Trump: My tax plan would grow the economy.

[wvit1001]

Tax Policy Center: No, it would shrink it by 4%.



Trump’s tax plan is a massive giveaway to the rich, costing $6.2 trillion over its first decade (before interest payments) and directing almost half of that to the top 1 percent.

But he and his surrogates have insisted it’s worth it — and might even pay for itself — by igniting supercharged economic growth. “The Trump economic plan creates at least 25 million jobs, boosts growth up to 4 percent, and is revenue neutral,” the campaign boasts on its website.

One problem: According to new analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the Trump plan wouldn’t increase growth. It would reduce it. Substantially. And it would do so precisely because it’s anything but revenue neutral.

TPC, using the economic projections of the Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) from the University of Pennsylvania, projects that the plan will help the economy in the short run by putting more money in people's pockets to spend. But by 2025, the impact of the plan becomes negative as an explosion in US government debt raises interest rates for businesses and consumers. After its first decade, the plan would reduce GDP by 0.5 percent. By 2036, two decades after enactment, it would cut GDP by 4 percent

Concurrently, the center released economic analysis of the effect of Hillary Clinton’s plans to raise taxes on the rich. They find the reverse effect: economic damage in the short run, but salutary effects from deficit reduction in the medium to long run. However, the analysis omits the fact that Clinton would use those tax hikes not to offset the deficit but to fund new spending. When that’s taken into account, the effect is likely a wash or modestly negative


http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/18/13319138/trump-tax-policy-center-gdp

[WWV10MHZ]

[Truman62]

Give money to poor folks and they spend it, stimulating the economy.
Give money to rich folks and they might spend a bit of it...

[pacifica]

Open up/re-build back manufacturing in inner cities which means business needs incentive to open up shop again in the United States. Once teaming with life - now blight - major cities need to be given new life.

Which candidate would best be able to garner these deals. Vote for that candidate.

[duke_john]

I was fortunate to see Detroit before it began its big tailspin.  We need a President Trump to revive shit holes like Detroit.

[pacifica]

Detroit in the hayday!!! Must have been sweet.

[wvit1001]

Detroit is a great city. And it's not going anywhere. 

[duke_john]

Geographically, it isn't.  wvit is trying to mislead again.

[KensanIV]

I went to Wayne State for one semester when my father was working temporarily in the Detroit area. At that time it was a pretty nice city with full employment.

[duke_john]

I was impressed with Detroit in the mid-1980s, even though it was said to be on the decline.

[Dan]

Tax Policy Center: No, it would shrink it by 4%.

They are wrong.  Remember there are two economies.  A public sector economy and a private sector economy.  Yes the public sector economy would necessarily shrink, but to the great advantage to the private sector economy, at least twofold.  Remember, a dollar spent in the private sector changes hands three times more than it changes hands in the public sector.

The overall economy would grow far more substantially when money is transferred from public to private sector.

[KensanIV]

In February Cadillac Square was the coldest place in Michigan the way that wind used to come off the Detroit River.  I think about that often when we have cold winter in Penna... its sort of like April in Michigan.

That being said, We used to stay in the Skokie Hilton in Chicago when I attended class out there for my company... Once we were snowed in for the better part of 3 days and couldn't get to (Touhy Ave Niles) for the school.