Skip to content
Trump and Tax2017

Behind the Curtain: How Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts Fueled Washington’s Endless Wealth Shuffle.

eherbut@gmail.com
The 2017 Trump tax cuts mostly benefited corporations and the wealthy while fueling national debt and widening economic inequality, as political theatrics distract Americans from the real dealmaking in Congress.
The veil on the 2017 Trump tax cuts, unraveling their real beneficiaries and revealing the political theatrics that distract from deeper issues. With analysis from Prof. Richard Wolff, we’ll explore how tax policy manipulates public perception, fuels economic inequality, and sets up a dangerous game of national debt.

Several years ago, while waiting in line at my local post office, I overheard a heated debate about tax cuts: an accountant grumbling about lost deductions, a small business owner cheering her lower rate, and a teacher wondering why her paycheck barely budged. Their confusion echoes across the country—and nowhere is it more complex, or consequential, than within the halls of Congress. Under the trumpets and fanfare of Washington ‘reform,’ the 2017 Trump tax cuts dramatically shifted the nation’s financial currents, but the mainstream narrative rarely tells the whole story. Let’s pull back the curtain and see who’s really calling the tune.

The Impact of Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts: Who Truly Won?

When the Trump tax cuts 2017—officially known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)—passed in December 2017, it was hailed by its supporters as a transformative step for the American economy. Yet, as Prof. Richard Wolff’s economic analysis and subsequent research show, the real winners of this sweeping legislation were not the average American workers, but rather corporations and the wealthiest individuals.

Corporate Tax Relief: The Centerpiece of the TCJA

At the heart of the TCJA was a dramatic corporate tax rate cut, slashing the federal rate from 35% to 21%. This move was pitched as a way to boost business investment, create jobs, and raise wages for ordinary Americans. The numbers, at least on the surface, seemed promising. Studies indicate an estimated 11% increase in corporate investment following the tax cut. But when it comes to the broader economic impact, especially on wage growth effects, the story becomes much more complicated.

Who Benefited Most?

Despite the rhetoric around helping the middle class, the lion’s share of the benefits from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act flowed to corporations and the billionaire class. Prof. Wolff points out that the bill included “a sprinkling of minor tax cuts for average people so that they are so grateful that they got anything that they don’t look at who got the lion’s share of this tax cut.” In reality, the largest gains went to those who needed them least. As Wolff bluntly put it:

“Never did corporations and the rich need a tax cut less than when they got it from Mr. Trump.”

This timing is especially striking. The TCJA arrived after decades of wealth being redistributed upward, from the bottom and middle to the top. For many economists, this made the corporate tax relief not just unnecessary, but almost grotesque in its priorities.

Promises vs. Reality: The Wage Growth Gap

One of the most publicized promises of the Trump tax cuts 2017 was that they would spark significant wage growth. The Council of Economic Advisers projected an average wage increase of up to $9,000 per worker. The reality? Research shows the average boost was closer to $750—a fraction of the original forecast. While some companies announced bonuses or wage bumps, these were often one-time events rather than sustained improvements.

The modest wage growth stands in sharp contrast to the windfall enjoyed by corporations and high-net-worth individuals. The TCJA’s structure ensured that the most substantial, lasting benefits accrued to those at the top, while the average worker saw only a modest, short-lived gain.

The Cost: Corporate Tax Revenue Loss and Growing Inequality

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did not come without a price. The act led to a significant loss in corporate tax revenue—estimated at about 40%. This shortfall has major implications for the federal budget and the government’s ability to fund essential programs. As Prof. Wolff and other analysts have noted, when the government collects less from corporations and the rich, it faces a tough choice: cut spending on social programs, or borrow more and increase the national debt.

This cycle—cutting taxes for the wealthy, then borrowing from them to cover the deficit—has become a defining feature of Washington’s “endless wealth shuffle.” Both major parties, Wolff argues, are locked in a “marriage” with their wealthy donors, ensuring that tax policy continues to favor those at the top. Meanwhile, the needs of ordinary Americans and the long-term health of the public sector are often sidelined.

Political Theater and the Real Agenda

Much of the public debate around the Trump tax cuts 2017 has focused on side issues—culture wars, tariffs, and other distractions. But as Prof. Richard Wolff’s economic analysis makes clear, the core mission has always been corporate tax relief and maintaining the flow of benefits to the billionaire class. The modest perks for average taxpayers serve mainly as political cover, while the real action happens behind the curtain.

In the end, the TCJA offers a revealing case study in how tax policy can be used to reinforce existing inequalities, even as it is sold to the public as a boon for all. The numbers speak for themselves: a 21% corporate tax rate, an 11% investment bump, but only a $750 wage increase for workers and a 40% drop in corporate tax revenue. The question of who truly won is not hard to answer—if you know where to look.

Debt, Deficits, and Political Theater: The Hidden Costs of Congressional Deal-Making

The US debt crisis and tax policy debates often make headlines, but the real story usually unfolds behind closed doors. Since the passage of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the government’s approach to fiscal management has been shaped by a mix of deficit financing, political theater, and a persistent reluctance to challenge the interests of the wealthy donor class. This section unpacks how Congressional deal-making, driven by both Republicans and Democrats, has fueled explosive deficit growth and shifted the burden of government financing onto future generations.

The Duopoly’s Dance: Congressional Corruption and Campaign Donations

For decades, the US has operated under what many call a duopoly—a system dominated by Democrats and Republicans, each vying for campaign donations from the richest Americans. As Prof. Richard Wolff notes, “For years now, under both Republicans and Democrats, the government of the United States has been controlled by a duopoly, a stifling duopoly of two major parties, both of whom are begging all the time for donations from the people who are rich in this culture.” This constant pursuit of campaign cash has a direct impact on tax policy decisions, with both parties favoring tax cuts that benefit their donors over meaningful reform.

Research shows that political donations strongly influence Congressional priorities, especially when it comes to tax policy. The 2017 TCJA, for example, slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, delivering enormous benefits to corporations and high-income households. While there was a “sprinkling of minor tax cuts for average people,” the lion’s share went to those who needed it least. Studies indicate that extending these provisions beyond their original expiration will further increase economic inequality, as the benefits disproportionately flow to the wealthy and large corporations.

Deficit Financing and the Rich: Borrowing Instead of Taxing

The refusal to restore higher tax rates for the wealthy—rates seen in the 1960s through the 1980s—has left Congress with a stark choice: cut spending or borrow more. Yet, as Prof. Wolff points out, “They’re not going to touch the military because that like not touching the donors is a taboo.” Social programs like food stamps, Medicaid, and university funding are often on the chopping block, but even these cuts are politically risky. If the government cuts too deeply, it risks alienating the public and exposing the system’s bias toward the rich.

Instead, Congress has turned to deficit financing. Rather than tax the wealthy, lawmakers borrow from them, effectively making the government a top customer for the rich. This arrangement is a win-win for donors: they keep their tax cuts and earn interest by lending money to the government. However, this cycle of borrowing and spending has consequences. The US deficit has ballooned, and the cost of servicing the debt—paying interest—now consumes a growing share of the federal budget.

Political Theater: Distracting from the Real Issues

While the public is distracted by partisan drama and culture wars, the most consequential fiscal decisions happen quietly. The extension of the TCJA and new rounds of corporate tax relief are often justified as economic stimulus, but research suggests the benefits are limited. The TCJA led to a modest increase in corporate investment and only a small boost in median wages—far less than what was promised. Meanwhile, the loss in corporate tax revenue has been significant, with estimates suggesting a 40% drop since 2017.

Both parties engage in public debates over spending, but rarely is there a serious discussion about raising taxes on corporations or the wealthy. The political courage to propose such measures is lacking, even though economists widely agree that restoring higher tax rates could stabilize the nation’s finances without sacrificing essential programs.

US Government Debt Downgrade: A Warning Sign

The consequences of this endless wealth shuffle are becoming harder to ignore. The US government’s debt has been downgraded from AAA by Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch—an unprecedented signal of fiscal risk. Tax expenditures and deficit financing have pushed the nation to a point where even the wealthy are questioning the safety of lending to the government. As Prof. Wolff explains, “You are so heavily in debt now that you are no longer safe for us to lend to.”

In the end, the hidden costs of Congressional deal-making are borne by ordinary Americans. Rising deficits, stagnant wages, and cuts to social programs are the price of a system that prioritizes donors over the public good. The duopoly’s grip on power, fueled by campaign donations and deficit financing, continues to shape US debt crisis and tax policy—often at the expense of economic stability and equality.

What Gets Cut, Who Gets Helped: The Reality of ‘Bipartisan’ Budgeting

When Americans hear about budget cuts and social programs, the conversation often feels abstract—until it hits home. The reality, as research shows, is that these cuts rarely target the powerful or the wealthy. Instead, they consistently fall on programs that help ordinary people: food stamps, Medicaid, education, and research. Meanwhile, corporate welfare in Congress and military budgets remain largely untouched, shielded by bipartisan support for tax cuts and a political system deeply intertwined with donor interests.

The roots of this pattern stretch back decades, but the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) under President Trump put the issue into sharp relief. This legislation slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, delivering enormous benefits to corporations and the wealthy. There was, as always, a sprinkling of minor tax relief for average Americans—just enough to distract from the fact that the lion’s share went to those at the top. As Professor Richard Wolff puts it, “If you exempt corporations and the rich, you’re exempting where the money is for any government. So what are you going to do? With less money coming in, you can spend less. And that means cutting the food stamps and the Medicaid and the Medicare and the help to universities and the research. You know the drill.”

This is not just theory. Studies indicate that after the TCJA, corporate tax revenue dropped by about 40%, while the promised wage growth for workers barely materialized. The average wage boost was around $750—far below the $9,000 increase that was predicted by the administration. Meanwhile, the benefits of these tax cuts flowed overwhelmingly to high-income households and corporate shareholders, many of whom are already among the wealthiest Americans. The result? Economic inequality in America has only deepened, with the gap between the rich and everyone else growing ever wider.

But the story doesn’t end with a single tax bill. The current debate in Congress centers on whether to extend these tax cuts indefinitely and even add new ones, all while the nation’s debt climbs to historic levels. Both parties maneuver to maintain donor goodwill and avoid public unrest. They know that if they cut too much from social programs, they risk backlash from the very people who keep the system running. So, Congress offers minimal relief to the masses—just enough to keep the peace—while ensuring that the ultimate beneficiaries remain the wealthy and well-connected.

Military spending, for its part, is almost never on the chopping block. It’s a bipartisan taboo, much like the idea of seriously increasing taxation of the wealthy. Instead, the debate is about how much to trim from programs that help low- and middle-income Americans, not about transforming the system to address the root causes of inequality. As Professor Wolff observes, “The only truth is they don’t have the political courage… to get out there and mobilize the people around an issue like this, which ought to be easy to do.”

The consequences of this approach are clear. Budget cuts to social programs are a likely consequence of efforts to finance ongoing tax cuts, raising concerns about impacts on social welfare. Bipartisan unity, in this context, means little real change for ordinary Americans. The debate centers on how much to trim, not how to transform. Calls for progressive reform—such as taxing corporations and the rich at levels seen in the 1960s or 1970s—rarely reach serious Congressional consideration, despite being obvious solutions to many economists.

In the end, the cycle continues: tax cuts for the wealthy, budget cuts for the rest, and a growing national debt that threatens economic stability. The system is designed to protect those at the top, while offering just enough to the majority to prevent open revolt. Until there is genuine political courage to challenge this status quo, the reality of bipartisan budgeting will remain a wealth shuffle—one that keeps the rich richer and leaves everyone else fighting over what’s left.

TL;DR: The 2017 Trump tax cuts mostly benefited corporations and the wealthy while fueling national debt and widening economic inequality, as political theatrics distract Americans from the real dealmaking in Congress.

TrumpTaxCuts2017, CorporateWelfareInCongress, EconomicInequalityInAmerica, Prof.RichardWolffEconomicAnalysis, TrumpAndTheBillionaireClass, USDebtCrisisAndTaxPolicy, CongressionalCorruptionAndCampaignDonations, DuopolyOfDemocratsAndRepublicans, DeficitFinancingAndTheRich, PoliticalTheaterAndTaxExploitation,Trump2017taxcuts, wealthinequality, congressionalbudgetcuts, TaxCutsandJobsAct, corporatetaxreduction

#TrumpTaxCuts, #EconomicInequality, #CongressWatch, #TaxJustice, #ProfWolffAnalysis, #CorporateWelfare, #USDebtCrisis, #PoliticalTheater, #BillionairePolitics, #DuopolyDebate,#TrumpTaxCuts, #EconomicInequality, #CongressionalCorruption, #CorporateWelfare, #TCJA2017, #USDebtCrisis, #DuopolyPolitics, #ProfRichardWolff

Translate »