Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Donald Trump, Supply-Sider?
Is Donald Trump a supply-sider? In his still young presidential campaign, he has said several times that he wants to be the “jobs president.” In his announcement speech, he put it this way: “I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created.”
But those are generalities, and Trump has been short on specifics. In particular, he has said very little, if anything, about his tax policy. But a couple of recent articles on Trump and taxes have caught my eye. Heather Long at CNN Money and Tony Nitti at Forbes have done some digging. And much of what they write is confirmed by specific past Trump tax statements listed at OnTheIssues.org.
Their findings? Like so many things in the Trump story, the Trump tax policy is a mixed bag. But there’s a nice dose of supply-side in that mix.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed back in May 1999, Trump praised Ronald Reagan’s tax-rate cuts. He also trashed then-Senator Bill Bradley’s elimination of the real-estate investment-tax shelter known as the “passive loss” deduction. I think Trump’s basic point was that ending that deduction overnight without any transitional grandfathering was a giant mistake that sent commercial real estate and the savings-and-loans that financed them into a deep tailspin. I agree with this. Getting rid of the deductions was a good idea, but doing it so fast led to the banking and real-estate crash of the late 1980s.
Trump also attacked Bradley for putting a lid on IRA savings accounts, which caused a big drop in personal retirement saving.
So far so good.
But Trump shifted into tax-the-rich mode during the 2000 presidential campaign. He proposed a one-time tax of 14.25 percent on the assets of individuals and trusts in excess of $10 million. He seems to have believed that $5.7 trillion in revenue from his wealth tax could be used to pay off America’s debt.
Later on, Trump shifted again, saying he was strongly in favor of extending the George W. Bush tax cuts. But the Trump tax tale gets a lot more interesting in 2011, when he came out with Time to Get Tough. From what I can piece together, his tax talk in the book is pure supply-side.
For instance, he proposed four income-tax brackets: 1 percent for incomes up to $30,000, 5 percent for incomes of $30,000 to $100,000, 10 percent for incomes of $100,000 to $1 million, and 15 percent for incomes of $1 million or more. A bit messy, but right direction. He also wanted to kill the death tax, lower the taxes on capital gains and dividends, and eliminate corporate taxes.
In the book he quotes Ronald Reagan, who said, “The more government takes in taxes, the less incentives people have to work.”
And really tugging at my heart strings — I am writing a book with Brian Domitrovic on the JFK tax cuts — Trump wrote,
As with most things, President Reagan had it right. But Reagan was merely echoing the economic thoughts of President John F. Kennedy, who had already said, in 1962, and I quote, “The paradoxical truth is that the tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.
Woah! Nailed it.
Trump went on to write,
Reagan and Kennedy’s views prove that smart tax policy shouldn’t be a partisan issue. It should be common sense. If you tax something you get less of it. It’s as simple as that.
This is right out of the Art Laffer playbook.
Now, I have no idea, here in 2015, if Donald Trump still believes this. But if he does it is a very good thing. It’s solidly pro-growth — the incentive model of growth. But so far he hasn’t talked about it.
And then there’s the big downside to Trump’s tax plan: In his 2011 book he supported a 20 percent tariff on all imported goods. This, of course, would be a huge tax hike on consumers and any businesses that purchase imports.
More recently, according to CNN Money’s Heather Long, he has threatened a 35 percent tax on Ford vehicles made in Mexico and brought back to the United States. And back in 2011 he suggested a 25 percent tariff on goods coming here from China. If this is correct, it’s not only anti-growth, it’s trade war.
I would observe that, in general, Trump’s rhetoric is almost always protectionist. Neither Reagan nor Kennedy would have supported that.
So, as we move towards next week’s GOP presidential debate, and get to economic questions on taxes and trade, will the real Donald Trump stand up?
Are you a supply-sider or not, Mr. Trump?
Published in Economics
Great research and analysis! If supply-sider Trump shows up at the debate on Thursday (and tariff collector Don takes the night off) he’ll come off as one of the winners, and a more feasible candidate.
If he’s a supply-sider, then he’s a real candidate. Given his years in real estate development and other business enterprise, he has surely lived the consequences of macroeconomic environments on business activity, investment and prosperity.
Is anyone naive enough to believe that, given the realities of politics, the “one-time” 14.25% asset tax would really be “one time”?….and that it really would stay limited to $10MM and above?
It is not impressive evidence of anything if one must dig through statements over different settings and time periods for the right sound bite. Even Obama said almost the right things if one digs through enough and doesn’t connect the good sound bites with the rest of him. Frankly, supply side has become a sound bite like any other. Supply side was a common sense observation about elasticities from real economics which Keynesians ignored; but then macroeconomics as we know it, is accounting which has its uses, but is not economics. Any coherent presentation on any relevant subject should tell us about a candidate if we can relate it to other coherent presentations on different subjects. We get coherence and insights into an underlying philosophy and analytical approach from Carly and Cruz. So far, Trump’s sound bites aren’t stitched together in a way that provide insight into what’s actually going on in his head.
The margin thin number of voters who will determine who wins this election won’t be voting on supply side economics. It will come down to likability, and Trump won’t be likable to enough women, no matter what his economic plan turns out to be.
You make a good point. We spend all this time analyzing the logic in different policy proposals and a good percentage of the voters are going to choose based on criteria such as the likability of the candidate’s spouse or pet. I knew a conservative who wouldn’t vote for the Republican Senate candidate a few years ago because he didn’t like the candidate’s accent.
I’m sure Larry Kudlow is correct in his assessment of Trump’s protectionist leanings. However, that’s not the theme he’s connecting with. Illegal immigration is what is driving the polls in his favor. And it’s a view not shared by Larry. I think that, politically, this selective protectionism is a even a tag-a-long to his bold stand against an open border. NAFTA was sold on the basis that US assembly plants would create Mexican jobs and help stem the flow of illegals. LOL with that result. So the 35% tax mumbo jumbo sort of has logic. So too, “the Chinese are eating our lunch.” Tariffs might not be completely indigestible to a conservative base voter. The idea here being that the theme of invasion of a weak America rings a bell. Trump stands up to that. I don’t think the average voter in a Republican primary is all that much of an economic purist.