Clinton and Sanders: two different paths towards taxing the rich

[LWolf]

Let’s say you’re a Democrat who wants to raise taxes on rich people. It turns out there are two very different ways to do it: The direct, simple, in-your-face Bernie Sanders version and the indirect, complicated, back-door Hillary Clinton model.

I’m not talking about the magnitude of their respective tax proposals. That’s a whole different story. This is really about the best way to structure tax increases, assuming you want to enact them at all. And by that measure, Sanders has the far better model.

Sanders takes the direct path. He raises income tax rates on wages and salaries, and boosts rates on investment income. He raises payroll tax rates on employees and workers. And he increases taxes on estates by lowering the exemption amount and raising the rate.

In terms of simplicity and transparency, his plan still has flaws. But it is an improvement over the current system and vastly better than Clinton’s. Neither is as simple as, say, GOP candidate Ted Cruz’s plan, which combines a Value-Added Tax with a flat 10 percent rate income tax. But even within an income tax, Sanders shows there is a relatively simple way to raise taxes.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2016/0310/Clinton-and-Sanders-two-different-paths-towards-taxing-the-rich

[Hoyt]

1. So Clinton would dramatically increase taxes too, and as the article concludes

"Sanders’s proposed tax rates may be politically untenable and economically risky.”

Saying Sanders' plan is untenable and economically risky sounds like a condemnation to me.

[Wilms]

2. "...may be politically untenable and economically risky.”

And somehow you come up with, "is untenable and economically risky sounds like a condemnation to me."

I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. That right, spinman?

[LWolf]

3. "Is" is a favorite Clinton spin, isn't it? nt