Comparing Trump and Clinton's tax policies (1 Viewer)

not2rich

NO State of Mind
Joined
Jul 23, 2001
Messages
7,594
Reaction score
15,312
Location
Denver
Offline
Discussing sexual assault - I mean, "locker room banter" - and the scandalous e-mails of the Clinton campaign is fun, but let's talk about taxes.

I've seen a few pieces lately about this issue, following the recent analysis by the bipartisan Tax Policy Center. Here's one from The Atlantic:

On Tuesday, the Tax Policy Center (TPC) released detailed analyses of the tax plans by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The upshot is that Clinton's proposal would raise taxes on the rich, increase tax benefits for the poor, and raise about $1.4 trillion in revenue in the next decade. Meanwhile, the TPC found, Trump's proposals would cut taxes across the board, with massive benefits going to the top 1 and 0.1 percent. His plans would reduce government revenues by as much as $7 trillion in the first 10 years. When it comes to reducing deficits on the revenue side, there is little comparison: Clinton’s proposal would slightly raise revenue, while Trump’s proposal would require massive (and mostly unspecified) cuts to government spending to avoid a record run-up of debt.

The 1980s and 2000s offered little evidence to support trickle-down economics, the idea that tax cuts for the rich fertilize wage growth for the poor. Economic stagnation may be the great challenge of our time, but starving social insurance programs to give million-dollar tax cuts to the top 0.1 percent is an awfully bizarre strategy to grow the middle class. Yet apparently, that’s Trump’s strategy.

Trump's Tax Plan: A Million-Dollar Giveaway to the 0.1% - The Atlantic
Trump's tax policies would give huge tax breaks to the 1%ers, including Trump himself (but raise taxes on people like single parents), while massively increasing national debt (which Republicans have been crying about all through the Obama administration), unless severe budget cuts are implemented. Trump won't say he would cut, except to vaguely promise to "cut fraud." That's a new one. :rolleyes:

So other than believing massive tax breaks for the rich and big business are going to supercharge the economy enough to tangibly benefit you, what's the appeal of Trump's plan for the average American?
 

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
38
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
To be honest, I think it's kind of silly to discuss fantasy legislation being "proposed" by presidential candidates in the current political environment.

Paul Ryan's tax plan is worth a lot more discussion than Hillary's or Trumps.
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
46,713
Reaction score
40,371
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Online
The basic point is that Trump is essentially giving everyone a tax break (yay!), except for anyone who currently uses head of household filing status or is a single parent with kids.

However, Trump has mentioned cutting spending, but the reality is he's talked mostly about increasing military funding, expanding ICE and expanding other government services. So, it really sounds like he's pulling an Oprah. "you get a car, you get a car, you get a car!" He's trying to give us everything for closer to free, have us keep more of our money, but drive up record debt. At what point do we need to not fund the military at all for a year just to make debt payments? We are already adding too much debt per year (some economists would disagree, that debt/GDP is a better measure).

I pretty much what to call it hypocritical. Oh, poor people are mooching off the system! We're giving my money away! Ok, give it back to me, and give me more stuff too.. cool. Bankrupting a nation? pssshhhh...

Hillary's plan would increase taxes, but not on the vast majority of us. I think it has the potential to keep inline with what this country has done historically. And her spending increases are paid for by this taxation. Very little new debt.

That being said, I think the free college is a bit of a boondoggle, as much as I support the general idea. I prefer just cheaper college, get it back in line, and really push the universities to tighten up. They've blown up their budgets to stupid levels. Enough!

However, her plans are mostly more pragmatic and seem fair. I would entertain eliminating the estate tax completely, if we can guarantee the ultra rich don't keep having these mechanisms to write off their entire tax bill. They need to pay the piper evnetually, like we all do. Basically, did you pay your fair share? Then you're good. And I'm all for tax credits that encourage smart behavior. I like child care credits (allows better child care and people to work stress free). I liked the energy efficiency credits (even though I never got to use them).

An Analysis of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan | Full Report | Tax Policy Center

Updated Analysis of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals | Full Report | Tax Policy Center
 
OP
not2rich

not2rich

NO State of Mind
Joined
Jul 23, 2001
Messages
7,594
Reaction score
15,312
Location
Denver
Offline
To be honest, I think it's kind of silly to discuss fantasy legislation being "proposed" by presidential candidates in the current political environment.

Paul Ryan's tax plan is worth a lot more discussion than Hillary's or Trumps.
I haven't made the comparison, but I'm guessing Ryan's tax plan wouldn't be too far off Trump's. Tax policy is one subject on which Trump is conventional Republican.
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
46,713
Reaction score
40,371
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Online

superchuck500

guarding the potatoes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
57,225
Reaction score
86,344
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Online
To be honest, I think it's kind of silly to discuss fantasy legislation being "proposed" by presidential candidates in the current political environment.

Paul Ryan's tax plan is worth a lot more discussion than Hillary's or Trumps.
I guess. Any tax plan is going to have to come from a compromise process - it's exceedingly unlikely that a single party will have both sides of Congress and the White House. The most likely scenario at this point is a GOP House and a Democratic Senate (but only a slight majority) and White House.

Ryan's plan is only worth more discussion because he's a legislator and the plan can be easily made into a bill - but I think Hillary's staff is capable of that as well. The bigger question is how either would ever get through the process. Unless we start getting greater commitment to compromise in Washington, it's going to be more of the same inaction.
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
46,713
Reaction score
40,371
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Online
I guess. Any tax plan is going to have to come from a compromise process - it's exceedingly unlikely that a single party will have both sides of Congress and the White House. The most likely scenario at this point is a GOP House and a Democratic Senate (but only a slight majority) and White House.

Ryan's plan is only worth more discussion because he's a legislator and the plan can be easily made into a bill - but I think Hillary's staff is capable of that as well. The bigger question is how either would ever get through the process. Unless we start getting greater commitment to compromise in Washington, it's going to be more of the same inaction.
I have a feeling she'd be flexible on business taxes, like lower them a bit, but make safeguards to make sure they do pay them and can't avoid them, if she can get other things.

Or she'd give up on the estate tax, for other provisions, etc. Hillary has always been flexible like that. Obama was flexible too. You have to be.
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
46,713
Reaction score
40,371
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Online
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ther...to-raise-taxes-on-corporations-162909655.html

Looks like this complaint is what I was thinking about.

Both parties like to comingle the ideas of rich tax rates and corporate tax rates. That rich people, with less taxes, will invest in the economy, or that's stupid they just hang on to it or put it in the stock market, which isn't making us any richer as a whole.

I think raising taxes on the rich, but making business taxes lower, or give them avenues to bring money back from over seas, and punish them hard for leaving our country is a good compromise.
 

RetroMcBananaFace

AKA: retrobanana
Joined
Feb 1, 2015
Messages
10,061
Reaction score
20,847
Location
Henderson, Kentucky
Offline
The only policy piece from Hillary that really resonates with me is the free college thing. It's definitely right out of the Bernie playbook, and I feel like that's something Obama would like to have at least gotten started on. Some will decry that as socialism, I don't care. Look at the Scandinavian countries right now, they're absolutely thriving.
 

superchuck500

guarding the potatoes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
57,225
Reaction score
86,344
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Online
The only policy piece from Hillary that really resonates with me is the free college thing. It's definitely right out of the Bernie playbook, and I feel like that's something Obama would like to have at least gotten started on. Some will decry that as socialism, I don't care. Look at the Scandinavian countries right now, they're absolutely thriving.
Only Sweden has outpaced the US in recent GDP performance. And, of course, there is a vast difference in scale with those kinds of programs the US. I'm not knocking them in principle, just refusing to jump on the bandwagon of "be more like Scandinavia."

Swedish economy slowing, still outshines Nordic neighbors | Reuters


https://www.aei.org/publication/mus...-scandinavia-a-long-read-qa-with-stan-veuger/
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,806
Offline
Although we have the reputation, we're barely even producing top 10 educated college grads in the world, including Ivies and such. OECD study based on tests of grads puts us at a tenuous 10th best

Which country really has the cleverest students? - BBC News

The OECD's top 10 highest performing graduates

  1. Japan
  2. Finland
  3. Netherlands
  4. Sweden
  5. Australia
  6. Norway
  7. Belgium
  8. New Zealand
  9. England
  10. United States
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
60,347
Reaction score
98,273
Location
by the cemeteries
Online
To be honest, I think it's kind of silly to discuss fantasy legislation being "proposed" by presidential candidates in the current political environment.

Paul Ryan's tax plan is worth a lot more discussion than Hillary's or Trumps.
you spelled "Bernie Sanders" wrong

but seriously you're exactly right - I wish the presidential election was covered with more consideration of Senate and Rep campaigns
but I guess that's a bit too wonky
 

SuperMatt

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
562
Reaction score
536
Offline
Although we have the reputation, we're barely even producing top 10 educated college grads in the world, including Ivies and such. OECD study based on tests of grads puts us at a tenuous 10th best

Which country really has the cleverest students? - BBC News


My wife teaches 1st grade and the stories she tells on how uneducated the parents of these kids would blow your mind. Some of the kids have ZERO chance of making it in life, she can point them out in first grade. We should be on top of list for education but somewhere education has gotten lost in a lot of people's priorities. I would like to see education be a top priority and then the cycle can be broken and these kids would have a legitimate chance in life.
 

RetroMcBananaFace

AKA: retrobanana
Joined
Feb 1, 2015
Messages
10,061
Reaction score
20,847
Location
Henderson, Kentucky
Offline
Only Sweden has outpaced the US in recent GDP performance. And, of course, there is a vast difference in scale with those kinds of programs the US. I'm not knocking them in principle, just refusing to jump on the bandwagon of "be more like Scandinavia."

Swedish economy slowing, still outshines Nordic neighbors | Reuters


https://www.aei.org/publication/mus...-scandinavia-a-long-read-qa-with-stan-veuger/
I was speaking specifically about education, although I suppose GDP would be a telling factor of that?

This is based mostly on my own educational experience, but to me, elementary and high school is where they tell you what to think. College is where they tell you HOW to think, and there's a big difference there. I think we have a populace that in large part puts no thought whatsoever into who they vote for, what they buy, what they eat, etc.
 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
13,342
Reaction score
18,184
Offline
Good point, but college also taught me how to learn, which may be a corollary of how to think.

High School was all about memorizing things, multiple choice tests and so forth. I had very little homework at night, because one period of every day was home room and we got our homework done there.

College was a whole 'nuther ball game and we were woefully unprepared. It was a real sink or swim deal. I had not much in the way of a clue how to do basic research on a topic.
 

RetroMcBananaFace

AKA: retrobanana
Joined
Feb 1, 2015
Messages
10,061
Reaction score
20,847
Location
Henderson, Kentucky
Offline
Perfect example, in my area, we have a huge aluminum smelter, several coal operations, commercial shipping, a plastics plant, etc. etc. We have the worst air quality and one of the worst lung cancer rates in the entire country. Allergy counts are sky-high. At least 3-4 days a week, you can't even see the sun in certain parts of town. And yet, people (read: Republicans) are infuriated that the EPA and other agencies are coming in work on the situation. "Stop regulating us!" "It's the tree-huggers fault!" I'm like, are you stupid? People are literally dying because the air they are breathing is poison, and the problem you have with this situation is the EPA? Public health and public safety should not be a partisan issue. But people just go on with their brain-dead allegiances.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Similar threads


Headlines

Top Bottom