall. In order to adhere to your plan, taxes would have to be raised when the economy is weak, which would actually hurt the economy rather than help it. The problem we seem to run into is that we do not tax enough when the economy is good. The reason Clinton was able to balance the budget was due to the fact that the economy was good and tax rates were not lowered. Of course as soon as Bush took over, he cut those tax rates, because we didn't need all that revenue, and then kaboom, deficits went through the roof. And then after Bush helped crash the economy, tax revenues fell even further, and then we ended up with a debt of $18 trillion, but it's all Obama's fault.

You're right, my idea sucks. As I said I made it up on the spot. However Clinton never balanced the budget and he left Bush with a recession. Clinton also helped create the housing bubble contributing to the mal-investment that caused the 2008 collapse. The collapse was a correction, the stimulus was more mal-investment, low interest rates are even more mal-investment and today we sit in a incredibly weak economy built on over spending and debt.

The issue is overspending, it will always be overspending. Taxes don't need to go up, spending needs to go way down. The more you tax the less revenue you get per % of taxes raised, it's the law of diminishing results at work. The more welfare programs you create the more you have to tax... Once again the law of diminishing results, a welfare program grows in size and needs more money per person to achieve "similar" results as when the program was smaller.

If the Federal Government were not in the welfare business the up and down revenues would be meaningless... You would wipe out 2/3rds the expenditures we pay for every year just by getting rid of welfare. Spending through welfare is the problem, not low tax rates.

If you raised taxes on the rich you will find you get half or less of the revenues you thought you would. There is also blowback, the economy would cool.

While there definitely is a thing as government overspending, the one thing many people do not understand is that all of those tax revenues end up back in the private sector again, one way or another. The argument is always that business and people can better spend their money than the government, but that is not always the case. As and example, we know that American businesses are sitting on approximately $2 trillion in cash. They are not investing it into the American economy, and they are not creating jobs. What would happen if the US government confiscated all of that money, then turned around and used it all for improving our infrastructure? Would that be a better use of the money? Would that not spur massive economic growth for the entire country? Now, I'm not suggesting that we try to confiscate $2 trillion from American business, but this idea that government spending is a terrible thing is actually not true, because again, all that money ends up right back in the private sector, and it turns around quite quickly.

 

[Dante]

Trump promised that all of this could happen without increasing the national debt because he expects the economy to improve.