Because he gave people an easy way out by blaming others and promising to 'get the bad guys'.
Oh, plus many people are on local cable TV with very limited programming including Sinclair Broadcast Group who demand announcers read out political statements every evening. Pro Trump/republican/Tea Party, surprise surprise.
You do realise that most US brand cars are made outside the US? And the cars made in the US are mostly European brands?
I could mention Trump's use of H2B visas to get cheap labour, the bankruptcies to avoid paying US workers etc.
This isn't about a vendetta on my part, it is about dismantling a situation that affects all of us. In the process I have found some very robust US/global investments so will be OK.
Ofcourse people and legal entities should look to reduce their tax liabilities in a legal manner.
The theoretical model can be very complex, and with many indirect taxes the original comparison is becoming a lot more difficult as well.
One thing I can guarantee, people like myself will first look to protect our own income. So something got to give, and if I have to pay more tax it will affect the spending pattern instantly in areas where it doesn’t hurt me too much; beginning with the gardener, decorators, dog walkers, etc. I’ll postpone it for as long as possible with cutting down on other services before it will affect myself. So the impact is much wider than that.
On a similar, but much larger scale (in some cases ) that is the case for corporations.
PS - spot the test engineer 
One thing I can guarantee is that poor put more money back into the economy as a percentage of what you give them in increases than the rich ..... and there is a hell of a lot more poor people.
i.e if you gave £20bn in tax relief to the richest 5%, it would not benefit the economy as much as giving it to lowest tax bracket.
If you cut corporate tax rates, it doesn't seem to equate to any real investment, extra jobs or increased workforce salaries - as on balance, any tax savings companies make tends to get paid out in dividends. That's exactly what happened with the tax cuts in the US.
Sorry but those sums don't work...perhaps as an percentage of what you give them in an increase, but so what? And actually even then that doesn't work but as a percentage they don't tend to pay any tax but are a net beneficiary. So on paper a nice statement, in reality it doesn't mean anything. I'm sure I don't have to tell you how much the top 1% contribute relatively...
And oh gosh yes it would...5% tax relieve, nice new car here I come...and I'll get some more work done etc...The cleaner and cook can come back as well.
If you give £20bn in tax relief to someone that earns over £150,000 you reduce the tax they pay by £20bn = £20bn net loss purely in income tax or equivalents(like in income from dividends, bonuses etc)
If you increase the tax threshold for the lowest tax bracket with £20bn you increase the amount they are not liable for by £20bn, as well as for everyone else by a small amount.
The net loss purely in income tax or equivalents is still £20bn.
However, that £20bn spread through the tax brackets and centred upon the lowest, returns more directly to the economy as more of any extra money the poorest percentages get goes directly back into the economy on basic services and goods.
The top brackets may or may not choose to buy a new car, but the lower brackets don't really have a choice and have to spend more of what they have back to the system just to make ends meet.
The data from many countries and studies backs this up - the trickle down economy as a benefit to society is simply not true, no matter how it is spun.
Except they aren't being given £20bn in tax relief...it is taxation that currently doesn't enter the system, that is what we were talking about. Yes by lowering the cost it becomes less effective to hide it away, and it is worthwhile to pay it in. There is no magic new money or relief being generated at all. And tax relief at the bottom where it wasn't paid in the first place won't generate a single penny...
It enters the system through indirect taxation and at a higher percentage for the poorest than for the richest - more money going to basic services and goods and increasing demand for growth and income in production of things, time and effort etc which benefits everyone, rather than with the richest, which generates income with more bias towards generating money from money - which primarily benefits the few.
Look at what happened in Kansas when they did what congress did with the tax bill, the economy is threadbare.