To the editor: I’m not an economist who can intelligently analyze all the info introduced in “A conservative think tank says Trump policies would crater the economy — but it’s being kind.”
However for those who take a look at historical past beginning in 1945, when taxes and the nationwide debt had been very excessive (we had been popping out of the Nice Despair and World Warfare II), after which take into consideration all that we completed over the subsequent 4 many years, the evaluation is straightforward.
Throughout that interval, taxes had been excessive and the nationwide debt was staying roughly the identical yearly. We additionally had the Marshall Plan to assist Europe rebuild after the struggle, we fought the Korean Warfare, we began the house program, we constructed the Interstate Freeway System, we fought the Vietnam Warfare, and we put a person on the moon.
Then got here former President Reagan’s tax cuts of the Nineteen Eighties, which benefited the rich, and the nationwide debt shortly turned and headed north. In the present day, simply the curiosity we pay on that debt is round $1 trillion. That’s greater than 15% of the federal authorities’s complete spending this yr.
Herb Adelman, Del Mar
..
To the editor: Each dad or mum in America understands that the perfect spending choices require consideration not solely of the price of the alternate options, however of their respective profit as effectively. That requires understanding of the true value and profit.
For instance, suppose sneakers for our daughter costing $40 would possibly final 4 years, whereas $20 will get a pair lasting just one yr. You would possibly assume the $40 pair is the higher deal, however since our daughter would outgrow the sneakers in six months, we (and all different sane mother and father in America) will get the pair lasting 1 yr — and save $20.
As for the financial insurance policies of the presidential nominees, Donald Trump’s insurance policies wouldn’t merely value extra and improve the debt and deficits; they’d disproportionately profit billionaires corresponding to Trump.
In distinction, Kamala Harris’ insurance policies wouldn’t solely value much less; they’d additionally profit the broad spectrum of the American public. The identical goes for his or her respective social and political insurance policies.
No considerate dad or mum would depart somebody answerable for their house and children who’s crammed with greed and hate and is fully centered on avenging falsely perceived grievances.
Jack Quirk, Porter Ranch
..
To the editor: Economist Veronique de Rugy merely parrots the standard libertarian arguments in her op-ed piece, “Where both presidential candidates’ tax promises go wrong.”
She pretends to current a balanced critique of the insurance policies of each Harris and Trump. In actuality, she falls again on the hackneyed assaults on tax credit to “particular pursuits.”
She writes: “[Tax credits] often don’t develop the economic system, as a result of they usually don’t encourage work, financial savings or funding. Once they do encourage these issues, tax credit can subtract from progress by directing capital and energy towards actions picked by the federal government for political causes, relatively than these picked by traders and shoppers for sound financial causes.”
Actually? Who’re the traders and shoppers of which she speaks? They don’t sound like anybody in my prolonged circle.
De Rugy’s libertarian views sound like a type of NIMBYism to my ears.
Martin Parker, Thousand Oaks
