• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Wants To Raise Taxes

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
101,238
Reaction score
45,153
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here is a Handy List of Hillary's Trillion Dollar Tax Increases

Income Tax Increase - $350 Billion: Clinton has proposed a $350 billion income tax hike in the form of a 28 percent cap on itemized deductions.

Business Tax Increase -- $275 Billion: Clinton has called for a tax hike of at least $275 billion through undefined business tax reform. According to the Clinton campaign document, "Hillary will fully pay for these [Infrastructure] investments through business tax reform."

"Fairness" Tax Increase -- $400 Billion: According to her published plan,Clinton has called for a tax increase of "between $400 and $500 billion" by "restoring basic fairness to our tax code." These proposals include a "fair share surcharge," the taxing of carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and a hike in the Death Tax.

Capital Gains Tax Increase -- Clinton has proposed an increase in the capital gains tax to counter the "tyranny of today's earnings report." Her plan calls for an overly complex, byzantine capital gains tax regime with six brackets for those whose total taxable income puts them in the top 39.6 percent bracket. Her campaign has not said how much this will increase taxes.

Tax on Stock Trading -- Clinton has proposed a new, unquantified tax on stock trading. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Inevitably, costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts.

"Exit Tax" - Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposed a series of measures aimed at inversions including an "exit tax" - on income earned overseas. The term "exit tax" is used by the campaign itself. This proposal would completely fail to address the underlying causes behind inversions. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will raise $80 billion in tax revenue, but claims some of the $80 billion will be plowed into tax relief. It does not specify a dollar amount.

Here is a Handy List of Hillary's Trillion Dollar Tax Increases - Katie Pavlich


So...who here thinks this stuff is a good idea? Who thinks it's a bad idea?
 
You'll be hearing that the tax increases will be on everyone except you. And, what, pray tell, do you think the self-described King of Debt will do to us? I'm guessing higher taxes but with the money being siphoned to Trump subsidiaries.
 
You'll be hearing that the tax increases will be on everyone except you. And, what, pray tell, do you think the self-described King of Debt will do to us? I'm guessing higher taxes but with the money being siphoned to Trump subsidiaries.

LOL!!

So...the very FIRST response in my thread is from someone who wants to deflect.

That's GOT to be some kind of record!!
 
LOL!!

So...the very FIRST response in my thread is from someone who wants to deflect.

That's GOT to be some kind of record!!

That's a record that can only be tied. :)
 
I think its a great idea to use taxation to pay for government spending. We can argue over the best taxation policy to raise that revenue, but the need to fund government provided goods and services is hardly debatable.
 
We need all these taxes to subsidize Obamacare and the rest of the big government that is supposed to save us money.:lamo
 
So...who here thinks this stuff is a good idea? Who thinks it's a bad idea?

Cant be worst that what Trump wants to do... if he runs the country like he runs his businesses, then the country will be bankrupt within months.
 
I think its a great idea to use taxation to pay for government spending. We can argue over the best taxation policy to raise that revenue, but the need to fund government provided goods and services is hardly debatable.

The idea that we need taxation to fund government spending is a no-brainer. I mean, where else is the government going to get the money that it wants to spend.

But the question in this thread is...what do you think of Hillary's taxation policy? So yes, we can argue over the best taxation policy...in fact, that is what this thread is all about.
 
Cant be worst that what Trump wants to do... if he runs the country like he runs his businesses, then the country will be bankrupt within months.

You don't think that he would be frugal just like Obama?
 
LOL!!

So...the very FIRST response in my thread is from someone who wants to deflect.

That's GOT to be some kind of record!!

Deflection? I'll be back when Sen. Clinton explains her tax increases won't effect you. It worked for her husband, it worked for Barack Obama, why shouldn't it work for her.

I do apologize if my comparing her with what the other liberal Democrat is likely to do confused you.
 
Cant be worst that what Trump wants to do... if he runs the country like he runs his businesses, then the country will be bankrupt within months.

In other words, you have no specific, relevant opinion about Hillary's policy.

You are only left with saying the other guy will do worse. (without even providing justification for that view, I might add)

Sorry, but you aren't doing much for this discussion.
 
I think its a great idea to use taxation to pay for government spending. We can argue over the best taxation policy to raise that revenue, but the need to fund government provided goods and services is hardly debatable.

what can be debated is what "goods and services" the govt should provide.
 
Deflection? I'll be back when Sen. Clinton explains her tax increases won't effect you. It worked for her husband, it worked for Barack Obama, why shouldn't it work for her.

I do apologize if my comparing her with what the other liberal Democrat is likely to do confused you.

The deflection part was in reference to your comment about Trump. This thread has nothing to do with him, so any comparison between the two is irrelevant...and a deflection.

Look...deflect all you want. I don't really care. I was just surprised that it was done so quickly.
 
Cant be worst that what Trump wants to do... if he runs the country like he runs his businesses, then the country will be bankrupt within months.

If he is so bad at business then how come he is worth 10 billion dollars?
 
I'm surprised that the far left hasn't chimed in saying that deficits are the answer.
 
The deflection part was in reference to your comment about Trump. This thread has nothing to do with him, so any comparison between the two is irrelevant...and a deflection.

Look...deflect all you want. I don't really care. I was just surprised that it was done so quickly.

And I apologized for the confusion it caused you.
 
The idea that we need taxation to fund government spending is a no-brainer. I mean, where else is the government going to get the money that it wants to spend.

But the question in this thread is...what do you think of Hillary's taxation policy? So yes, we can argue over the best taxation policy...in fact, that is what this thread is all about.

These are simply proposed tweaks to an already far too complex mess and are generally a bad idea. Taxation should be on property (to encourage wise use of a limited resource) and on consumption (exemptions could apply to groceries and clothing to prevent it from being too regressive) possibly keeping some excise taxes to act as user fees (like the tax on motor fuel to fund highways).

Inheritance taxation is pure BS which is why it is so complex. It should never have taken 80K pages of law to "tax income from all sources". What you have (except land) and how you get more should not be controlled via taxation - if its legal great, if not then off with your head! ;)

EDiT: Since I left out "payroll" taxes that will require changes to SS and medicare.
 
Last edited:
You don't think that he would be frugal just like Obama?

Have you seen Trump buildings and businesses? Frugal aint the first thing that comes to mind.. plus his history of not paying his bills... bad combination.
 
In other words, you have no specific, relevant opinion about Hillary's policy.

Not read Hilary´s policy. I suspect it is around the same as Obamas and her husbands.

You are only left with saying the other guy will do worse. (without even providing justification for that view, I might add)

Sorry, but you aren't doing much for this discussion.

No I know the "other guy" will do worse. His business history clearly shows what kind of man he is. Bankruptcy, not paying bills, failed after failed business, and insane spending on the ones he still have. Gold everywhere (or at least Gold looking), giving supposed expensive gifts that turn out to be fakes and so on and so on. He is con man pure and simple. After all his son said to potential VP picks "you will get to run domestic and forigen policy"... err okay!

So yes, almost anything Hillary comes with will be better than Trump.
 
And I apologized for the confusion it caused you.

Your apology is unnecessary and useless since I wasn't confused at all.
 
If he is so bad at business then how come he is worth 10 billion dollars?

He is not worth 10 billion. Latest estimates says at best 3 billion and even that is questionable. Most of his money is locked in real estate that was built on loans and investors. His "worth" is not real. But of course we will never know for sure, because the man refuses to release his tax returns that would clearly spell out how rich the guy is.. and to me not releasing the returns means he is hiding something.. How can you trust someone like that?
 
Maybe this will help spur discussion of Hillary's proposed tax increases:

Analysis: Clinton proposed almost $500 billion in tax increases
By BRIAN FALER 01/26/16 10:58 AM EST
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has proposed almost $500 billion in tax increases, according to a new analysis by a conservative group.

Though Clinton's proposals target the wealthy, the Tax Foundation said today that the increases would hurt the entire economy, dragging down incomes at all levels.

Using conventional budgeting techniques, the group figures her plan would reduce the after-tax incomes of the top 1 percent by 1.7 percent. Those in the top 10 percent of earners would see their earnings fall .7 percent.

But using so-called dynamic scoring, which aims to calculate the broader economic effects of policy changes, the group said Clinton's tax increases would reduce gross domestic product over the long term by 1 percent, which would cut after-tax incomes by an average 1.3 percent.

“This reduction in GDP would translate into 0.8 percent lower wages and 311,000 fewer full-time equivalent jobs,” the foundation said in its first analysis of a Democratic presidential candidate's tax plans.

Hillary Clinton 2016 tax increases: Analysis: Clinton proposed almost $500 billion in tax increases - POLITICO

Here is a link to the Tax Foundation analysis that the Politico article refers to: Details and Analysis of Hillary Clinton?s Tax Proposals | Tax Foundation
 
He is not worth 10 billion. Latest estimates says at best 3 billion and even that is questionable. Most of his money is locked in real estate that was built on loans and investors. His "worth" is not real. But of course we will never know for sure, because the man refuses to release his tax returns that would clearly spell out how rich the guy is.. and to me not releasing the returns means he is hiding something.. How can you trust someone like that?

Do you even understand how ridiculous you sound? Obviously Trump is not in the 99% no matter how you slice the bread. Then you stand ready to thump him on his tax returns because if they show he is not rich then you accuse him of being unsuccessful and if they show he is rich then you thump him for that.
 
Back
Top Bottom