Clinton Tax plan

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
BLADEMDA

BLADEMDA

Full Member
Lifetime Donor
Verified Member
15+ Year Member
Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
22,315
Reaction score
8,963
I know many of you on SDN are liberal-leaning Closet Socialists but the Clinton Tax plan will be raising taxes on Physicians yet again. Clinton will be forced to raise taxes on all those earning more than $120K per year in order to pay for the expanding Federal debt and the ever-increasing Federal budget.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/03/pf/taxes/hillary-clinton-taxes/


http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-hillary-clinton-s-tax-proposals
Members don't see this ad.
 
capital_gains_tax_rates_by_holding_period_1024.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2015/07/hillarys-capital-gains-plan-ignores.html

Lastly, there are millions of Americans that aren't in the top tax bracket but will be hurt by this stupidity. These are average people with managed 401K's and mutual funds. With the higher tax rate, the cost to manage those funds increases while, at the same time, return on that money is reduced. This from a person who, in 1978, thought it was fine to trade in cattle futures over a period of just 10 months and turn $1000 into $100,000
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I guess that I should be happy the Democratic party will nominate Clinton over Sanders. I'm wondering if Biden will become the nominee if Clinton gets indicted by the Justice Department.
 
I think they invented Sanders to make Clinton look better. Kind of like Trump on the other side.

Old political trick: let extremism exist so that everybody else look downright moderate in comparison.
 
FFP said:
I think they invented Sanders to make Clinton look better. Kind of like Trump on the other side.

Old political trick: let extremism exist so that everybody else look downright moderate in comparison.
Click to expand...

The Trump plan backfired then.
 
twoliter said:
The Trump plan backfired then.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised at all if he has some important elites behind him.

If I had to vote, I wouldn't know whom to vote for. Almost none of them deserves the high office. It's just sad.

A tax plan is not everything. I wouldn't sell my conscience for thirty pieces of silver. But, if taxes keep going up on the working "rich", I'll go part-time. I don't see why we can't have a flat tax system, after considerable standard deductions (making some people pay 0%), possibly coupled with a VAT. The way it is now, the more you work and the more educated you are, the more you pay (percentage-wise).

I agree that rich people should pay more in absolute amount (25% of 400K is more than 25% of 50K), but not percentage-wise. The progressive tax system is just the legislation of human envy. We don't need higher tax rates, just the elimination of all the itemized deductions and fiscal pork.

For example, what are tax deductions for mortgage interest, if not pork for home builders? If owning a house is so financially wise, everybody would do it, regardless of incentives.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
FFP said:
A tax plan is not everything. I wouldn't sell my conscience for thirty pieces of silver. But, if taxes keep going up on the working "rich", I'll go part-time.
Click to expand...

Join the military. :) My overall tax rate in 2015 was about 18%. (Maybe 12% if I count the pre-tax defined benefit plan "contributions" the .mil makes for my pension.)

And to think, I could've taken that $450K 1099 job in California and had less take home pay thanks to a 39.7% marginal rate, 10% to California, no benefits, no retirement except what I funded, and no job security.

Working for the government ain't so bad. (As long as Trump doesn't get elected and start some wars.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
FFP said:
I think they invented Sanders to make Clinton look better. Kind of like Trump on the other side.

Old political trick: let extremism exist so that everybody else look downright moderate in comparison.
Click to expand...

It's like the cute girl surrounding herself with ugly girls to make herself look hawtttt
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
The carried interest rule is one I'd like to see investigated more. It does seem shady that that income is treated as capital gains rather than regular income.

In addition to raising taxes on the semi-high earners (doctors), Obama and democrats have already taken away most of the tax breaks with Pease rules (phase-outs of most of the tax breaks). I understand the "fairness" of a progressive tax system. One needs a certain amount for basic living standards. But we are already far more progressive than what basic fairness calls for, at least for the semi-high earners, like doctors. We pay a higher percentage of our income in taxes than do wealthier folks. Probably the highest percentage of total income paid are from those earning $300-600K/year.

What I would like them to do is to investigate the giant corporations who have set up their companies to avoid paying US taxes. Think GE, Microsoft, Apple, etc. The ones, when you buy an iPhone that the money you give them is laundered through several corporations through Nevada, then Ireland, and then an island country. How can companies that have billions of dollars of revenue in the US not pay any US taxes?
 
Impromptu said:
The carried interest rule is one I'd like to see investigated more. It does seem shady that that income is treated as capital gains rather than regular income.

In addition to raising taxes on the semi-high earners (doctors), Obama and democrats have already taken away most of the tax breaks with Pease rules (phase-outs of most of the tax breaks). I understand the "fairness" of a progressive tax system. One needs a certain amount for basic living standards. But we are already far more progressive than what basic fairness calls for, at least for the semi-high earners, like doctors. We pay a higher percentage of our income in taxes than do wealthier folks. Probably the highest percentage of total income paid are from those earning $300-600K/year.

What I would like them to do is to investigate the giant corporations who have set up their companies to avoid paying US taxes. Think GE, Microsoft, Apple, etc. The ones, when you buy an iPhone that the money you give them is laundered through several corporations through Nevada, then Ireland, and then an island country. How can companies that have billions of dollars of revenue in the US not pay any US taxes?
Click to expand...


Your post is a good one.

I'd like to see a flat corporate tax rate of 15% with no deductions. On the personal income side I'd like to see 3 brackets which start at $40,000 (zero percent below 40,000):

Bracket 1 is 15%: $40,000-$250,000

Bracket 2 is 25%: $250-$500,000

Bracket 3 is 30%: $500,000 plus

These brackets have zero deductions so your taxes can be done on a postcard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
BLADEMDA said:
I know many of you on SDN are liberal-leaning Closet Socialists but the Clinton Tax plan will be raising taxes on Physicians yet again. Clinton will be forced to raise taxes on all those earning more than $120K per year in order to pay for the expanding Federal debt and the ever-increasing Federal budget.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/03/pf/taxes/hillary-clinton-taxes/


http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-hillary-clinton-s-tax-proposals
Click to expand...

Please explain your assertion that taxes will be raised on all those earning $120k or more. The federal tax brackets look exactly the same as they are now until you get to income levels of >$5 million/year. If you're referring to the cap on itemized deductions, that doesn't affect people making <$190k single or <$230k married.


BLADEMDA said:
http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2015/07/hillarys-capital-gains-plan-ignores.html

Lastly, there are millions of Americans that aren't in the top tax bracket but will be hurt by this stupidity. These are average people with managed 401K's and mutual funds. With the higher tax rate, the cost to manage those funds increases while, at the same time, return on that money is reduced. This from a person who, in 1978, thought it was fine to trade in cattle futures over a period of just 10 months and turn $1000 into $100,000
Click to expand...

Tax-deferred investments are not subject to capital gains taxes, so the "millions" of Americans who only have money in their 401k would not be affected. Only 12% of Americans max out their 401k contributions (Source: https://institutional.vanguard.com/iam/pdf/HAS14.pdf?cbdForceDomain=true). The overwhelming majority of the other 88% should not be investing in taxable accounts if they have a tax-deferred vehicle available. This does punish less optimal investing for the vast majority of Americans. Is that a bad thing?

I don't really see a reason why the higher tax rate would increase the cost to manage those funds. The custodians of these plans are not being taxed, are they?


BLADEMDA said:
Your post is a good one.

I'd like to see a flat corporate tax rate of 15% with no deductions. On the personal income side I'd like to see 3 brackets which start at $40,000 (zero percent below 40,000):

Bracket 1 is 15%: $40,000-$250,000

Bracket 2 is 25%: $250-$500,000

Bracket 3 is 30%: $500,000 plus

These brackets have zero deductions so your taxes can be done on a postcard.
Click to expand...

This looks reasonably close to the Trump tax plan, with a drastic reduction in income tax brackets combined with a straight reduction of the corporate tax rate with no modifications (both Rubio and Cruz propose modifications). Trump's plan, as you pointed out before, is projected to cause a revenue deficit or $10 trillion over the next 10 years. I don't see how that's a good thing. Moreover, your proposal transparently benefits people with your income. "Somehow", the highest tax bracket starts right after where most anesthesiologist salaries top out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Does it even matter though? How often - in all your folks' experience, does the nominee's tax plan actually come to fruition after election? Especially if a D wins with an R congress
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top 1% of income in the world is around $50,000. Shouldn't that be where the progressive tax rate really start redistributing income?
 
Impromptu said:
Top 1% of income in the world is around $50,000. Shouldn't that be where the progressive tax rate really start redistributing income?
Click to expand...
Depends on where you earn that $50k



Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
 
Impromptu said:
Top 1% of income in the world is around $50,000. Shouldn't that be where the progressive tax rate really start redistributing income?
Click to expand...
Yes, those filthy global 1%'ers earning $50K really ought to share at least half their wealth with African and south Asian barefoot poor.
 
pgg said:
Yes, those filthy global 1%'ers earning $50K really ought to share at least half their wealth with African and south Asian barefoot poor.
Click to expand...

South Asian?
The non-white Latinos and Africans are the ones (besides whities) who make up the majority on welfare.
 
Haha Sanders just got endorsed by the president of Venezuela. Do I need to say more?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Doctor4Life1769 said:
South Asian?
The non-white Latinos and Africans are the ones (besides whities) who make up the majority on welfare.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand me. I was referring to people living in Africa and South Asia, not Americans of a particular ethnic group.

Because if we're going to redistribute wealth, Americans on welfare have plenty to share with the poor of the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
pgg said:
You misunderstand me. I was referring to people living in Africa and South Asia, not Americans of a particular ethnic group.

Because if we're going to redistribute wealth, Americans on welfare have plenty to share with the poor of the world.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. This is true.
 
pgg said:
You misunderstand me. I was referring to people living in Africa and South Asia, not Americans of a particular ethnic group.

Because if we're going to redistribute wealth, Americans on welfare have plenty to share with the poor of the world.
Click to expand...
Some might. Probably not the 40 million living below the poverty line though. A family of four making 24k a year. Or the 19 million people in four person families making less than 12k a year. The cost of living in the US would make sharing difficult.
 
BLADEMDA said:
Your post is a good one.

I'd like to see a flat corporate tax rate of 15% with no deductions. On the personal income side I'd like to see 3 brackets which start at $40,000 (zero percent below 40,000):

Bracket 1 is 15%: $40,000-$250,000

Bracket 2 is 25%: $250-$500,000

Bracket 3 is 30%: $500,000 plus

These brackets have zero deductions so your taxes can be done on a postcard.
Click to expand...
That'd be good except add
Bracket 4 is 50%: $1000000
Bracket 5 is 80% $2000000 plus

And capital gains from investments given as compensation rather than bought with your own, already-taxed cash should be taxed as regular income.
 
nolagas said:
That'd be good except add
Bracket 4 is 50%: $1000000
Bracket 5 is 80% $2000000 plus

And capital gains from investments given as compensation rather than bought with your own, already-taxed cash should be taxed as regular income.
Click to expand...


I can't agree that anyone should pay 80% in taxes to the govt. Anything over 40% is ridiculous considering the notion is to drop all deductions.

A tax plan such as the one I proposed with 3 brackets would RAISE revenue through the elimination of deductions. The "rich" right now pay less in taxes than I do while earning multiples of my annual income by manipulation (legal of course) of the tax code.
 
BLADEMDA said:
I can't agree that anyone should pay 80% in taxes to the govt. Anything over 40% is ridiculous considering the notion is to drop all deductions.

A tax plan such as the one I proposed with 3 brackets would RAISE revenue through the elimination of deductions. The "rich" right now pay less in taxes than I do while earning multiples of my annual income by manipulation (legal of course) of the tax code.
Click to expand...

It won't produce significant revenue, but the goal of the high tax rate on extremely high income isn't to produce revenue; it is to discourage the few people in control from taking all the money. A high tax rate on extraordinary income makes very high salaries not worth paying, so theoretically there would be money available for other purposes such as paying other employees, who actually need the money, more.
 
Pooh & Annie said:
Some might. Probably not the 40 million living below the poverty line though. A family of four making 24k a year. Or the 19 million people in four person families making less than 12k a year. The cost of living in the US would make sharing difficult.
Click to expand...

"Making" 12k a year on a tax return and what actually is income are separate things.

Children in this country starve because of parental decisions, not lack of food.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
nolagas said:
That'd be good except add
Bracket 4 is 50%: $1000000
Bracket 5 is 80% $2000000 plus

And capital gains from investments given as compensation rather than bought with your own, already-taxed cash should be taxed as regular income.
Click to expand...

Yep, lets tax successful people who create jobs, instead of fixing corporate welfare.

No thanks. Taxation is theft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
pgg said:
Join the military. :) My overall tax rate in 2015 was about 18%. (Maybe 12% if I count the pre-tax defined benefit plan "contributions" the .mil makes for my pension.)

And to think, I could've taken that $450K 1099 job in California and had less take home pay thanks to a 39.7% marginal rate, 10% to California, no benefits, no retirement except what I funded, and no job security.

Working for the government ain't so bad. (As long as Trump doesn't get elected and start some wars.)
Click to expand...

You realize that Trump is the least interventionalist candidate from either party by far, right? The Trump platform is best described as nationalist isolationist protectionist. A key part of it is the understanding that Americans are tired of borrowing trillions of dollars and suffering thousands of casualties to remake the world in Portland's image.
 
Brahnold Bloodaxe said:
You realize that Trump is the least interventionalist candidate from either party by far, right? The Trump platform is best described as nationalist isolationist protectionist.
Click to expand...
Yes, Trump the "squish ISIS" candidate is totally isolationist and would never consider projecting any power abroad. He'll close down the bases in Germany and South Korea and the Middle East and everyone'll come home and we'll put sandbag walls around the lower 48. Oh, and Mexico's going to pay for it.

What I understand is that he will likely change the "Trump platform" the instant he secures the nomination (god forbid), and will probably loudly proclaim that whatever he says then is what he said and meant all along, despite records to the contrary.
 
pgg said:
Yes, Trump the "squish ISIS" candidate is totally isolationist and would never consider projecting any power abroad. He'll close down the bases in Germany and South Korea and the Middle East and everyone'll come home and we'll put sandbag walls around the lower 48. Oh, and Mexico's going to pay for it.

What I understand is that he will likely change the "Trump platform" the instant he secures the nomination (god forbid), and will probably loudly proclaim that whatever he says then is what he said and meant all along, despite records to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Every candidate says they will crush Isis, so Trump's stance on this does not make him more interventionist than anyone else. The good this is that his belligerence stops with Isis, whereas everyone else brags how they're going to embroil us in yet more middle eastern debacles and "punch [nuclear armed] Putin in the nose" for good measure. Now, it's certainly possible that Trump will renegade on all this and start WWIII, but the only reasonable thing to do is to assume he's less likely to do so than the people who are running on a platform of starting WWIII. Likewise, Mexico may or may not pay for the wall, but the sane thing to assume is that Trump will be tougher on immigration than the people who are bragging about how wide they will throw open the border.

Simply put, everyone else is bragging about how they're going to punch me in the face, so I know that a vote for them is a vote for getting walloped. Trump may or may not punch me in the face, but at least it's an open question at this point, which is why I'm voting Trump.
 
Brahnold Bloodaxe said:
You realize that Trump is the least interventionalist candidate from either party by far, right? The Trump platform is best described as nationalist isolationist protectionist. A key part of it is the understanding that Americans are tired of borrowing trillions of dollars and suffering thousands of casualties to remake the world in Portland's image.
Click to expand...

Nope. Rand Paul was way less interventional. And there are other non-interventionalist or minimal interventionalist parties out there as well.
 
Random Resident said:
Yep, lets tax successful people who create jobs, instead of fixing corporate welfare.

No thanks. Taxation is theft.
Click to expand...

By all means fix the corporate tax system with a single low flat rate.

It's amazing how many people believe, vote, and argue as if we live in a meritocracy when we clearly live in plutocracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Random Resident said:
"Making" 12k a year on a tax return and what actually is income are separate things.

Children in this country starve because of parental decisions, not lack of food.
Click to expand...
If you're arguing that most of them are not in fact dirt poor, you're wrong. And whatever the circumstances, taxing someone with next to nothing is stupid and results in the need for EXPANSION of welfare.
 
Random Resident said:
Yep, lets tax successful people who create jobs, instead of fixing corporate welfare.

No thanks. Taxation is theft.
Click to expand...
What portion of successful people create jobs? I think all but a fraction of that money goes into investments.

And do you live on a self-sustaining commune? Do you seriously not understand the role taxes play in life in a first-world country?
 
Pooh & Annie said:
What portion of successful people create jobs? I think all but a fraction of that money goes into investments.

And do you live on a self-sustaining commune? Do you seriously not understand the role taxes play in life in a first-world country?
Click to expand...

Show me a govt system that lets people flourish without thinking they know better than their people, and I'll show you a unicorn with golden hooves.

I'm not an anarchist, but telling people in California they must fund things happening in Maine is ridiculous. And the mere fact that someone is forced to work to pay for other people's food, clothing, health care, etc... It's glorified indentured servitude. At least if the states were completely free to make their own policies, one could move.

Ever own a business? I have. It's shameful what our country does to hard-working people in the name of "fairness".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

C
Travel CME--Tax Deductions
Replies
23
Views
888
nimbus
nimbus
C
Cash for call tax implications
Replies
16
Views
1K
Ronin786
Ronin786
bedrock
CRPS preventative anesthesia plan
Replies
11
Views
814
lobelsteve
lobelsteve
B
Minimum age to contribute to defined benefits plan?
Replies
31
Views
2K
DrMDAware
DrMDAware
G
So What's Wrong with the 25 year repayment plan
Replies
44
Views
3K
thinkorswim
thinkorswim
Top