- Position‹2 of 2
- Joe Biden will be better for the US economy
- Argument‹5 of 5
Donald Trump's economic plan only benefits the wealthy
Donald Trump's plans will deepen economic inequality across the US. His policy agenda includes a number of superficial improvements that will inevitably lead to a widening wealth gap between the top and bottom of American society.
The argument
As president, Trump has introduced tax cuts for corporations and the upper class, and has planned significant cuts to Medicaid and Medicare outlined in the 2021 budget proposal. Bernie Sanders argues that 83% of the benefits of Trump’s tax cut agenda will go to the top 1% and that CEOs now earn over 360 times more than their average workers. If true, reports that Trump only paid $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017 highlight the current president’s view of taxation as a redistribution mechanism. Biden, if elected, will raise the top bands of corporate tax from 21% to 28% and income tax from 37% to 39.6%. This change would see 93% percent of the tax burden fall on the top 20% of earners, whilst 75% would be covered by the wealthiest 1%. Biden also wants to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour and forgive student debt for low-income graduates. These plans would enable a significant redistribution of wealth, reversing the trend under Trump and promoting better economic outcomes for working and middle class individuals.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Trump’s pro-business and pro-American agenda has seen the median household income rise and the poverty level fall, and to a greater extent in black and Hispanic communities. His economic policies also contributed to significant job growth before the coronavirus pandemic; for more on this refer to the argument ‘Donald Trump has increased income levels across all economic groups’. Biden’s redistribution priorities also represent a threat to US businesses, who may struggle to compete on the international market if the minimum wage is raised to $15 an hour. Tax raises on the wealthiest may also incentivise them to move their assets or operations abroad where tax regimes are more favourable, which would in turn negatively impact the wider US economy.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The sourcing does the argument no favours. The 83% figure comes from a distributional analysis of where the law lands in 2027, after the individual provisions were legislated to expire, so quoting it without that condition misstates what it measures — and attributing it to a rival candidate rather than to the analysis compounds the problem. The Medicare and Medicaid changes are described as planned, which is a claim about proposals rather than enacted policy, and the pay ratio is a fact about corporate compensation that no tax law created. [Rejecting P2] Listing an alternative programme is not an argument that it is better. Higher corporate and top rates, a $15 minimum wage and debt cancellation are contested precisely on their economic effects, and the premise treats redistribution toward working and middle-income households as equivalent to a stronger economy — which is the point at issue rather than a shared starting point. [Rejecting C] The conclusion also rests on a word the premises cannot support. "Only benefits the wealthy" is undone by the argument's own framing, since a distribution skewed to the top is still a distribution — and the position claims a comparative advantage that would need both programmes assessed on growth, employment and deficits, none of which appears.
Framing
Wealth redistribution and public service provision are important for securing the basic needs of all, enabling greater economic productivity across the whole of society.