Report: Hillary Clinton would hike taxes by $1.3 trillion

[brothern]

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.

You're apart of the income group that will get taxed? You have $8.4 million in the bank?

 

[brothern]

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.

Hundreds of millions is between 0.01% and 0.09% of a trillion.

So to be fair, I think your criticism aimed at Obama should be between 0.01% and 0.09% as effective as the criticism aimed at the war spending.

 

[American]

Hundreds of millions is between 0.01% and 0.09% of a trillion.

So to be fair, I think your criticism aimed at Obama should be between 0.01% and 0.09% as effective as the criticism aimed at the war spending.

The Congress and UN supported the war.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The Congress and UN supported the war.

Congress did not declare war in Iraq, nor did they build the cost of the war into their budget. Their support was tepid at best.

 

[American]

Congress did not declare war in Iraq, nor did they build the cost of the war into their budget. Their support was tepid at best.

Tepid? That's horse**** and you know it. Even Hillary voted for it. No one budgets for a war.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Tepid? That's horse**** and you know it. Even Hillary voted for it. No one budgets for a war.

Congress did not declare war.
The war was supposed to have lasted only a few weeks.
No one planned for the war to go on for years and cost trillions.
No one wanted to spend anywhere close to what the war actually cost
Hillary did vote for the so called War Powers Agreement. Does that make it a good thing?

 

[jonny5]

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.

Almost no one paid 90%, and we spend WAY more than a tiny fraction. The highway fund just got 300 billion. Transpo gets about 100 billion a year, and Education gets another 100 billion. That means weve spent over 2 trillion in the last decade alone, on just those two functions.

 

[ludin]

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.

So Hillary is going to raise taxes 1.2 trillion dollars (that is if people don't find a way to avoid it or move their money before it hits).
but she is still 2.2 trillion dollars short on all the spending she wants to do.

so you are right 2-3 isn't +4 someone should tell Hillary that.

 

[ludin]

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.

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate - WSJ

yet the left continues with the 90% tax myth. when will they drop the lies and face facts?

shovel ready projects? wait ol yea never happened.
Education funding is at an all time high and the results are negligible thanks to unions.

 

[American]

Congress did not declare war.
The war was supposed to have lasted only a few weeks.
No one planned for the war to go on for years and cost trillions.
No one wanted to spend anywhere close to what the war actually cost
Hillary did vote for the so called War Powers Agreement. Does that make it a good thing?

They haven't declared war since 1941, so don't even bother trotting that old thing out.
Who said it would last only a few weeks. Bush predicted it would go past his Presidency.
No one knew what it would cost, they never do.
That's right, Hillary supported it.

 

[gdgyva]

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.

exactly

you can add Washington DC to that list

if you live in the heartland, and make 250k...not bad when the houses there sell for that amount

try spending 2-3x that on a house and see how far 250k goes.....

not saying 250k is poor....far from it

but it isnt RICH....and those are the people that seem to pay for the majority of the crap this country spends

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

Earning about 5X the median US household income is rich (and puts them into the top 10% of US earners) since earning less than half of the median (for a four person household) is poor. I think that it is cute that saying those earning more than 90% of other households in a rich nation are not "really" rich.

 

[ttwtt78640]

exactly

you can add Washington DC to that list

if you live in the heartland, and make 250k...not bad when the houses there sell for that amount

try spending 2-3x that on a house and see how far 250k goes.....

not saying 250k is poor....far from it

but it isn't RICH....and those are the people that seem to pay for the majority of the crap this country spends

Earning more than 90% is rich, earning more than 99% is RICH.

 

[Henrin]

Earning about 5X the median US household income is rich (and puts them into the top 10% of US earners) since earning less than half of the median (for a four person household) is poor. I think that it is cute that saying those earning more than 90% of other households in a rich nation are not "really" rich.

Have you seen the cost of living in those areas? I wouldn't consider earning $250,000 while houses are a few million anything comparable to earning $250,000 while houses are $250,000, but maybe that is just me.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

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

You honestly think the special interests that handed Hillary her victory over Bernie on a silver-platter will even significantly shoulder the bare-minimum? Not all of those on the "left" are to be trusted. Hillary is a DINO, as are most Democrats now days. Hillary, the Bushs, the Rockefellers, etc are all part of the NEOCON party and care only for expanded the global dominion of State Capitalism and the super-class. They're like mafia bosses, they ideologically employ people like Trump to help justify their rampant and flagrant flaws. These people are what we call super-politicians, they have no remorse and we can talk about them but first we have to bring-them-to-heel.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Have you seen the cost of living in those areas? I wouldn't consider earning $250,000 while houses are a few million anything comparable to earning $250,000 while houses are $250,000, but maybe that is just me.

What you are tying to do is make a case for those earning more by living (or working) in a high cost area not being rich even while they are in the top 10% of all US households. I am not buying that BS - simply because they are required to pay more for a home (for a few years) does not make them less rich. The gain on a higher cost home's sale can easily pay off a modest retirement home while the gain on a more modest home may barely cover a down payment.

 

[Dittohead not!]

They haven't declared war since 1941, so don't even bother trotting that old thing out.
Who said it would last only a few weeks. Bush predicted it would go past his Presidency.
No one knew what it would cost, they never do.
That's right, Hillary supported it.

Yeah, let's not trot out that old, tired Constitution. After all, the Congress has been ignoring it since 1941.
Rumsfeld said he doubted it would last six months.
Of course, no one knew what it would cost, so they kept asking for more and more money.
And, since Hillary supported the War Powers agreement, it must have been a good thing.

 

[RetiredUSN]

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.

A tiny amount of 4 trillion on infrastructure wouldn't get you out of New York state.

 

[Fenton]

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.

The worst recovery in our Nations History is the GOPs fault ?

How do you figure? They didn't raise taxes, vote for or sign ObamaCare, try their damnest to ill the Coal industry, throw away billions on a " green jobs " initiative and waste hundreds of billions on " shovel ready jobs".

 

[Fenton]

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.



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.

So you think the FEDS zero interest rate policies are going to go on for a " long long time " ?

Longer that 10 years ? I sure hope not. Fed policies that supresss rates on fixed yield investment's are in response to a lack of economic growth.

8 years later and some Central Banks are contemplating negative interest rates as a strategy to get savers to invest

In fact the Feds decision to continue these unprecedented monetary policies directly contradict the Lefts assertions that we've had a robust recovery and are near full employment.

It shows just how weak our economy is after 8 years under Obama and its shows that the Left will try everything ( Fiscal and Monetary stimulus) except what works to grow a economy they do not comprehend

 

[laska]

Wonder how this tax code would do on deficits. It greatly simplifies code, lowers business costs so would promote higher employee wages and job growth, progressive and increases taxes on the wealthy but not to the point imo of undermining economic liberty and ease of ability for people to rise the economic ladder. Going single payer catastrophic adds a lot of cost to government but imo will lower overall health insurance costs and lowers business costs which makes jobs, wages, and U.S. products more competitive. And under my plan I have significant cost reductions in welfare reform, education reform, advanced efficiency throughout government in drastically reducing waste/fraud/abuse, prison reform, ssi reform, and smarter security policies.


No deductions on net income. (For example if you fall in the 10% rate bracket you pay 10% of net income, 20% you pay 20%, etc.)

10%-first $100,000 of net income
20%-any additional net income between $100,000-1 mil
30%-any additional net income above 1 mil

15% corporate rate
eliminate as best as possible outdated and poorly designed regulations that add unneeded costs to business(this is not saying eliminate or do not add good regulation)
eliminate health insurance costs for business by going to single payer catastrophic/cash for minor health issues
eliminate payroll taxes

$15 minimum wage

tax capital gains at above 10/20/30% rates except when companies offer stock to raise money and then at a 15% rate for net capital gains income above $100,000

$2500 deductible catastrophic/no copay on those making above $31,500(which would be for those making above the $15 minimum wage income)

Tax negative externalities:
tax luxury goods and services
tax carbon at real cost
tax unhealthy food, beverages, and other harmful products at real cost


Match tariffs and restrictive laws for nations not willing to have complete and open access to their markets. Ideally free trade and elimination of tariffs on all sides.


State/Local:
Fund state/local government solely through sales tax on new goods and services and progressive property taxes. No value added taxes as it raises costs of exports, no property taxes on business. No sales taxes on nutritious whole foods or low income rent.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Report: Hillary Clinton would hike taxes by $1.3 trillion | Fox News


So who going to pay for this, no to mention the effect on the national debt?

It doesn't even include higher payroll taxes which dwarf the rest....

 

[Moderate Right]

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.

Is there no end to blaming Republicans for Democrat's policy failures. Come on now. You guys are still blaming Reagan and GW Bush.

 

[Dibbler]

 

[blackjack50]

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

I have a bold strategy? Stop spending hundreds of thousands on those White House dinners and congressmen and so on? Put it to the debt. And keep taxes pegged for a while? Maybe if we asked our politicians to live like us for a while...and not like kings or sultans...we might not be in this mess.


But nobody reads Roman history.


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.