trump

How Much Money Do US Politicians Make?

It's easy to forget that the presidency of the United States is a government job just like any other–in that it comes with a stipulated salary and benefits.

But regardless of their bombastic rhetoric or self-serious public image, politicians are like all other government employees. The president, vice president, and legislators earn an annual income from the government in exchange for their duties, which include: executing/circumventing the law, upholding/withholding the civil liberties of American citizens, and legislating/sabotaging how societal institutions meet the needs of citizens, from healthcare to education.

If you've ever wondered what American politicians earn for all their hard work arguing across the aisle and starting Twitter feuds, look no further:

Keep readingShow less
salary
PayPath
Follow Us on

Dirty Money — Is Trump Making Money Off His Presidency?

It's been nearly four years since President Trump's election, and to make an understatement, his approach to the presidency has been unorthodox.

In an unprecedented break of presidential custom, he has refused to release his tax returns despite ongoing claims of fraud. In an administration led by one of the most recognizable names in the world, the decision to keep the president's personal finances secret has raised many questions, the most notable being: is it possible that Trump may be making money off his presidency?

Back in 2000, Trump made that very claim: "It's very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it." In a macro sense, this is obviously based on the real estate mogul's simple maxim of "all press is good press," which the 2016 election made obvious with an estimated $2 billion of free media for Trump. Does all the additional coverage help his business like it helped win him the election?

Regarding Trump's many properties, the answer appears to point that way.

Although declining prices have likely hurt its worth, Trump's 11,000-square-foot penthouse in Trump Tower is now essentially a national monument and is positioned to sell for an additional $10 million simply because of an increase in the value of its main tenant.

Trump Hotels have also seemed to benefit, as President Donald Trump frequently uses his luxury properties for government business and leisure, prompting ethics concerns over a president appearing to promote his private enterprise at public cost. Government officials in Kuwait canceled a major event they had planned at the Four Seasons Hotel and switched their venue to Trump's hotel in D.C. under alleged pressure. The same luxury hotel has emerged as a political power hub and is at the center of a court case about presidential emoluments.

Regarding the president's infamous Mar-a-Lago resort, it has seen its membership fee double to $200,000 since Trump took office. Shortly after the fee hike was revealed, Barack Obama's former ethics lawyer said the increase is a "not very subtle exploitation of the fact that the club's figurehead is now president of the U.S." Forbes estimates the "winter White House" is now worth $160 million, $10 million more than pre-election.

Some of the profiteering is even more direct: Trump immediately launched his reelection campaign on the day he assumed office. Donor money has continually flowed since then, and America's first billionaire president turned more than $900,000 into personal revenue.

And we can't forget Trump's signature 2017 tax reform legislation, which will also clearly benefit the president. Forbes says Trump could save about 10% on business income, which based on his leaked 2005 tax return, could mean as much as $11 million annually.

Aerial view of Mar-a-Lago, the estate of Donald Trump, in Pa

However, becoming president has had its drawbacks for the businessman.

While his 2016 campaign's controversial marketing strategy helped Trump leverage media coverage to benefit his commercial properties and projects, Forbes reports that, so far, mixing politics and business has hurt him more than it has helped.

By some calculations, Trump's net worth has dropped from $4.5 billion in 2015 to $3.1 billion in the last two years, dropping the president 138 spots lower on the Forbes 400. In regards to Trump Tower, the net operating income dropped 27% between 2014, the year before Trump announced his run for president, and 2017, his first year in the White House.

In refusing to divest his tax returns, Trump has set himself up to be accused of perpetual conflicts of interests that may or may not be true. Forbes' suggests that Trump would be $500 million richer if he had liquidated his assets, paid capital gains tax on his fortune and created a blind trust to invest it all in the stock market.

At the end of the day, Trump has made money off the pedestal he's been given. However, he may have made more—and been better perceived—if he had thrown in the towel altogether.

Joshua Smalley is a New York-based writer, editor, and playwright. Find Josh at his website and on Twitter: @smalleywrites.


From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
donald trump

What do Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs mean for the economy?

At the beginning of March, President Donald Trump announced new tariffs on steel and aluminum. Countries importing these goods to the United States would pay a 25 percent tariff on steel and 10 percent on aluminum. Trump said the tariffs are necessary to protect American industry. However, economists and historians disagree, saying that they will actually end up hurting America more than helping it.

Trump wants tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum. But will this actually hurt the American economy?

The idea behind imposing these high tariffs is to protect American steel and aluminum production.

Trump mentioned raising tariffs during the campaign as part of his "America first" economic policy. The logic is that, by imposing tariffs — or taxes — on foreign imports, American businesses are more likely to use American-made steel and aluminum instead. However, American production in these metals is low compared to the foreign competition. In fact, the steel industry employs around 140,000 people while steel-consuming industries employ 6.5 million. Based on volume alone, American steel production can't meet the demand for what American businesses need. And forcing companies to pay a steep tariff to import won't help the economy at all.

If American companies are forced to pay more for raw materials, that cost will certainly be passed down to the consumer. This will ultimately result in a higher cost to purchase goods. Consumers will likely buy less as a result. And companies will be incentivized to lay off workers to offset the cost. All of this actually ends up harming American business, rather than protecting it.

Steel workers could be the hardest hit by the increased tariffs

But all of this isn't just theory or conjecture. We have already seen the negative impacts of increased tariffs on steel.

President George W. Bush enacted import tariffs in 2002. And an independent study from Trade Partnership Worldwide found that higher steel prices cost 200,000 jobs and total lost wages were about $5.5 billion in today's dollars. That's a huge economic impact, just like Trump is boasting…but not in the way he has predicted.

Additionally, this situation could be exacerbated as foreign governments impose their own tariffs on American goods in retaliation. The European Union has compiled a list of U.S. products that would receive additional import taxes, including bourbon and Harley Davidson motorcycles. All told, this would amount to a 25 percent tariff on $3.5 billion of goods. This would definitely dissuade EU countries from purchasing American products — further worsening the economic situation. If American companies are making less money, they will have less capital to hire and pay employees. This could result in massive layoffs.

With the United States and Europe considering tariffs on imports, this situation echoes of a trade war that took place in the 1930s, just before the Great Depression hit.

The Tariff Act of 1930, also known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff after the bill's co-sponsors, increased nearly 900 import taxes. In response, nations around the world also hiked their tariffs. This resulted in a trade war that was a contributing factor in worsening the Great Depression.

The World Trade Organization was founded in part to prevent another trade war from happening. The goal of the WTO is to promote and facilitate global trade. Part of the agreement in its founding was that all of the participating countries would lower or remove their tariffs to allow more free trade. Today, the WTO serves as a governing body to work out trade disputes between countries and prevent unnecessary tariff hikes. Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs were unilaterally enacted by the United States and forces the rest of the world to respond.

Overall, Trump's reasoning behind imposing new steel and aluminum tariffs doesn't match up with the economic realities. His goal is to promote and support American business, but these tariffs will only ultimately end up harming it.

Related Articles Around the Web
tariffs

What are the Economic Effects of Ending DACA?

ktla.com

Immigration, in recent years, has been a hot-button topic in American politics.

Most recently, the debate has centered around DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The three-day government shutdown in January was instigated by Democrats to push for a vote in the Senate on this issue. This program, instituted by the Obama administration, gives legal status to people who were brought into the United States illegally as children. Every two years, these people can apply for a temporary work visa. This visa gives them deportation relief and allows them to work legally in the country. This group is often referred to as “Dreamers."

Because this program was created through an executive order, the president has full authority to revoke it at any time. In September 2017, the Trump administration announced that it would phase out the DACA program with a six-month delay. Meaning, the deadline for Congress to act would fall on March 5, 2018. This deadline has pushed Democrats to fight for legislation that would create a program to replace DACA.

After the government shutdown, Senate Republicans and Democrats have an agreement to debate and vote on this issue February 8. However, there are still questions of whether the vote will actually happen and what exactly they would be voting on. Or even if the same bill could pass the House afterward as well as whether Trump will sign it.

There are a lot of things up in the air when it comes to DACA. With indecision on this issue from Congress, it looks more certain that the program will be ended completely. This would leave about 690,000 immigrants to face deportation when the program shuts down. If these people were forced to leave the country or did so voluntarily, what would be the possible economic effects?

The majority of DACA recipients are students. All of those covered by the program must be enrolled in school, or have a high school degree or an equivalent. Seventeen percent are working toward an advanced degree. As they complete their education, this group will look more like the highly skilled individuals with Bachelor's or Master's degrees who receive H-1B visas. Dreamers are also more likely to be employed in higher-skilled jobs than immigrants who are residing in the country illegally.

But not all enrolled in DACA are students. About 55 percent are working in some capacity in a variety of service and professional jobs. Many work in retail, food services, or hospitality. Some are enlisted in the military. But many still are business managers, social workers, teachers, and health care providers.

About 5,400 DACA recipients are practicing physicians. Without the program, these doctors will likely be forced to leave the country. According to the Assocation of American Medical Colleges, the shortage is expected to increase from 40,800 and 104,900 physicians by 2030. With the removal of DACA, the shortage could potentially worsen, especially in rural areas.

Additionally, around 20,000 enrolled in DACA are currently working as teachers nationwide. Most of them are in California and Texas. If the program is ended, all of these teachers would potentially be lost. This situation could leave many schools in limbo. Most Dreamers are also fluent in Spanish, an increasingly valuable skill in education and other fields.

That's not even counting other economic impacts. All of the DACA recipients are spending money and participating in the economy. They buy groceries, pay rent, and own cars and fill up their tanks. Once their DACA status lapses, they could potentially lose their jobs. This loss of income would prevent them from participating in the economy in the same way. This participation even includes the $495 application fee to enroll or renew their status every two years. Losing thousands of people freely participating in the U.S. economy will have an impact, especially in states where most Dreamers are settled. Over the next ten years, projections range from $200 billion to more than $400 billion in economic growth that could be lost if the DACA program were ended.

Related Articles Around the Web
ending daca