• 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!

Report: Hillary Clinton would hike taxes by $1.3 trillion

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
91,331
Reaction score
29,854
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Report: Hillary Clinton would hike taxes by $1.3 trillion | Fox News

Hillary Clinton comes up $2.2 trillion short in paying for her policy agenda, despite hiking taxes by $1.3 trillion, according to a new analysis of the Democratic nominee’s campaign platform.
The American Action Forum, a center-right policy institute, released a report Thursday finding Clinton’s domestic agenda would “have a dramatic effect on the federal budget.”
So who going to pay for this, no to mention the effect on the national debt?
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,252
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Thank God it's "the other guy" and not me!

We all know this is the standard kubuki BS we are supposed to swallow as gospel.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Rich people.
"Nearly all of the tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent; the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers would see little or no change in their taxes."
An Analysis of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals | Tax Policy Center

yet she is still 2.2 trillion dollars short. did you not read the article?

all her tax proposals hike taxes 1.3 trillion dollars. that leaves her 2.2 trillion dollars short on what she is wanting to spend.
by 2026 the national debt would be 26 trillion dollars.
almost impossible to pay all.

the interest on the debt that we have now along with all the social spending will consume the federal budget by 2023 or so.
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,252
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The only way to pay down the debt is to inflate our way out of it. Anyone who tells you different does not have a good grasp of the facts of our economic reality. There is not enough productivity to produce the taxes necessary to "surplus" our way out of it.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,246
Reaction score
14,269
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Voting for someone who is going to raise my taxes without putting in place policies to benefit me will not get my vote. I'm not voting for anyone who's going to increase my net costs, we subsidize the poor and Wall Street enough.
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,514
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The only way to pay down the debt is to inflate our way out of it. Anyone who tells you different does not have a good grasp of the facts of our economic reality. There is not enough productivity to produce the taxes necessary to "surplus" our way out of it.

Correct, yet the "other" candidate wants to spend as much if not more and believes in deficit spending. looks like neither is going to be part of the solution, we are sooooo scr*wed.
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
23,648
Reaction score
10,154
Location
Lauderdale By-The-Sea, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
by 2026 the national debt would be 26 trillion dollars.
almost impossible to pay all.

Only if we hold the economy and revenue constant to 2016 levels.

the interest on the debt that we have now along with all the social spending will consume the federal budget by 2023 or so.

What does this even mean? How can two programs consume the budget, especially if we have the ability to raise additional revenues or borrow from capital markets?
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,016
Reaction score
30,289
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Under the conservative dream boat, Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 90%. If anyone today raises it over 35% it's flat out USSR-level socialism. We spent 4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan for no reason at all, but if we spend a tiny fraction of that on American infrastructure and education it's nothing but pie-in-the-sky unicorn time.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,211
Reaction score
13,926
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
all her tax proposals hike taxes 1.3 trillion dollars. that leaves her 2.2 trillion dollars short on what she is wanting to spend.
Tax Policy Center (a right-wing tax think tank) predicts Trump's tax proposal will reduce tax revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade. Unless he slashes the living daylights out of the federal budget -- which seems unlikely, given that he claims he's going to spend over $550 billion on infrastructure alone, and has not suggested cutting military or Social Security or Medicare -- that will send the deficits soaring.


the interest on the debt that we have now along with all the social spending will consume the federal budget by 2023 or so.
lol.... Try again.

Interest payments were $223 billion in 2015. Tax revenues for FY2015 were over $3.1 trillion. Interest payments were a whopping 6% of the federal budget.

Even with Trump's tax cuts, we will have no problems paying interest for a long, long, long time.

And if you were genuinely worried about paying the bills, you'd favor a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Under the conservative dream boat, Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 90%. If anyone today raises it over 35% it's flat out USSR-level socialism. We spent 4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan for no reason at all, but if we spend a tiny fraction of that on American infrastructure and education it's nothing but pie-in-the-sky unicorn time.

Yeah, so what rates did people actually pay?

And why should anyone be sending 35% or more of their salary to the government?
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,252
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
When was the last time any politician worried about paying for crap?
They won't because you are paying for it!

The value of your house will go up, your pay check will go up, but lag the accelerating cost of living. Your investments will go up, as will your taxes on those inflationary gains. (Look for ROTH ira's to be cancelled under the title of "tax reform".)

You'll fix the old clunker because the tide that lifts all boats hasn't reached you yet because there is a chronic oversupply of labor.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,769
Reaction score
35,118
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Tax Policy Center (a right-wing tax think tank) predicts Trump's tax proposal will reduce tax revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade. Unless he slashes the living daylights out of the federal budget -- which seems unlikely, given that he claims he's going to spend over $550 billion on infrastructure alone, and has not suggested cutting military or Social Security or Medicare -- that will send the deficits soaring.

Look. Let's be a bit more honest about this. There is less than a 25% chance that Trump has even bothered to read "his" tax proposal, much less actually personally supports it, or would want to implement it, if he knew the specifics of it, which he doesn't.
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
91,331
Reaction score
29,854
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Under the conservative dream boat, Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 90%. If anyone today raises it over 35% it's flat out USSR-level socialism. We spent 4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan for no reason at all, but if we spend a tiny fraction of that on American infrastructure and education it's nothing but pie-in-the-sky unicorn time.

:roll:
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Tax Policy Center (a right-wing tax think tank) predicts Trump's tax proposal will reduce tax revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade. Unless he slashes the living daylights out of the federal budget -- which seems unlikely, given that he claims he's going to spend over $550 billion on infrastructure alone, and has not suggested cutting military or Social Security or Medicare -- that will send the deficits soaring.

I haven't seen trumps plan. You can't defend Hillary budget at all.
The tax policy center has an excellent reputation and is routinely used by various groups both liberal and conservative.

lol.... Try again.

Interest payments were $223 billion in 2015. Tax revenues for FY2015 were over $3.1 trillion. Interest payments were a whopping 6% of the federal budget.

Even with Trump's tax cuts, we will have no problems paying interest for a long, long, long time.

And if you were genuinely worried about paying the bills, you'd favor a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts.

Will entitlement programs and debt consume U.S. budget in 2025? | PolitiFact Virginia

the CBO says otherwise so I believe them over random internet poster.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
:lol:

I'll mark this down to "not a dime of increased taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year". :)

I like how earning $250,000 is considered rich. That's cute. Liberals should look at liberal hot spots like New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, and Chicago and ask themselves how rich 250,000 is in those areas. I think it's cute how liberals ignore the cost of living in their own backyard.
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
23,648
Reaction score
10,154
Location
Lauderdale By-The-Sea, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Again I will go with the study over random internet poster.

:lamo

I am literally embarrassed for you! Did you bother to actually read the article you cited?

an Scandling, Wolf’s spokesman, said his boss was referring to a June 2011 report from the CBO detailing the agency’s latest long-term outlook on the nation’s fiscal fitness.

Tables in the report contain projections showing that by 2025, payments for Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and debt interest will exceed all federal revenues going into the budget. That’s a shade different from Wolf’s statement that there won’t be any money at all to pay for additional programs since, beyond using tax revenues, the U.S. also has been known to borrow money to finance its budget.
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
91,331
Reaction score
29,854
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,211
Reaction score
13,926
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The only way to pay down the debt is to inflate our way out of it. Anyone who tells you different does not have a good grasp of the facts of our economic reality.
The federal government has no need to pay down the debt. Anyone who tells you different does not have a good grasp of our economic reality.

Federal debt is not like a mortgage; it doesn't need to be paid in full by a certain date. It can roll over indefinitely, because unlike a person, the federal government is not going to keel over. What matters is ensuring that the total debt does not get so large that we have serious issues paying the interest, and we are nowhere near that point.

E.g. Japan has a ludicrous debt-to-GDP ratio (229%), has not defaulted, is not likely to default, and is not suffering economically because of its government borrowing. (E.g. we don't hear much talk that Japan's debt is crowding out private sector borrowing, in part because its savings rate is incredibly high.)
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,016
Reaction score
30,289
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Perhaps instead of lazy emoticons you could lay out what our benefit from Iraq and Afghanistan has been. We lost over 4 thousand heroes and 4 trillion dollars, what did we get in return?

Yeah, so what rates did people actually pay?

And why should anyone be sending 35% or more of their salary to the government?

Hrm.. Argue tax rates with someone who thinks all taxation is theft. Yeah, that sounds productive.
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
19,415
Reaction score
8,369
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I like how earning $250,000 is considered rich. That's cute. Liberals should look at liberal hot spots like New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, and Chicago and ask themselves how rich 250,000 is in those areas. I think it's cute how liberals ignore the cost of living in their own backyard.
It's not even that high. They count as "rich" dual income families that make more than $166k.
 

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
38,457
Reaction score
13,705
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Top Bottom