Name: 特朗普的 "美麗大法案 "會帶來經濟繁榮還是災難？ (Will Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Lead to Economic BOOM or Disaster?)
Uploaded: 2025-07-22T18:42:40.000Z
Duration: 14 min 35 s

There is a lot of debate on the internet about the big beautiful bill.

關於美麗的大法案，網上有很多爭論。

On one side, people claim that it is going to lead to economic prosperity.

一方面，人們聲稱這將帶來經濟繁榮。

On the other side, some experts are warning that it will lead to a financial disaster.

另一方面，一些專家警告說，這將導致一場金融災難。

What we know for a fact is that it is going to be the largest tax cut in the history of America since Ronald Reagan.

我們知道的事實是，這將是自羅納德-里根以來美國曆史上規模最大的一次減稅。

Now it doesn't matter what you think about this bill now.

現在，你對這項法案的看法已經不重要了。

Whether you support it or hate it, it was passed by the senate and signed by the president.

無論你是支持還是憎恨，它都已獲得參議院通過，並由總統簽署。

Which means that everybody is going to be impacted.

這意味著每個人都會受到影響。

So here in this video, let's try to figure out whether it is going to lead to an economic boom or it will turn into a financial disaster and how you can profit out of it.

是以，在本視頻中，讓我們試著弄清它是會導致經濟繁榮還是會變成一場金融災難，以及如何從中獲利。

If you are ready, give this video a thumbs up and let's get right into it.

如果您準備好了，請為這段視頻豎起大拇指，讓我們開始吧。

The big beautiful bill contains a lot of things within itself.

這張美麗的大鈔票本身就包含了很多東西。

But one of the most important things is that it will make 2017 Trump's tax cuts permanent.

但其中最重要的一點是，它將使 2017 年特朗普的減稅政策永久化。

They supposed to expire this year but from now onwards, America is going to be on a trajectory of low taxes, both for individuals and corporations.

它們本應在今年到期，但從現在開始，美國將走上個人和企業低稅的軌道。

It is also going to raise the salt from 10 thousand dollars to 20 thousand dollars.

它還將把鹽從 1 萬美元提高到 2 萬美元。

That will allow people who are making a lot of money to further lower down their taxable income, which means lower taxes.

這將使賺大錢的人進一步降低應納稅收入，也就是降低稅收。

It's also going to lower down the long-term capital gain taxes from 20% to 15%.

它還將把長期資本收益稅從 20% 降低到 15%。

There were already multiple ways where you could lower down your capital gain tax, but now you know for a fact that you are not going to pay 20%.

本來有多種方法可以降低資本利得稅，但現在你知道了一個事實，那就是你不用繳納 20% 的資本利得稅。

If you are selling off your stocks, you will pay much lower taxes.

如果您賣掉股票，您將繳納更少的稅款。

This is probably one of the lowest taxes that you could possibly pay on an investment.

這可能是您所能支付的最低投資稅之一。

And that's why rich people primarily make their money from stocks and investments.

這就是為什麼富人主要靠股票和投資賺錢。

現在，他們將繳納更少的稅款。

If you are a billionaire or if you are even a millionaire with millions of dollars in stocks and you are selling your stocks, you will pay a lower tax rate.

如果你是億萬富翁，甚至是擁有數百萬美元股票的百萬富翁，而你要出售股票，你將支付較低的稅率。

On the other side, it is going to cut 900 billion dollars from medicaid.

另一方面，它將從醫療補助中削減 9000 億美元。

This is one of the most important government programs.

And they will make it much more stricter, much more difficult for people to be eligible for medicaid, which means cutting government programs.

他們將更加嚴格、更加困難地限制人們獲得醫療補助的資格，這意味著削減政府項目。

But besides that, they will also get rid of the clean energy subsidies that's worth around 515 billion dollars.

除此之外，他們還將取消價值約 5150 億美元的清潔能源補貼。

Back when Biden was president, he passed the inflation reduction act to be able to compete with China.

拜登擔任總統時，為了與中國競爭，他通過了降低通貨膨脹法案。

To set the US clean energy on a trajectory to compete with China, since China dominates the battery market, the clean energy market, and EV market.

讓美國的清潔能源走上與中國競爭的軌道，因為中國主導著電池市場、清潔能源市場和電動汽車市場。

With these subsidies, it's supposed to catapult Tesla and other EV car companies and battery manufacturers to finally be able to compete with them.

有了這些補貼，特斯拉和其他電動汽車公司以及電池生產商就能在競爭中立於不敗之地。

On top of that, it's supposed to eliminate multiple government agencies that's supposed to save the government around 800 billion dollars.

除此之外，它還將取消多個政府機構，為政府節省約 8000 億美元。

For example, food stamps will be reduced by 180 billion dollars.

例如，食品券將減少 1 800 億美元。

The department of education is entirely eliminated that also costs the government billions of dollars annually.

教育部門被完全取消，也使政府每年損失數十億美元。

On top of that, eliminate almost all foreign aid to other countries.

在此基礎上，取消對其他國家的幾乎所有對外援助。

But the biggest claim out of this big beautiful bill is that it's supposed to grow the GDP by 4.6% to 4.9% within the next 4 years.

但是，這個漂亮的大法案最大的訴求是，它應該在未來 4 年內使 GDP 增長 4.6% 至 4.9%。

And then it will slow down to around 2.8% after that until 2034.

之後將放緩至 2.8%左右，直到 2034 年。

If these objectives are going to be met, the United States debt to GDP ratio will fall in the best-case scenario to 94%.

如果這些目標能夠實現，美國債務與國內生產總值的比率在最好的情況下將降至 94%。

That's if you do not include intra-governmental debt.

這還是在不包括政府內部債務的情況下。

The government debt that one government agency owes to another.

一個政府機構欠另一個政府機構的政府債務。

Because if you also include intra-governmental debt, then we are talking about 120%.

因為如果把政府內部債務也計算在內，那麼我們說的就是 120%。

And with the current rate, they supposed to grow not to 117% but up to 135% within the next 10 years.

按照目前的速度，在未來 10 年內，它們的增長率應該不是 117%，而是高達 135%。

But this is a very bold claim that with this bill, it will be lowered down to 94%.

但這是一個非常大膽的說法，即通過這項法案，該比例將降至 94%。

And this is by the way the charts from the white house page.

順便說一句，這是白宮網頁上的圖表。

The next biggest claim is that they will lower down the primary deficit and will turn it into a positive, which is a big claim.

下一個最大的說法是，他們將降低基本赤字，並將其轉為正數，這是一個很大的說法。

The primary deficit is the entire deficit if you exclude the interest payments.

如果不計利息支出，基本赤字就是全部赤字。

Because interest payments play a big role.

因為利息支付起著很大的作用。

And interest payments also depends on multiple factors such as the rates that are set by the fed.

利息的支付也取決於多種因素，如美聯儲設定的利率。

We can't predict the rates that the fed will set in the next couple of months.

我們無法預測未來幾個月美聯儲將設定的利率。

Leave alone predicting them in the next 5 to 7 years.

更不用說預測未來 5 到 7 年的情況了。

If interest rates will be low, then interest payments will be low.

如果利率低，那麼利息支出也會低。

If interest rates will be risen to 5 or 6% like they are right now, then the interest payments will take a bigger chunk of the government's revenue.

如果利率像現在一樣上升到 5%或 6%，那麼利息支出將佔據政府收入的更大份額。

Nonetheless, the next biggest claim that they have made is that under the big beautiful bill, the total deficit compared to the GDP will go down from around 6% to as low as 3.2%.

不過，他們的另一個最大的說法是，在這個美麗的大法案下，總赤字與國內生產總值的比率將從 6%左右下降到 3.2%。

It's not the ideal target because you want to bring it down to lower than 3%, but it's far better than 6.3% that we have right now.

這不是一個理想的目標，因為你想把它降到 3% 以下，但它比我們現在的 6.3% 要好得多。

But if we are going to be honest about it, then according to multiple experts, this year it is going to be more than 7%.

但如果我們實事求是地說，根據多位專家的預測，今年的增長率將超過 7%。

Since it is going to cut a lot of government's revenue, which will force the government to borrow far more money, which is going to grow the deficit.

因為這將減少政府的大量收入，迫使政府借更多的錢，從而增加赤字。

所有這些聽起來都很棒、很奇妙。

This is exactly what the United States needs.

Finally, the debt problem will be achieved.

And that's because it was created by the council of economic advisory, which is an agency within the white house.

這是因為它是由白宮下屬的經濟顧問委員會創建的。

And they work directly with the president of the United States.

So they came up with the most optimistic numbers possible.

是以，他們得出了最樂觀的數字。

Growing the GDP by almost 5% annually is unrealistic.

國內生產總值每年增長近 5%是不現實的。

We can't even figure out whether China will grow by 5%, which is 5 times much poorer than the United States.

我們甚至連中國是否會增長 5%都搞不清楚，而中國比美國窮 5 倍。

Leave alone for the US to grow that much.

更不用說美國還能增長那麼多了。

The US economy is a very matured economy.

美國經濟是一個非常成熟的經濟體。

It has reached the levels that it's very difficult for it to grow by more than 2.5%.

它已經達到了很難增長超過 2.5%的水準。

So it doesn't matter how much you cut taxes.

Expecting it to grow by 5% is only possible in theory.

期望增長 5%只是理論上的可能。

The most realistic scenario is for it to grow by around 2%.

In fact, without the big beautiful bill, it's supposed to grow by less than 2%.

事實上，如果沒有那份漂亮的大賬單，它的增長率應該不到 2%。

Let's assume that you pass the big beautiful bill and it's going to encourage much more spending, and the GDP will grow by more than 2%.

讓我們假設你通過了這個漂亮的大法案，它將鼓勵更多的支出，GDP 增長將超過 2%。

You can expect 2.2%, 2.3%, in the best-case scenario, maybe 2.5%.

你可以預期 2.2%、2.3%，最好的情況下可能是 2.5%。

But 5% in a single year is insane, and 4 more straight years is extremely unimaginable for most people.

但是，在一年內增長 5%是非常瘋狂的，而連續增長 4 年對大多數人來說更是難以想象的。

Let's take an example of 2017 when first Trump's tax cuts went to an effect.

讓我們以 2017 年為例，當時特朗普的減稅政策首先生效。

The GDP did actually grow faster by around 3%.

實際上，國內生產總值的增長確實加快了約 3%。

再說一遍，這不是 5%，只是 3%。

And the circumstances of the economy back in the days was completely different from today.

而當時的經濟環境與今天完全不同。

Back in the days, we had very low interest rates, we had very low inflation for multiple years and the deficit to GDP ratio was around 3%.

過去，我們的利率非常低，多年來通貨膨脹率非常低，赤字與國內生產總值的比率約為 3%。

Today we have a completely different reality.

今天，我們面臨著完全不同的現實。

Deficit is more than 6%, inflation just cooled down to around 2.3% and interest rates are almost 5%.

赤字超過 6%，通脹率剛剛降至 2.3%左右，利率接近 5%。

So expecting today anything around 3% to 5% is impossible, especially when we talk about 4 straight years.

是以，如今指望 3% 至 5% 左右的增長是不可能的，尤其是在連續 4 年增長的情況下。

Here is the most realistic scenario that is going to happen.

All we have to do is look back at the history and find out what exactly has happened when we cut taxes by a lot.

我們所要做的就是回顧歷史，看看當我們大量減稅時究竟發生了什麼。

The biggest tax cut in the history of America was probably by Ronald Reagan back in 1981.

美國曆史上最大的一次減稅可能是羅納德-里根在 1981 年做出的。

He becomes the president, he comes from the private sector and realizes that the United States' individual taxes are as high as 90% for the highest earners.

他當上總統後，來自私營部門的他意識到，美國最高收入者的個人稅率高達 90%。

Who is going to work hard to make more money?

誰會為了賺更多的錢而努力工作？

So he brought them down from as high as 90% to as low as 28% and he also lowered down the income tax as well for every single individual and for corporations as well.

是以，他將稅率從高達 90% 降至 28%，還降低了每個人和公司的所得稅。

It instantly resulted in a much higher deficit to GDP ratio of about 5.7%.

這立即導致赤字與國內生產總值的比率大大提高，約為 5.7%。

Now the interesting thing about this chart is that in 1986, at this particular point, you see a very different trend, where the deficit began to shrunk.

這個圖表的有趣之處在於，1986 年，在這個特定的時間點，你看到了一個非常不同的趨勢，赤字開始縮減。

And that's because when the government realized that on one side we are still spending the exact same amount of money, we still have a huge military, we still have the exact same government programs, we still have all of those spendings.

這是因為當政府意識到，一方面，我們仍在花費完全相同的錢，我們仍有龐大的軍隊，我們仍有完全相同的政府項目，我們仍有所有這些開支。

On the other side, we cut taxes which dry up our budget.

另一方面，我們削減稅收，使預算枯竭。

Especially during those days, the interest rates were extremely high.

尤其是在那個利率極高的年代。

So the congress was forced to pass the Graham-Rudman act.

於是，國會被迫通過了《格雷厄姆-魯德曼法案》。

That if the congress will not agree to balance the budget, there will be automatic cuts on discretionary spending.

如果國會不同意平衡預算，將自動削減可支配支出。