2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow the 1% would do under Hillary...and under Trump
To those who say that there is no difference between Hillary and Trump (and lets acknowledge that it is pretty much a white Christian male privilege to make that claim, because pretty much everyone else is at risk of being scapegoated and seriously harmed by Trump's demagoguery), here is an analysis of how the 1% would do under Hillary's tax plan vs. Trump's tax plan. Although the article focuses on Hillary and Trump, there is also some mention of Bernie's plans.
By all means, since the primaries are still ongoing, support your chosen candidate, whichever one, but let's not forget that your second choice in the primaries is indeed light years ahead of Trump.
The Democratic presidential candidates are still fighting over how much to raise taxes and who should pay them, with Bernie Sanders calling for a small raise on middle class Americans to fund programs and Hillary Clinton swearing no increases below $250,000 incomes. But compared to Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, Clintons plan is basically the polar opposite.
The heart of Clintons tax proposals center on increasing taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers, toughening corporate taxes, and increasing taxes on inheritances and gifts. She announced a fair tax surcharge of 4 percent on all income from both salaries and investments above $5 million in January, and she also proposes requiring people with incomes over $1 million to pay at least a 30 percent effective tax rate. She wants to raise the capital gains tax rate on investment income, which is currently lower than the rate on ordinary income, and end the loophole for carried interest and other deductions.
Taken together, an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center finds, 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. Specifically, over the first decade nearly 80 percent of her tax increases would fall on the wealthiest 1 percent, while less than 2 percent would fall on the bottom three-fifths of the country. Someone in the 1 percent would owe nearly $120,000 more, while the poorest Americans would owe $6 more. (The Tax Policy Centers report notes that the campaign has pledged tax cuts for low- and middle-income families that arent factored in given that the details havent been released.)
That stands in stark contrast to Republican frontrunner Donald Trumps plan. His proposal which includes lowering the corporate tax rate and the capital gains rate, reducing the top tax rate paid by the highest income Americans, and ending taxes on inheritances altogether would overwhelmingly help the rich. Over a decade, the top 1 percent would get more than $400,000 in tax relief, while the poorest would get just $209. The 1 percent captures nearly 40 percent of his tax benefits, while the bottom three-fifths get just 16.4 percent.
More at link. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/03/03/3756366/hillary-clinton-tax-analysis/
Red Oak
(697 posts)it would be easier to support her.
There is a reason her campaign earned the moniker "Camp Weathervane".
What will she say the day after she is elected?
We know she was against CAFTA, until she supported it. You want the youtube link and the emails? She was for the TPP, until running for President again. Again, want the video? How about NAFTA and China in the WTO - want the videos?
Ad nauseum.
She has a documented history of trying to be all things to all people and saying what she needs to say to get elected, then taking care of those that brought her to the dance.. Why are these taxation policies any different? She could have proposed them, as an actual bill, when she was a Senator. Did she do that? Nope. So much for really believing in these policies.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)based on distortions of Hillary's record.
I recommend that, even though you should obviously follow your heart and support Bernie in the primaries, that you also open your mind to a more nuanced perspective on Hillary. She will very possibly be the Democratic nominee and the only one standing between Trump and the many vulnerable people he will harm.
Red Oak
(697 posts)The reason I do not support Sec Clinton is due to the facts of her record and the facts of her statements on both sides of most major arguments.
Please share with me the facts of where I am wrong.
Are you saying she didn't come down on both sides of CAFTA? Not only did she come down on both sides, but she publicly stated she was against it, then lobbied privately for it. That is duplicitous.
Are you saying she has not come down on both sides of the TPP? She was for it before she was against it.
Show me where she has taken a leadership position on the issues the OP stated, before this election cycle.
Are you saying that she did not come down on both sides of the definition of marriage?
And the list goes on and on and on. If you need video I can take the time to post it.
I would really like for my decision to support Hillary to be made easier. By all means help me, and many others, here. Show me the error of the facts as I state them. Show me how Sec. Clinton is not "Camp Weathervane".
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)Don't have to worry about Hillary being compared to Trump. Bernie not so much a rich man.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)even if I were inclined to vote for Bernie, which I'm not.