The economic impacts of U.S presidential candidates

[Hawker]

Obviously taxing policy is a big part of the economy of a country and thus it's a big theme in the elections. Here's the detailed analysis of U.S tax foundation about the effects that each candidates taxing policies would have:

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see images

Can someone who has studied economics explain what these numbers really mean?

Am I right to say that the revenue part is the most important, and thus electing Trump as president would make U.S financial crisis even worse?​

 

[Urda]

Sanders and Clinton tax plans are good, Trump and Cruz are bad.

Also, if you still don't understand:

Sanders/Clinton: Long-term ---- Trump/Cruz Short-term

 

[GenKiDama]

this is a naruto forum. and you're discussing economic impacts on a country due to elections.
I must be on the wrong site.

 

[Angelic.]

Hmmmmmm yup :busy:

 

[Donald J Trump]

As most of you know I went to one of the best schools in the world, Wharton school of finance.

The first 4 predictions literally mean what they say. America will have more jobs, GDP growth (Gross domestic product ), wage growth and Investment growth.

However the bottom 2 represent the amount of money America would "lose"/spend in order to achieve this. So with Bernie you are getting a future investment but America will suffer for the first 4 years or so but in return it will have tremendous amount of cash to put back into things HOWEVER It's so important that you understand this, JUST because America will have money to put into it's people does not MEAN it will do so.

 

[BlacLord™]

Trump's plans would see government debt rise like a *** addict's schlong in a brothel.

Anyway, put it this way. Trump and Cruz's plans would see tax rates drop and personal income increase in the short term, at the cost of rapidly rising debt in the long run. The whole "new jobs" and "lower tax" promises are cons/tricks, because as debt increases so does taxes, interest rates and inflation. The only thing that goes down is the speed of economic growth.

In the end, the average joe will end up with lower income, higher prices on products and poorer public facilities.

 

[Wparker6804]

Obviously taxing policy is a big part of the economy of a country and thus it's a big theme in the elections. Here's the detailed analysis of U.S tax foundation about the effects that each candidates taxing policies would have:

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see images

Can someone who has studied economics explain what these numbers really mean?

Am I right to say that the revenue part is the most important, and thus electing Trump as president would make U.S financial crisis even worse?​

Honestly it's down to least bad choice. For either party I'd say that's Cruz (not an option now) or Sanders (slim & unlikely but still slim). I don't even bother looking at Trump or Clinton.

 

[Hawker]

As most of you know I went to one of the best schools in the world, Wharton school of finance.

The first 4 predictions literally mean what they say. America will have more jobs, GDP growth (Gross domestic product ), wage growth and Investment growth.

However the bottom 2 represent the amount of money America would "lose"/spend in order to achieve this. So with Bernie you are getting a future investment but America will suffer for the first 4 years or so but in return it will have tremendous amount of cash to put back into things HOWEVER It's so important that you understand this, JUST because America will have money to put into it's people does not MEAN it will do so.

But you accept that this analysis soloes Trump's campaign?

 

[SSStylish]

I don't get it. How is 6.000.000 people losing their job going to be good for the economy in the long run and how is voting for someone who will make 6.000.000 unemployed morally acceptable?

 

[Donald J Trump]

But you accept that this analysis soloes Trump's campaign?

Yes....

Now Die!

You must be registered for see images

 

[Hawker]

I don't get it. How is 6.000.000 people losing their job going to be good for the economy in the long run and how is voting for someone who will make 6.000.000 unemployed morally acceptable?

I didn't quite get that either, but my guess is that the taxing policy there is to raise the taxes (people lose jobs) and prevent the money from the richest 1% going to overseas or somewhere else where it doesn't benefit the country. And in the end when you have all that money you can use it for the stuff that really matters: healthcare, crime prevention etc.

 

[CrimsonReaper]

Look at what happened to the economy when Bush ruled lmfao. it will happen again if trump gets into office. Republicans are only good at destroying America's economy.

 

[BlacLord™]

I didn't quite get that either, but my guess is that the taxing policy there is to raise the taxes (people lose jobs) and prevent the money from the richest 1% going to overseas or somewhere else where it doesn't benefit the country. And in the end when you have all that money you can use it for the stuff that really matters: healthcare, crime prevention etc.

I don't get it. How is 6.000.000 people losing their job going to be good for the economy in the long run and how is voting for someone who will make 6.000.000 unemployed morally acceptable?

It's not that 6M lose jobs, it's the rate of new jobs opening goes down by 6M. Lowering taxes and raising the percentage of new jobs per year puts pressure on the economy and helps the national debt climb, meaning those who are working end up getting taxed higher in the long run anyway, whilst also suffering from the higher prices of goods because of higher inflation. And because economic growth is further stunted, the potential for increasing new jobs in the long term gets smaller.

By easing pressure off the economy, the leaders can get some control on the debt, opening up potential for many more jobs in the future and keep inflation at bay, whilst stabilizing and increasing the economy's growth.

 

[~Ethereal~]

Lol .