Trump's tax reforms dramatically reduced the American tax burden. In the twelve months between November 2018 and 2019, tax liabilities dropped from a total of $1.619 trillion tp $1.552 trillion, or 4% overall.
The argument
President Trump has always had a plan to reduce taxes on the American people. While in office, he signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and cut corporate taxes, making America's companies and families wealthier. Because those tax cuts have been beneficial to the economy, proponents argue, he should be re-elected in the 2020 presidential election. The individual side of the Act reached ordinary taxpayers directly. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act temporarily lowered individual tax rates, with most income brackets receiving a drop that saved taxpayers billions of dollars. Trump also saved Americans from traditional tax penalties associated with the Affordable Care Act and the personal exemption. On this view, money left in a household's hands is money that household is free to spend, save or invest according to its own judgement rather than the federal government's, and the aggregate of those decisions is what an economy is. A tax cut is therefore not a giveaway but a transfer of decision-making from Washington back to the people who earned the income. The corporate side is argued to work through the same logic at a larger scale. Trump significantly slashed corporate tax rates, cutting the highest corporate rate from 35% to 21% and boosting the US economy in the process. Supporters hold that the extra money saved by large companies would trickle down to benefit American families — through wages, hiring and investment — and spur the US economy, since a firm that retains more of its earnings has both the means and the incentive to expand. President Trump has appealed to taxpaying citizens and companies alike with this raft of tax cuts, and on the argument's own terms the record is the case for continuity. To continue a prosperous America, proponents conclude, President Trump should be re-elected in the 2020 presidential election.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Although President Trump claims to have benefitted all taxpaying citizens, he mainly benefitted the ultra-rich. An analysis by the Tax Policy Center contends that the largest tax benefits would apply to the top 1 percent. Trump’s tax cuts mainly benefit America’s wealthiest citizens, people who do not desperately need a tax break. Trump’s tax cuts are trivial for most Americans. Slashing taxes for large conglomerates and the top 1 percent has not had a substantial impact for most Americans.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Whether lower rates strengthen the economy is the disputed claim rather than shared ground: the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation projected modest growth effects, well short of the revenue offset claimed for the Act. [Rejecting P2] The description omits what matters most about the design — the individual rate cuts were temporary and scheduled to expire while the corporate cut was made permanent — and the distributional analysis the counter cites places the largest gains at the top. [Rejecting C] One policy cannot settle a presidential choice: the conclusion requires weighing an administration's whole record, which the argument does not attempt.