HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Hillary Clinton’s no-tax ...

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:23 PM

 

Hillary Clinton’s no-tax pledge is Republican policy sprinkled with Third Way politics

otherwise known as rightwing-lite

Clinton’s no-tax pledge is Republican “starve the beast” policy infused with Third Way politics. It doubles down on the premise that taxes are bad, and insists that they should only ever be raised on other people — no matter what higher taxes on the broader tax base could pay for. By promising to only raise taxes on incomes in the top one or two percent, Clinton is writing off most potential new revenue, and is therefore writing off the possibility of any semblance of a progressive economic agenda. However, by only foreclosing on the possibility of tax increases for 98 percent of Americans, as opposed to the full 100, she feels safe calling herself a progressive because Fox News will call her a class warrior. Sanders, rightly, thinks this claim is ridiculous.

It’s ridiculous because Clinton’s pledge boxes her into policy corners that leave her with no choice but to use creative and regressive tweaks on otherwise good ideas in order to keep her price tags down. Take, for example, her proposed tax credit for caregivers. Clinton’s policy would provide a tax credit of up to $6,000 for families that are taking care of an elderly family member. However, the only way to keep the budgetary costs of such a program down — $1 billion per year, by all available estimates — is by making the credit non-refundable (you can only claim it against existing tax liability, as opposed to a refundable credit, which allows you to have negative liability). Making the credit non-refundable may make it less expensive, but it also makes it useless. As Demos analyst Matt Bruenig explained:http://americablog.com/2015/12/hillary-clinton-no-tax-pledge-republican-policy-third-way-politics.html

30 replies, 1860 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary Clinton’s no-tax pledge is Republican policy sprinkled with Third Way politics (Original post)
stupidicus Dec 2015 OP
NorthCarolina Dec 2015 #1
stupidicus Dec 2015 #7
Dem2 Dec 2015 #2
stupidicus Dec 2015 #6
firebrand80 Dec 2015 #3
AgingAmerican Dec 2015 #8
firebrand80 Dec 2015 #9
AgingAmerican Dec 2015 #14
Armstead Dec 2015 #15
firebrand80 Dec 2015 #17
stupidicus Dec 2015 #18
kenfrequed Dec 2015 #13
HoneychildMooseMoss Dec 2015 #16
stupidicus Dec 2015 #23
yeoman6987 Dec 2015 #4
AgingAmerican Dec 2015 #10
reddread Dec 2015 #5
stupidicus Dec 2015 #11
reddread Dec 2015 #19
stupidicus Dec 2015 #20
reddread Dec 2015 #22
stupidicus Dec 2015 #24
reddread Dec 2015 #25
kenfrequed Dec 2015 #12
stupidicus Dec 2015 #21
cascadiance Dec 2015 #26
stupidicus Dec 2015 #27
cascadiance Dec 2015 #29
stillwaiting Dec 2015 #28
Broward Dec 2015 #30

Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:29 PM

1. I'm absolutely and positively

 

sick of BOTH the Clinton AND the Bush family's. Can't we PLEASE move beyond having to continually support family dynasties in the US?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:36 PM

7. indeed

 

that has seen less attention than I think it deserves as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:30 PM

2. Blah blah blah

So silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:36 PM

6. oh, that's why you resorted to the "Blah, Blah" defense?

 

because you feel silly?

thanks for the disclosure, but the reason why you'd think I'd care will have to remain a mystery

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:32 PM

3. Tax increases are unpopular

that why she made the pledge

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firebrand80 (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:37 PM

8. It's called 'creeping fascism'

 

And it has bled the country dry and wrecked the economy. She now buys into the idiotic Grover Norquist pledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:39 PM

9. Not raising taxes is facsim?

Wow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firebrand80 (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:43 PM

14. Creeping fascism

 

Is when right wingism slowly creeps into every nook and cranny over decades. People become accustomed to it slowly, and it becomes the new normal.

It's like boiling a frog.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11341.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firebrand80 (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:45 PM

15. Saying they are bad is echoing the right wing that the public sector is bad

 

Nobody likes paying taxes, liberals included. So it's easy to say they are all bad.

The problem -- especiaslly at this point in history -- is it perpetuates Reaganomics, supply side conservatism.

What is harder -- and more important -- is to justify taxes with programs that actually advance the public interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:52 PM

17. She didn't even say taxes were "bad"

She simply said that she wasn't going to raise them on families making <$250K

Same thing Obama said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:54 PM

18. yep, that's the story I've been telling for the last decade and a half or more

 

and correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the BC tax raises responsible in large part (errorneously perhaps, but that's another story) for his wonderful economy? http://taxfoundation.org/blog/federal-tax-burden-under-clinton-higher-all-not-just-rich

I suppose they can still insist it was "mostly" the revenue from the rich ones that did it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firebrand80 (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:43 PM

13. Have you read their website

The Third Way that is.

They use republican language on "entitlements" and they contrast it with research spending. They speak as though the two are axioms that exist on a zero sum game. They may as well be playing false choice games like "jobs or the environment."

The third way is not our friend, my friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firebrand80 (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:48 PM

16. Did she preface it with "Read my lips..."

like her husband's "adopted father" did?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firebrand80 (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 01:07 PM

23. to who, thirdwayers and their rightwing cousins and supporters?

 

I'd say that depends on what they are for, whose selling them and how.



http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:33 PM

4. She's actually a realist. She will get both my votes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:40 PM

10. Right wing tax policy has put us tens of trillions into debt

 

She and the republicans are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:34 PM

5. no real Democratic voter will back Reagan/Bush in 2015

 

Not even real Republicans want to back that horse.
we just arent as stupid as they think we are.
time is telling, and it is no longer their ally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reddread (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:40 PM

11. well, "Democratic voter" has undergone a definition revision

 

or one in the value system it had when I was growing up, every since the first Clinton blazed the 3rdway trail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:54 PM

19. pro-corporate laissez faire vs pro-domestic quality of life

 

if there can only be two parties, surely these would describe their
current main agendas? seems to be the only real decision needing made?
or, is it not the economy, stupidicus?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reddread (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:58 PM

20. that seems to be the choice to be made

 

but the party under indictment here appears to have her fingers in the pro-corp pie while convincing the denizens of thirdwayland that her focus is entirely on the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 01:04 PM

22. they dont need convincing

 

they hate liberals as much as anyone.
they know what they are doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reddread (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 01:09 PM

24. you have a point

 

it's difficult if not impossible with many of them to determine if they're just on the bandwagon due to ignorance, etc, or if they fully support the ways of the thirdway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 01:13 PM

25. include a third possibility (second subset?)

 

If someone is being paid to say something, they are only going to say what they are paid to say.
those hypothetical souls would be wasting every single second of your time waiting for them to acknowledge salient issues and have an actual discussion.
pretty much the same as fully supporting the ways of the turdwise, but counting on a check for it.
just a crime how much time they steal with their dishonest agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:41 PM

12. Hmm..

Well, in truth she will probably be working to be "revenue neutral."

The difference between spending money on a program and giving tax cuts is that people usually don't ask "where is the money going to come from for these tax breaks." It ends up being a devils bargain where you cut taxes which reduces revenue and then the GOP demands that you knife one of the "entitlement programs" and they you have to chose which of your darlings you have to cut.

(sorry for the mixed metaphor or whatever)

The third way still uses GOP langauge about "entitlement programs" on their website and creates a false choice between research dollars and entitlements and they attempt to use this as an excuse for any trade imbalances.

Tax cuts are about the worst way to stimulate the economy anyhow. They are mercurial, unreliable, and they require you to have the disposable income to spend on the reason for them in the first place. To me tax cuts are like coupons. The stores and manufacturers put them out there knowing not all customers will use them anyhow. They are an artifact of disingeunuous intention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 01:01 PM

21. agreed

 

I see it as little more than a self-handcuffing of the "no new taxes" kind the elder Bush mistakenly made.

I can't say I'm disappointed that she's helped to draw a bright line of distinction between herself and Bernie on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 01:25 PM

26. In short, it means she's AGAINST removing the cap on payroll tax for Social Security!

 

That's what this is all about. She using an excuse that taking away the cap at $118k will raise taxes on those making between $118k and $250k VERY SLIGHTLY in an incremental fashion as a way to be "purist" about not raising taxes on those making less than $250k (her "middle class". Of course raising the cap will NOT raise any taxes on those making less than the current cap at all, even though those Americans are the REAL middle class of Americans!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 01:33 PM

27. it's hard to say with certainty ain't it?

 

have the pollsters done the work necessary on that issue for Mrs. Weathervane to have a position?

Surely she's left herself some sortas mealy-mouthed rhetorical escape hatch if so, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 07:51 PM

29. Given Obama's original plans of having a two tiered cap (the second at $250k)...

 

... that makes it definitely the source of the "raising taxes" of those making less than $250k meme happen. It is a way for her to give a reason for not wanting to raise the payroll taxes. Read the following article on this (there are many more out there) and note Hillary's typical ambiguity on this proposal too...

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/13/14610/7218/elections2008/Obama-to-Raise-Social-Security-Taxes-On-Earnings-Over-250k

Sen. Barack Obama says if elected, he will require people who make over $250k a year to pay FICA (social security) taxes on the amount in excess of $250k. (I think he means he will ask Congress to pass such a law.)

Under Obama's plan, like now, you would pay taxes on amounts up to the cap of $102k. Under his plan, you wouldn't pay taxes on amounts between $102k and $250k. But over $250k, and you pay.

...

So he says both benefits won't be cut and they can be cut on a limited basis. Does he mean he won't add additional circumstances under which benefits can be cut? Which is it?

Is Obama's plan going to sell? Is it a good idea? I remember Hillary wouldn't commit to this, saying she preferred long-term solutions to a social security fix.


Personally, I think having a two tiered system is rather stupid, and would be added and unnecessarily complicated over time to administer. A flat tax with no cap or tiered caps would be a lot easier and less expensive to administer.

Now, yes, if it were done this way, those making less than $250k wouldn't have their taxes raised at all, but then you would have only those making between the current cap and $250k being a segment paying a smaller percentage of their income in to taxes than those making less or more than that segment which seems STUPID to me.

Here's a creative idea for finding a simple way to change the system, and not raise taxes on everyone making less than $250k.

How about looking at what the raw amount of taxes that someone pays when they pay 6.2% of the $102k (or whatever the current cap is) for someone making $250k. Then figure out what percentage that raw amount is of $250k (which would be less than 6.2%). Then set the new global payroll tax rate to that amount that would be lower, so that everyone making less than $250k would incrementally be paying LESS taxes, but everyone would be paying the same flat tax rate, so that only those making over $250k would pay more taxes, and their taxation would make up for the loss of revenue that would happen for those paying less in to the system with the lower overall rate. Those making exactly $250k would be paying the same raw amount of payroll tax that they pay now. And also that way, the wealthy would be paying more of their share and everyone on a pseudo progressive basis would be paying less taxes under $250k, and therefore this would help stimulate the economy when they have to pay less payroll taxes, but there wouldn't be benefit cuts, as I would think with the added tax revenue from those making more than $250k, that we still would be getting more overall revenue. Perhaps someone needs to check those numbers to be sure, but we'd have a more fair system, one that's easier and less costly to administer, and provide a more stimulus financially to those making less than $250k who need that extra money too.

In checking this, that would reset the 6.2% rate to 2.5296%, which might be too low (though that's based on the earlier cap of $102k which I believe is higher now than the time this article was published). We'd probably need to look at the real numbers of revenue based on this percentage being applied to salary income over $250k to see if we'd still never a more net positive in terms of payroll tax revenue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 03:25 PM

28. Absolutely. Hillary would rather cut Social Security benefits than eliminate/raise the cap.

That is the conservative/right-wing position.

It's a trend for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Original post)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 08:15 PM

30. It's Republican framing and precludes a progressive agenda.

Hillary Clinton and her Third Way cohorts are a major part of the problem not the solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread