Trump has introduced tax reforms

The argument

Trump kept his promise on tax, because the reform he campaigned on was drafted, passed and put into effect. In 2017, a tax bill with one of the largest tax reforms in decades passed the Senate and Congress. Trump has championed this as one of the great victories of his presidency and called it a "middle class miracle". The claim being made here is one of delivery rather than of outcome: a promise to reform the tax code is kept when legislation is enacted, and on this measure the record is a matter of what was signed rather than of how it is judged. Supporters point to what the reforms changed for individuals. They simplified the tax code for American citizens, cut rates temporarily until 2025, and let individuals benefit from a doubling of the child tax credit and other tax breaks. The Heritage foundation calculates that the average American pays $1,400 less in taxes and that a family of four saves an average of $2,900 following the reforms — figures offered to show the change reaching ordinary households rather than stopping at the statute book. The corporate provisions are defended on a further step of reasoning. These tax cuts reduced the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% to encourage investment and benefit working Americans, on the argument that a company retaining more of its earnings has more to deploy. Lowering corporate tax should therefore lead to more hires, and proponents note that the US unemployment rate had been steadily falling before the pandemic. Taken together, the argument is that a promise of significant tax reform was made, that a bill answering it became law, and that its provisions reached both individual filers and employers.

Premises

Counter-arguments

These tax reforms have overwhelming favoured the wealthiest Americans. Trump promised a tax cut to benefit all Americans, but the working class have seen little benefit in the amount of tax they pay or increased employment.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The counter disputes how the individual savings were distributed, arguing that the reforms overwhelmingly favoured the wealthiest Americans and that working-class taxpayers saw little change in what they paid. [Rejecting P3] The corporate rate cut is likewise held not to have delivered what was promised at the level of ordinary workers, with the counter reporting little benefit in employment — so measured against a pledge to cut taxes for all Americans, the counter treats the promise as unmet rather than kept.