Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton and Sanders: two different paths towards taxing the rich
Lets say youre 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.
Im not talking about the magnitude of their respective tax proposals. Thats 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 Clintons. Neither is as simple as, say, GOP candidate Ted Cruzs 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.
Im not talking about the magnitude of their respective tax proposals. Thats 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 Clintons. Neither is as simple as, say, GOP candidate Ted Cruzs 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
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 639 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Clinton and Sanders: two different paths towards taxing the rich (Original Post)
LWolf
Mar 2016
OP
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)1. So Clinton would dramatically increase taxes too, and as the article concludes
"Sanderss 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
(26,795 posts)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
(46,179 posts)3. "Is" is a favorite Clinton spin, isn't it? nt