Oxford Economics Doesn’t Like Trump’s Tax Plan

I received the following information in an email this morning.

I haven’t written much lately. I especially haven’t written much about politics lately. I am not very excited about this election. That said, I would prefer neither Hillary or Bernie be our next president (that’s not an endorsement for Trump).


Back the email I mentioned. Here is what Oxford Economics has to say about Donald Trump’s tax plan:

If implemented fully, Mr. Trump’s tax proposal would reduce government revenues by just over $4 trillion over the next five years, writes Gregory Daco, Head of US Macroeconomics at Oxford Economics in a research note released today. Assuming 25% of the revenue loss would be offset by reductions in government outlays (and the remainder would be deficit financed) his plan would send the US economy into a recession by the end of 2017.

The report makes these additional points:

• Under Mr. Trump’s budget proposal, the unified budget deficit would widen to nearly 7% of GDP by the end of 2018, compared with 2.8% in our baseline, while the federal debt to GDP ratio would surge from 77% of GDP today to 95% by 2020. This would likely cause severe stress in bond markets.

• Higher interest rates would lead to substantial crowding out of private investment, consumer spending and housing activity.

• On the individual tax front, reducing marginal tax rates, collapsing income tax brackets, repealing the AMT, increasing deductions and taxing carried interest income as ordinary business income would likely stimulate spending and overall activity. However, the skewed distributional nature of the tax cuts – favouring higher income individuals – and higher interest rates would severely limit the boost to spending.

• On the corporate side, the prospect of lower tax rates would initially stimulate a desire for investment, but higher borrowing costs would rapidly deter business investment.

• Factoring in severe government spending cuts, the US economy would contract 2% in 2018 compared with a 2.4% expansion in the baseline. It would count 3 million fewer jobs by the end of Mr. Trump’s first term.

• Under a more realistic scenario where Mr. Trump’s plan is made deficit-neutral to pass Congress, the economy would avoid a recession, but still grow slower than in our baseline and count 1.1 million fewer jobs by the end of Mr. Trump’s first term.

I have no idea how accurate these numbers are and I haven’t read the full report. I would hope that government would be financed through tax revenues rather than deficit spending. That would mean cuts in spending, which I think are necessary. The government is bloated. It needs to be pared back and the focus should be on only what’s important. It’ll never happen, though. Politicians love spending money on their favorite projects in order to buy votes. Politicians think their job is to stay in office.

I searched Oxford Economics’ website but didn’t find any information on Hillary Clinton’s tax plan. Hopefully one will be forthcoming.

Question of the Day: How Much Is Enough?

A household income of $400,000 puts a family in the top 1%. Although, definitely not poor, it’s also not nearly as “wealthy” as those of a certain political party and the mainstream media would have us believe. Were that their taxable income (not factoring in exemptions or deductions), they would pay $107,528 in federal income tax (that’s not including property tax, state tax, or payroll tax).


How much more should they be expected to pay in taxes in order to fund government programs?

As If We Don’t Pay Enough in Taxes Already…

A Black Box in Your Car? Some See a Source of Tax Revenue

Charging drivers by the mile.

Anyone who lives outside of New York City or any other big metropolitan area, will not like this idea.

I loathe any idea that adds a new way to tax people. Why? Because the old taxes rarely get done away with. There is a gasoline tax already. There are also lots of toll roads that charge by distance driven. WE DON’T NEED ANOTHER WAY FOR GOVERNMENTS TO GET MORE TAXES.

The above article mentions that this is necessary because the roads are in need of repairs. Wasn’t TARP supposed to be for roads? We have zero accountability in how the government spends the money it receives.

A New Box on the W-2: Cost of Employer-Sponsored Health Coverage

So, I’m working on our taxes today (yeah, I know I’m procrastinating).

I’m entering information from my wife’s W-2 and notice a new box that I didn’t have to report last year:

DD – Cost of Employer-Sponsored Health Coverage

I got a sinking feeling in my stomach that eventually this is going to be used against us at some point in the future&151;as if we don’t pay enough in taxes already.

IRS Tracking What We Do Online?

If this doesn’t concern AFM readers, I don’t know what will:

Consumers are already familiar with Internet “cookies” that track their movements and send them targeted ads that follow them to different websites. The IRS has brought in private industry experts to employ similar digital tracking–but with the added advantage of access to Social Security numbers, health records, credit card transactions and many other privileged forms of information that marketers don’t see.

From: IRS High-Tech Tools Track Your Digital Footprints

Does anyone else think the IRS is overstepping here? I sure do.

You know, none of this would be important or necessary if we had a flat tax.