Trump’s economic plan would add 4x more to national debt than Harris

Well, that is an idea. i don’t have the answers to why it won’t work… but if it does, can you share thoughts on the long term impact:
- does it assumes tax revenues on GDP growth outpaces inflation?
- sounds like a benefits cap on social security and Medicare when we have a giant retirement baby-boomer bubble.
- what about automation and Ai? If no new taxes, we will see labor destruction and tax revenues shortfalls?

 

We'll figure it out somehow. Art, yachts, planes... You're just making the case why truly wealthy people should be taxed more.

 

I completely disagree. So if someone works and creates wealth the only right thing to do is tax it at a rate that makes you feel better? If someone earns 1MM a year in taxable income and pays 400k in Fed tax is that not enough? Should they pay 60-70% of their income to the government who’s proven (no matter the political party) to be awful stewards of those funds?

 

It's not about making me feel better, it's about making us a better country (which would in fact make me feel better, so I guess it is about making me feel better in a way). The disparity between rich and poor gets ever wider as time goes on. That's just a feature of capitalism. The rich do indeed get richer. Things need to be kept in better balance. A certain amount of redistribution is good for everyone, even the wealthy.

 

Redistribution has worked well throughout history. Good plan. Thankfully my goal is amass as much capital as I can for my kids and to hell with everyone else. If that bothers people then so be it. I’ll be long gone once the fall of this country comes.

 

Got a little news flash for you. We already do redistribution and we've been doing it for a long time. Without it this country would be a total hell hole. But even with all that, the wealth gap continues to widen. That's because the natural course of capitalism is for the rich to get richer and for wealth disparity to widen. And your to-hell-with-everyone-else plan is exactly why redistribution is needed in the first place. People use their wealth to amass ever more wealth. To hell with everyone else.

 

It is actually one of the more effective strategies of democratic governments running capitalist economies. See the relative stability of Western Europe, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. in the Post-World War II environment. All engaged in elements of redistribution in the name of stability (e.g., the prevention of political violence due to Communism or Fascism or some other ideology). They were far more successful than countries that didn't.

The "to hell with everyone else" position hasn't historically worked well. It tends to result in dramatic instability often leading to violent revolution. Maybe you are the Louis XIV in this scenario, but, eventually there will be a Louis XVI left holding the bag. This likely occurs not directly because of inequality but because inequality eventually leads to an inequality of opportunity due to persistent, multi-generational relative deprivation.

 

This should be Trump’s campaign slogan.

 

You guys vote for increased redistribution. I’ll make money regardless of which regime is elected. I love how people are vilified in today’s society for making money. I prefer your hatred to the alternative.

 

I agree. It should be more people’s slogan in life.

 

"Let them eat cake." Remind me, did that work out well in the end?

 

Nobody hates you and you're not a victim. As for you making money regardless of which regime is elected, that's kinda the whole point. You'll be fine even if you have to pay a little higher taxes. And your tax money will help other people be better off too.

 

Huh, I’ve always thought one of the great benefits of our country was a safe and economically prosperous country. It’s not in my interest to leave a dysfunctional and broken society for my daughters.

 

And this sort of selfish thinking is why we are now in decline as a country. We will be viewed historically as a failed capitalist experiment.

 

Neither candidate believes in reducing spending. One candidate, however, is on record as someone who enjoys "playing with debt". And that same candidate had a history of running up the federal debt by $3 trillion before Covid hit, so he did mean it when he said it. He likes spending money and cutting taxes irresponsibly, passing the problem on to our grandchildren.

 

While neither candidate is fiscally conservative, Trump is clearly less fiscally conservative than the other option.

 

At its core maga is basically selfish and short sighted. All decisions on politics revolve around that. They couldn’t care less trump will explode the debt. Longer term impacts are slightly more complex to explain than simplistic demagoguery of “let’s not pay taxes”.

 

A lot of that depends on defense spending and entitlements, especially Social Security and Medicare. Social Security is in worse shape every year because people are living longer. Medicare is costing more because medical costs are increasing above what inflation indicates they should. People are extracting more and more money out of medical care providers through lawsuits, and that is one of the things driving up health care costs. Defense spending is likely to go way up if Russia is allowed to win this war in Ukraine.

Also, if we keep spending and taxation where they are now, our infrastructure will fall apart due to inflation. It costs more to maintain highways and bridges than it did a year ago, or ten years ago, because inflation drives the costs up. With infrastructure falling apart, the economy will not grow. Our economy is designed to operate best on about 2% inflation.