• 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

chuckiechan said:
As the economy improves under Trump, interest rates will go up as demand for loans goes up.
Click to expand...
Put down the Kool-Aid.

First, there is no particular reason to believe the economy will improve under Trump (or Clinton). Quite the opposite, if Trump pushes through a bunch of protectionist policies.

Second, assuming the economy improves (regardless of who is President), the Fed is going to be very slow in raising interest rates -- heck, the Fed raising rates by 25 basis points (0.25%) was international news.

Third, the debt is held as T-Bills with terms ranging from 3 months to 30 years. Meaning any changes to interest rates will be phased in very slowly.

That is not a major concern at this time.
 
iguanaman said:
Because the wealthy are socking away trillions that is destabilizing our financial system. It is unsustainable.
Click to expand...

Their sock budget must be outrageous.
 
Obama tried "trickle upland we know how that worked out!

I think we can agree that more private sector economic activity produces more tax revenue. The private sector is responsible for 100% of all taxes paid to the treasury. The Internet boom was a great illustration of the power of the private sector to cure job problems.

Bubbles are a part of the cycle. No one has found a way out of that yet!
 
chuckiechan said:
Obama tried "trickle upland we know how that worked out!

I think we can agree that more private sector economic activity produces more tax revenue. The private sector is responsible for 100% of all taxes paid to the treasury. The Internet boom was a great illustration of the power of the private sector to cure job problems.

Bubbles are a part of the cycle. No one has found a way out of that yet!
Click to expand...

Get it straight; the poor recovery is entirely the Republicans in Congress.

We don't want to give people more money than we can afford to just so they can put into the latest bubble.
 
Lutherf said:
I have no idea what you're trying to get at. Until an additional expense becomes a reality or a foregone conclusion there is no need to raise fees.
Click to expand...

You set your fees based on need, and not on what maximizes income?

Doesn't sound like a very good business decision

Taxes are, ultimately, an expense so when they go up revenue needs to go up to maintain net income.
Click to expand...

That doesn't explain why you didn't raise your fees 5% when you could do so.
 
sangha said:
You set your fees based on need, and not on what maximizes income?

Doesn't sound like a very good business decision



That doesn't explain why you didn't raise your fees 5% when you could do so.
Click to expand...

My fees get based on a lot of different factors and, frankly, higher fees don't necessarily translate into higher income. If I raise fees 25% and lose 10% of my clients that would likely be a break even, not a revenue generator. However, if I raise fees 10% and retain all of my clients plus pull in a few new ones I'm doing better financially.
 
Crovax said:
"combined deficit effect of nearly $2.2 trillion over the next decade"

That's a $220 billion deficit per year, much smaller than we have had and below the GDP growth rate
Click to expand...

2.2 over ten years? This is nothing. Double thumbs up for Hillary Clinton. I hope she gets everything she asks for.
 
Lutherf said:
My fees get based on a lot of different factors and, frankly, higher fees don't necessarily translate into higher income. If I raise fees 25% and lose 10% of my clients that would likely be a break even, not a revenue generator. However, if I raise fees 10% and retain all of my clients plus pull in a few new ones I'm doing better financially.
Click to expand...

That's right - higher fees don't necessarily translate into higher income!

So why do you think raising prices 5% in response to a tax increase will necessarily increase income (or keep it at the pre-tax increase level)?

A smart business owner sets prices at the level that maximizes income. If expenses increase, the price which produces the optimal income does not change.
 
sangha said:
That's right - higher fees don't necessarily translate into higher income!

So why do you think raising prices 5% in response to a tax increase will necessarily increase income (or keep it at the pre-tax increase level)?

A smart business owner sets prices at the level that maximizes income. If expenses increase, the price which produces the optimal income does not change.
Click to expand...

If every dollar I make is subject to an additional 5% tax then I need to increase my fees so that I come out with at least the same net income as I had before the tax. The only way I can make the same money and not raise fees is to add more clients but, since I can't really predict how many more clients I might attract the reasonable choice is to raise fees. Furthermore, if I take on more clients I have to work more hours, spend more on paper and postage, fill the candy bowl in the front office more often, spend more time on the phone answering questions, etc. If I bring in enough new clients to make up for the net cash difference but now I'm working for $10/hr instead of $12/hr I've effectively screwed myself.
 
Lutherf said:
If every dollar I make is subject to an additional 5% tax then I need to increase my fees so that I come out with at least the same net income as I had before the tax.
Click to expand...

Not true because raising fees does not necessarily raise income. You said it yourself.

Your higher fees will cause some clients to leave. If none of your clients will leave over that 5% increase, then why didn't you raise your fees by that 5% with or without the tax increase?

The only way I can make the same money and not raise fees is to add more clients but, since I can't really predict how many more clients I might attract the reasonable choice is to raise fees.
Click to expand...

Or you can cut expenses. Or, you can add other services and increase your revenue per client.

Or, you can work harder.
 
sangha said:
Not true because raising fees does not necessarily raise income. You said it yourself.

Your higher fees will cause some clients to leave. If none of your clients will leave over that 5% increase, then why didn't you raise your fees by that 5% with or without the tax increase?



Or you can cut expenses. Or, you can add other services and increase your revenue per client.

Or, you can work harder.
Click to expand...

Well, if I worked harder then I couldn't sit around enjoying this scintillating repartee with you.
 
Honestly I don't trust anything trump says or does. Especially when it comes to economics. He refuses to release his tax returns for one (ovb hiding something) and two why would anyone vote for a candidate that got rich by finding loopholes in the bankruptcy policies and screwing over good working class people. In my opinion Trump has been the worst candidate to come out of the republican party since Nixon. Regarding his what he would do with American taxes, i doubt he even knows that area well if at all and will get advisory members to write up a plan for him. From what I have seen all he does is say what hes going to do not actually tell the people how hes going to do it.
 
chuckiechan said:
Obama tried "trickle upland we know how that worked out!

I think we can agree that more private sector economic activity produces more tax revenue. The private sector is responsible for 100% of all taxes paid to the treasury. The Internet boom was a great illustration of the power of the private sector to cure job problems.

Bubbles are a part of the cycle. No one has found a way out of that yet!
Click to expand...

Those "bubbles" are becoming worse and more frequent because of the toxic wealth distribution. Extreme amounts of cash looking for investment encourages risky behaviors that result in meltdowns. It is not a "cycle" it is a disease. Our ancestors found the way out and it was progressive taxes and not the watered down variety we have today. Greed can't be stopped but it can be controlled.
 
Henrin said:
Their sock budget must be outrageous.
Click to expand...

$40 Trillion will buy a lot of socks. The top 5% could pay off all our debt and still have $20 Trillion left. Like I said ....unsustainable.
 
Exquisitor said:
I want them to increase the minimum wage in phases; nine, twelve, fifteen and then twenty,... in their second Term, fifteen, then twenty, since no one ever delivers what they promise.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
Crovax said:
"combined deficit effect of nearly $2.2 trillion over the next decade"

That's a $220 billion deficit per year, much smaller than we have had and below the GDP growth rate
Click to expand...
You don't really believe that do you?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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?



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

That's not how war works, and you know it. I guess we could have drop more money down the ****ter for failed green companies.
 
digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

And that my friend is why we keep getting deeper in the hole. No new taxes but never mind costs go up due to inflation and the politicians get your money through the back door like property tax, sales tax, etc.

2 - 3 is not +4.
 
American said:
That's not how war works, and you know it. I guess we could have drop more money down the ****ter for failed green companies.
Click to expand...

Oh my god... You think we spent 4 trillion in Afghanistan and Iraq for green companies? That doesn't make any sense, but then again it's you. The difference is that green companies actually serve some kind of purpose instead of being completely pointless like those two wars. Climate change is a much bigger threat than exporting democracy at gun point.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Oh my god... You think we spent 4 trillion in Afghanistan and Iraq for green companies? That doesn't make any sense, but then again it's you. The difference is that green companies actually serve some kind of purpose instead of being completely pointless like those two wars. Climate change is a much bigger threat than exporting democracy at gun point.
Click to expand...

It's your comprehension that's the problem here. I didn't mean we went there for green companies, but Obama thought all those green companies were worth the hundreds of millions and failed to accomplish squat.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
And that my friend is why we keep getting deeper in the hole. No new taxes but never mind costs go up due to inflation and the politicians get your money through the back door like property tax, sales tax, etc.

2 - 3 is not +4.
Click to expand...

The problem is just like Hillary is putting forth here....Raising taxes, but also raising spending by double what she is raising taxes by....Tell me how that works?

You talk about Wall St. while Hillary has taken more money from them than anyone else....Oh, yeah, but she will hammer them right? Not likely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom