Accountant Explains: How Trump Vs Kamala Affects Your Wealth

Are you a United States voter? Do you only care about how much money you make? well this video is for you.

we talk about how they affect your finances and the economy.

if you're from another country watching this, enjoy the show ~ 😭

keywords: certified public accountant, taxes, economy, donald trump, kamala harris, united states election 2024

[littlequail]

There are a lot of assumptions here that don't always align with reality. For example, lower corporate tax does free up more money that a company can spend on payroll to create jobs. But what if they dont? We have seen that companies would rather pay a quarterly dividend to shareholders than increase payroll spend. This is just one example of failed trickle down economics.

[YouArentHereYet]

I am shocked you did not point out that if tips are NOT taxed then that person's future social security payout will absolutely plummet...which is not good when a large chunk of the elderly population already cannot afford to retire comfortably.

[bas]

taxes rates before 1981 - top marginal tax rate was lowered over his 8 years in office from 73% to 28%. The effective federal corporate income tax rate has decreased: 1950: 50% 1960: 37% 1970: 32% 1980: 20% 1990: 25% 2000: 20% 2010: 15% 2020: 13% and corporate profits and CEO pay continue to rise for the last 50 years. Far out outpacing wage increases for the general public.
Tax cuts are never paid for.
The US Federal Tax Revenue as % of the GDP decreased from 18.5 to 17.4 from 1980 to 1990.
Trump’s signature Tax Cuts and Jobs Act added $1.9 trillion to the Federal deficit.

General rage increase will cause inflation and job loss, but CEO million dollars bonuses and corporate subsidies are okay. FREE MONEY!!!

Universal Health care is socialism and we can afford it, but we can spend close to a BILLION dollars a year on defense. (government ownership of the means of production)
Pentagon fails audit for sixth year in a row - Pentagon again fails annual audit of $3.8 trillion in military assets.

[themacker]

$60k in tips? Seems a bit high. Personally, I don't think servers and those who get tips pay much in taxes because they don't report all of them. Maybe some do, but I doubt it.

[logdroppersavant]

Higher corporate taxes would spur R&D expenditure, not curtail it. This, in turn, would increase the rate of economic growth, not reduce it.

In what world do you live in, where a CEO of a corporation looks at profits and thinks, 'Hmmm, with low corporate income taxes, I can extract most of this profit, increase share price, and receive huge performance bonuses and stock options (also under favorable tax benefits), or I can just push most of the profit into R&D and / or reinvestment back into the company and forego those juicy tendies"? They are incentivized to think short-term and bank those corporate profits, so that they can, in turn, receive their performance bonuses. Any repercussion from their shortsightedness is not their problem. It's the next CEOs problem to fix. They just want to get out with a pillowy nest egg. Or in the case where it all comes crashing down and burning, they'll get out with a golden parachute. That is the incentive structure. In contrast, high corporate taxes would incentivize reinvestment back into the company and R&D, since the profits would otherwise go towards paying more taxes, and not improving the companies prospects. If they had a choice between paying more taxes or reinvesting that same amount back into R&D and, thereby, foregoing those increased taxes and actually benefiting the company and its future, what do you think they will choose? Your assertions are asinine and not only counter to common sense, but counter to reality, the facts, and data.

"If they spend less on taxes, they can spend more on payroll"? Honestly, again, what world do you live in? Have you looked at the data for, oh, I don't know, the last half a century? Have you looked at wage growth, compared to GDP growth? Compared to CEO pay growth? All of the increased profits from increased productivity, goes solely to paying the C-suite. Wage growth has not kept up. Again, your assertions are asinine. Counter to reality. Counter to the facts. Counter to the data. You don't know what you're talking about.

You are spewing a whole lot of nonsense that's been peddled for ages under the auspices of so-called [conservative] economists, generally under the idea of trickle-down economics. Basic common sense would show that it is nonsensical. Barring any such capacity for common sense, the decades of data - showing that trickle-down economics not only does not work, but has harmed the vast majority of US citizens, aside from the top 1% - would do, as well.

There is already broad consensus among economists, (Nobel prize-winning economists being of note), that Trump's economic policies would be absolutely detrimental to the economy, as opposed to Biden's or Harris', which already has been proven to be world-leading. Trump inherited Obama's economy and then once his own policies started to kick in, we started to see a reversal in all of the trends. Critically, this was before the pandemic was even on our radar. All of the relevant economic signals indicated that we were heading into a recession. The pandemic merely provided cover for him and his near perfect record of ruining everything he touches. Conversely, the Biden/Harris administration inherited the pile of excrement that Trump left them (by leading in the worst handling of the pandemic amongst our global peers) and they had to turn that slow-moving ship around and did so significantly better than any of our global peers. And this is not an isolated instance. You see the same pattern with whatever metric you want to look at, comparing across democratic and republican presidents, governors, states, etc. The highest prosperity, quality of life, quality of healthcare, education; lowest crime rate, unemployment rate, etc. for the democratic presidents, states, etc. and vice versa for their republican counterparts. The republican states routinely rank at the bottom of all metrics. They are routinely subsidized by the democratic states. Conversely, the democratic states routinely rank at the top of all metrics. The metrics are irrefutable. Conservative policies (social, fiscal, or otherwise) don't work. Presenting any semblance of parity between the two platforms is tantamount to gouging out your eyes and sticking them in your earholes. We have the data and evidence that states otherwise.

[bigsquez]

So you want to increase inflation by voting for Trump?

[markdoucette]

As a landlord, I like people who can pay the rent and not destroy my property

[Jositoooo]

Thanks for the master class in vacuous assertions!

[karisalonen]

I'm not sure if I have ever heard as bad argumentation on the policies. Especially if you observe the existing reality around you.

Every last one of your argument is proven false if you look at countries in Europe.

Corporations have done record profits and they used those on stock buybacks, not on hiring people or raising wages.

You've heard too much trickledown economics and misses the fact it has been debunked two decades ago.

[George-hlxm]

Why does the media allow corporations to continue to BS people about passing on the cost why do they need to pass on cost to the customer for any reason when companies are already charging a very high price or percentage overhead example Apple is charging 3 times what it cost to make a iPhone other companies are doing the same and worse are maybe they are charging so much because they can and blame it on so called inflation 🤔🙄

[apc]

The negative side of student debt relief is also that people would be willing to borrow more for college, making ot more expensive

[LeviDanielBarnes]

Great video. Thanks!

One correction at 2:00. This is the opposite of true but it's a common mistake. Hear me out.

Companies are taxed on net profit after expenses. When corporate tax rates are low, corporations want to realize those profits (since you can move them out to shareholders on the cheap). When corporate tax rates move higher, you want to reinvest more of those gross receipts to minimize profits now (and boost them in the future). A quick scenario.

ACME Corp sells $10M in anvils each year. They pay $5M in wages, $3M in rent and put $1M into R&D. That leaves $1M in profit. Their country charges a 35% tax rate so they pay $350k in corporate taxes and pay the remaining $650k to their cheerful shareholders.

Trump comes along and cuts the tax rate to 21%. What does ACME do?

ACME are smart. They know this low corporate tax rate is unlikely to last. The next year, they sell $10M in anvils, pay $8M in wages and rent. But they eliminate their R&D budget completely. Why? Because now they can recognize that whole $2M as profit and only pay $420k in taxes. They can give $1.58M to back to shareholders. Under the old scheme, they would have had to pay $700k and give back only $1.3M. So, they cut R&D while they can recognize those profits under low tax rates.

But Levi, $1.3M in profit is more than the $650k they were giving to shareholders before. Why didn't they eliminate R&D under the old rate? Presumably, they think R&D at an after tax price of $650k is a good investment and will lead to more profit later. But under the new tax rate, that same R&D comes at an after tax rate of $790k ($1M - $210k). Perhaps they think that price is too high for their projected payout.

Kamala comes along a restores the tax rate to 35%.

Now ACME's incentive to recognize all of their profits now is reduced. R&D is back, baby!

[Cavi]

When it comes to tax, I'd personally sacrifice the prices of goods and services to get better infrastructure and public services, like public transport, which are paid from taxes.
In an ideal world goods and services offered by buisnesses should be a higher need, for pleasure, for fun, for making your life more like you want it when you can afford it. But basic human needs should be handled by government. Transport? Public transport. Health care? Good public healthcare. Housing for the least fortunate? Good low rent public neigbourhoods. Jobs? Public programms to ensure that the least fortunate people without proper education get low level jobs AND have the opportunity to higher their qualifications.

[dsnide]

Interesting take! Couple comments to consider, from my view: A server making $60, 000 in income doesn't equate to $100, 000 gross. A portion of that $60, 000 is already taxed (most servers have an low hourly rate), but even if we assume they pay $40, 000 in taxes on that $100, 000, that would mean their effective rate is 40%. Of course, we have a progressive tax system and so even in the worst scenario top marginal for that income would be 22%, and thus the effective rate would about 15%.

[mariosalgado]

I like this video. This gives you a quick brief about their policies about the economy. 👍🏽

[kevinkirk]

keep up the news. the unbiased opinion is well needed in our time.

[George-hlxm]

The Republicans have been promising the ability to buy health insurance across state lines as did Trump but it didn’t happen and probably won’t because insurance companies don’t want any legislation that would lower health insurance premiums so instead Trump will try again to finish off Obama care are the ACA leaving 20 to 40 million Americans without health insurance that will cost people with health insurance premiums to rise it could also cause are healthcare system to collapse we need more people on health insurance not less at better rates

[BasicFolders]

Remember, student debt is *never* forgiven- the debt is just moved on to the working who are paying for this in the taxes withheld from their paychecks... and those people are usually the ones who didn't get to go to college because they couldn't afford it or didn't want to put their parents under that pressure. And the politicians get the credit, which was the intention in the first place. Similarly, Kamala (and Biden) do this and preach about helping lower income people because they are running for election- Kamala has been in government for YEARS, including 4 years IN THE WHITE HOUSE yet even her own people can't clearly state anything good she has ever done for her constituents ...only the stuff she promised. She was like an absentee student when it came to her #1 campaign focus (the border) never having gone there, and it's almost intentionally been opened up to a destructive degree. I really appreciate your focus on interpreting the candidate's promises and how they will likely play out rather than focusing on race and gender and and all the emotional stuff that won't help our country in the long run. Kamala pandering to blacks by ignoring she's almost entirely either Jamaican or Indian, having racist obscene (the lyrics) rap music playing while people twerk and gyrate on the stage, she's trying to make it a popularity contest and I really appreciate when this generation can see through all that. There are some points in this video that we could debate a little, but your analytical focus is awesome and as a former teacher you get an A+ for effort. Great video. 💙

[biketickler]

Bruh I had the longest comment about ideal economics and complexity and accidentally clicked on another video. i don't feel like typing the whole thing out but my main take was just that while this is helpful it might have been fruitful to couch your analysis as being reliant on ideal market responses to state policy.

[nickthehill]

i had the exact same idea and your video is inspirational