Idea at the heart of GOP tax plan: 'trickle-down' economics

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • worf McAllen, TX
    Nov. 9, 2017 10:55 a.m.


    The national debt grew the equivalent of four hundred thousand dollars for every second of a year during the Obama years.. More Americans became beggars during this time.


    So how is Trumps plan going to be worse?

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 9, 2017 8:54 a.m.

    Since the rationale for the big corporate tax is not profits but the creation of new jobs and increased wages, why not make that tax break contingent on increasing wages or jobs? That is what Wisconsin just did with a company relocating to their state. All the tax breaks are contingent on wages and numbers of jobs.

    Also why not give the millionaires a 1% tax cut and close up some of their loopholes and give the middle class a 3% tax cut and not take away their deductions? If it is truly about the middle class and not the donor class that would seem like a logical solution.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Nov. 8, 2017 4:49 p.m.


    I am not sure what type of business you run but when I was running a business an employees wages, benefits, etc were fully deductible before taxes were applied. Same with benefits to the owner.

    So a reduction in tax liability wouldn't change those deductions. I am guessing your issue is more of a revenue issue than a tax issue otherwise what you describe does not make any sense.

    I am 100 percent in favor of removing the corporate tax completely and allowing pass-through entities 100 percent expensing of equipment and real estate. However, to compensate for these reductions personal income taxes must rise for the highest earners to at least 60 percent at the top range. This is the reality Republicans have to come to terms with.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 8, 2017 2:59 p.m.

    "In my business, if my tax liability was reduced (I do pay taxes, $thousands every month) because of a new tax law, I could use the tax savings in my business to pay my employees more or start a retirement account, or both. I’m not sure where we are not understanding one another."

    You might but we have 35 years of data that says that isn't what happens generally. Wealth concentration at the top has been going up since 1980.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 8, 2017 2:46 p.m.

    I would love to see one case where an employer raised salaries because they had excess cash, and there was no market reason to increase salaries. The whole idea of companies spontaneously increasing wages because of increased profits is absurd at best. Their responsibility is to the share holder. They would be violating their fiduciary responsibility to the owners if they shifted money to an ongoing cost like wagers without "having" to do it.

    What a load....

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 8, 2017 2:22 p.m.

    The share of wealth owned by those at the top was pretty steady and reasonable from around 1950-1980. But from Reagan's term noward we've had increasing inequality with a temporary drop during the Great Recession. The two worst years in US history for wealth inequality were 1928 (just before the Great Depression) and 2007 (just before the Great Recession). We're not really any better off now than we were in 2007.

    Some accused Obama of wanting to redistribute wealth, and that's not incorrect (supporters of his though would argue that's not a bad thing). He didn't want income inequality to be so bad, but on that goal he failed.

  • SMcloud Sandy, UT
    Nov. 8, 2017 2:27 a.m.

    Want to see a place that experimented with low taxes? Read up on Kansas in the last decade.

    They cut taxes so low that they ended up shutting down tons of services - including shutting down the public schools early! They went into steep debt and municipal repairs couldn't be paid for. Their economy slid way downwards. It was a disaster.

    It turns out, businesses want schools and fire trucks and good roads too. Who knew?
    America's tax rate is the 38th highest. Cutting more would tip us into a world where things that we take for granted stop functioning.

  • TeachyMcTeacherPants Sandy, UT
    Nov. 8, 2017 2:23 a.m.

    Why we are trying to cut taxes when the deficit is so high is beyond my imagination.

    Whatever happened to fiscal responsibility?

  • Millenial Snow Sandy, UT
    Nov. 8, 2017 2:22 a.m.

    HA! Trickle down economics is a sham.

    Since 1978, CEO pay increased 1,000%
    Worker pay increased 11%

    The money doesn't trickle down! The big companies just shift the jobs to Vietnam and hide their money in tax havens. The American worker gets left in the dust to squabble over scraps, and we are the richest country in the world. It's pathetic.

    These tax cuts are for the 1%. Make no mistake about it.

  • Fullypresent Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2017 10:21 p.m.

    Not really. They want to maintain the privileged special world they live in whatever that costs the rest of society. Let's tell it like it is.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Nov. 7, 2017 9:40 p.m.


    I assume you own a business, or are a CPA, or someway know about running a business. I don’t know much about other businesses, just my own.

    In my business, if my tax liability was reduced (I do pay taxes, $thousands every month) because of a new tax law, I could use the tax savings in my business to pay my employees more or start a retirement account, or both. I’m not sure where we are not understanding one another.

    In my business, if I can reduce expenses in any way, profitability goes up. I can take that money home, or invest it back into the business by way of new equipment or materials, I can use the money to expand my business, or I can use the money to increase employee compensation.

    I hope this helps...

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Nov. 7, 2017 7:45 p.m.

    The fundamental problem with taxes boils down to everyone hoping to live at someone else's expense.

    Everyone wants to soak "the rich" but rarely dare to define that. The poor pay nothing, get all kinds of benefits including all the rights of being citizens in the greatest nation in the world with equality before the law. The middle class gets no breaks (save solar panel rebates) and pays the bills.

    The problem with federal taxes is they are one-size-fits-all and most of us have very little practical input to what congress does.

    Let's repeal the 16th amendment and eliminate the federal income tax. Go back to the feds assessing each State based on population. The same metric used to allocate Congressional seats: a bit of taxation with representation.

    Let each State raise their share of the federal budget however they like. Nevada will tax gambling. Texas and the Dakatos have oil. Utah has a broad base and fairly low rates of income, property, and sales tax.

    My taxes are too high. Far too much of what I earn is taken and given to someone in either personal or corporate welfare. At least go to a true flat tax. We all have the same skin in the game.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 7, 2017 7:17 p.m.

    "But the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers argue that the goodies they would bestow on corporations and the wealthy would, in the political parlance of the 1980s, inevitably "trickle down" to everyone else"

    Kind of like how corporations are having record profits now.... and worker wages are doing what? Let's be real here, corporations are beholden to share holders - and part of that is to squeeze maximum productivity from workers without paying them more. To pretend that if you take care of the richest groups, they will share that wealth and trickle it down... absurd.

    How about just take care of the all the economic strata - equally?

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Nov. 7, 2017 7:00 p.m.


    I do not understand how you need a tax cut to save for retirement or pay employees more. Business owners get to deduct employee wages and retirement benefits before taxes are applied.

    The biggest benefit to small business owners would being able to expense 100 percent for equipment and real estate in the year the expenses take place.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Nov. 7, 2017 6:17 p.m.

    As a small business owner, I would love to keep more money to extend pay raises to my employees and to start saving money for retirement.

    But as a conservative, I am loathe to see a tax reduction plan result in high federal debt.

    Additionally, I would be hesitant to extend those tax savings to my employees in the form of a pay raise because I don't know how long this tax reduction plan would remain law. What happens when Republicans lose the White House and Congress? Democrats will jack the taxes up, probably higher than they are now!

    Which is why bipartisan agreement is so critical. Congress has turned into a big school yard of children battling over which side of the sand box has more toys. There is little compromise, even less bipartisanship, and even less work getting done. It is a mess.

    Would term limits change the tone of Congress?

    Will voters ever get mad enough to vote out the old and vote in a batch of new representatives that will actually compromise, work together and do good for the American people?

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Nov. 7, 2017 5:18 p.m.

    The Republicans are giving Democrats a political gift with these proposed tax cuts but they either can not see it or are not intelligent enough to see it.

    It would be so easy for Democrats to flip this around so it benefits them but they have lost the White house and senate for good reason.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 7, 2017 4:31 p.m.

    Trickle down didn't work for the middle class the first time when we were coming out of a recession. American corporations are currently making record profits. If they wanted to invest in America and it's workers they would already be doing it! This barely helps some of the middle class in the short term and will increase taxes on virtually all of the middle class in five years and yet it will pass and low information voters will praise it as a great thing and anxiously await that $4000.00 salary increase that isn't coming.

    Ten years from now we will be repeating with another big cut and a hollow promise.

    How about we tie corporate tax cuts directly to new job created or higher paying jobs created? That's the only way to get any new investment.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2017 4:26 p.m.

    This has never worked, never. Clinton raised taxes, the economy boomed and we actually ran a surplus. Until Bush was elected, he cut taxes the economy cratered and the deficit skyrocketed. Kansas tried their "grand experiment" it was a disaster. It is nothing but magical thinking. It is our fault for listening to lying politicians. An honest one would tell you we need to raise taxes on all but the poor, the wealthy most of all. Of the top 35 nations of the world our tax burden is at #32. This is the reason we have a massive debt.

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    Nov. 7, 2017 4:25 p.m.

    Trickle down has never worked not when Reagan tried it, not when both Bushes tried it, even the person who conceived it said it was a complete fail that should have been titled "the Torrent Up." Just look at who has done well under this horrible Idea, the 1% other than that wages, jobs income non have kept up with inflation.

    Sad the GOP has no ideas on how to lead.

    So the guy with Awesome New Ideas, is just going back to the GOP standard issue economic plan, because, hey Republicans seem to only work for the 1% and don't even try an hide it.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Nov. 7, 2017 4:03 p.m.

    "Trickle down" economics has never worked. I see no reason why it should work now. I just wonder how long it's going to be until the stock market does it's usual dynamic and crashes after a precipitate climb. Trump's precipitate "up and down" is a lot more damaging than the gradual but sustained claim President Obama fostered. One more way he's going to hurt us.