There are a lot of reasons why hedge funders and other Wall Street types might not vote for President Trump. The ad hominem attacks, for instance. Or the promised tax hike. Or the fact that he’s an “unstable personality” and probably a “demented, narcissistic scumbag,” and thus “completely unqualified for the highest office in the land.” And then, there’s the fact that he’d probably be as big an unmitigated disaster for the U.S. economy as he was for the Atlantic City economy, no matter what Wilbur Ross says.
Mr. Trump’s entire program, including trade, regulation and energy, not just taxes, would generate so much growth there would be almost no increase in the deficit.
Their math doesn’t add up.
It rests on aggressive, tenuous or flawed assumptions: that deficits caused by tax cuts don’t raise interest rates; that removing regulations adds directly to gross domestic product; that oil and gas companies will rush to drill on newly opened federal land regardless of energy prices; and that protectionism expands the economy even if U.S. companies and workers are already working flat out.
Mrs. Clinton’s tax proposals would reduce gross domestic product in 2018 by 0.19% below what it otherwise would be, while Mr. Trump’s plan would make it 1.12% higher. By 2027, Mrs. Clinton’s plan would increase GDP by 0.4% above baseline projections, while Mr. Trump’s plan would make it 0.43% smaller….
The study comes from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, which is working with the Tax Policy Center, a Washington project of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute that is run by a former Treasury official from Bill Clinton’s administration.
Donald Trump’s Economic Plan, Up Close, Doesn’t Add Up [WSJ]
Donald Trump’s Tax Plan Would Boost Economy in Short Run but Not Long Term, Analysis Finds [WSJ]
Rejecting Trump, Wall Street Republican donors scatter largesse [Reuters]