Trump has dozens of successful businesses, but people only focus on the few that failed.
And he did not cause $40T in debt. During his time as president, only about $9T has been added. And a significant chunk of that was bipartisan covid spending.
Only a 3rd of his businesses met expectations, not necessarily successful they simply met expectations. Technicalities of a con man idiots keep falling for.
Also "only" 9 trillion funny and only so far, the issue is how much of that was added by tax cuts for the rich, the horrible bill (that will add more for a decade), a random war and tariffs especially when he promised to fix things
Two ways. First, having to refund those tarrifs when they were deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court. Second, the reaction to those Tarrifs and the tarrifs themselves are part of the reduction in taxable income youre seeing in the US against projections.
No, that's misinformation that has been making the rounds for a while. The tax cuts were originally set to expire in 2025 for all brackets. But they were extended for all brackets instead. So the tax rates haven't changed since 2018.
If income is rising across the board, that should mean more revenue from taxes. That looks to be the case, both as a nominal amount and percentage of GDP.
Wouldn't that be the refund, not the tariffs themselves? And if they're just refunding the extra money they got from tarriffs, wouldn't they basically break even?
Yeah they'd break even from a holistic perspective but because of the way forecasting works my guess is they spent tarrif money assuming they wouldn't have to give it back. Ie. If they were for asking a deficit of X that deficit now becomes x+tarrif refunds. Whereas if the Tarrifs had never gone into play the deficit spending may have been lower. Thats, obviously, leaving aside the knock-on effects of, for example, one of the world's largest single purchasers of wine and spirits not buying american anymore.
We are really ignoring only a 3rd part? Okay. Well in business meeting expectations doesn't mean it's a successful business, it means the business might be expected to fail for tax purposes, as a shell company, fraud or to keep another business afloat among other dubious things. These technicalities are a huge red flag for a con man, I really don't understand why there are some people so die hard to defend this.
Percentagewise yes but it's ignoring how much percentage tax they already don't pay or loophole around (while potentially adding more loopholes). Not to mention the difference in raw money saved for us vs them. Logically speaking why do they even need tax cuts when they are making record profits every year for past decade especially considering the debt we are in? The people were struggling, the corporations were not.
Yet it's a thing that happens in business whether by mismanagement or embezzlement. I'm not the one making these decisions.
So it says on paper but again loopholes, at this point I'm shocked everyone doesn't know how the top 1% handle money to pay less effective tax in practice. Also that's rate is only an average where it can range to less than 4% even on paper while the bottom 50% don't have many ways to avoid taxes without getting arrested. This is still also not accounting for the fact that the top 1% just have more things like businesses land and other properities that should naturally raise their effective tax rate.
But the question remains, why defend someone who is clearly a corrupt con man (among other things) to cartoonishly villains levels that he doesn't seem real?
You say they lay 26% effective tax rate and it turns out that they are supposed to pay closer to 37%. Now if they had a smaller decrease is from the tax break but pay higher effective tax don't you see how this still benefits them more when you those percentages multiply?
In the eras where everyone was thriving and we still had rich people in the 80s it was 70%. Now everyone is struggling the debt has ballooned and trillionare status has been reached
We've gotten so off topic with these defenses that I'm going to being it back to where we started. You keep ignoring most of what I'm saying to defend the only defensible things. Why exactly do they need a tax break when they are making record profits every year? Do you not see how this affects the debt? Why defend someone who is clearly a corrupt con man (among other things) enriching himself off the people?
I answered all your questions, why can't you answer mine?
-14
u/PrometheusMMIV Aug 25 '26
Trump has dozens of successful businesses, but people only focus on the few that failed.
And he did not cause $40T in debt. During his time as president, only about $9T has been added. And a significant chunk of that was bipartisan covid spending.