Speculate on Hillary Clinton's future economic policies.

[Anarchist420]

I personally think that we'll see a VAT, a further increase in the top marginal income tax rate for individuals, a reduced corporate tax rate, and increased payroll taxes (either the cap raised or the rates raised).

I think she'll also support single payer for everyone (rather than free market or socialized system).

The department of education budget will be doubled and security/defense budgets will go up modestly to even more insane levels.

Private transportation will be reduced via more govt spending on transportation and higher gas taxes.

It scares the shit out of me, but I'm worried that's what is going to happen.

Let me know if you think my speculations are reasonable and why.

 

[Slick5150]

You do realize you don't HAVE to start a new thread for every random, unsubstantiated thought that the voices in your head tell you, right?

 

[poofyhairguy]

No way anyone rolls out a VAT. Consumption taxes are very regressive.

 

[Soundmanred]

1.Let me know if you think my speculations are reasonable.
2.Why not?

1. No
2. Anarchist420

 

[hal2kilo]

Republican light.

More rehashed SLC bullcrap.

 

[woolfe9998]

No way anyone rolls out a VAT. Consumption taxes are very regressive.

Exactly correct. She's a liberal on economic policy, meaning she will not support regressive taxation.

 

[Texashiker]

No way anyone rolls out a VAT. Consumption taxes are very regressive.

I respectfully disagree.

If someone has the money to buy a yacht, they should have money to pay taxes on it.

If a VAT tax is repressive, then we need to abolish state sales tax.

 

[DrPizza]

I respectfully disagree.

If someone has the money to buy a yacht, they should have money to pay taxes on it.

If a VAT tax is repressive, then we need to abolish state sales tax.

If someone has the money to buy a yacht, they have the means to purchase that yacht elsewhere to avoid taxes. Didn't we see exactly that a couple years ago in one of the elections? One of the candidates lived in one state, but had a luxury yacht purchased and legally registered in a different state, avoiding a shitload of taxes in his home state?

 

[poofyhairguy]

I respectfully disagree.

If someone has the money to buy a yacht, they should have money to pay taxes on it.

Disagree all you want. Facts are facts.

Poorer people spend a larger percent of their income on consuming goods and services compared to the rich who put something into savings and aren't living paycheck to paycheck.

Therefore the poor spend a larger percent of their income on a sales tax.

Sure the rich might spend more OVERALL per person, but they aren't spending all their income.

If a VAT tax is repressive, then we need to abolish state sales tax.

I think we should. I think Texas's property tax is a perfect progressive tax- if you want a huge mansion in the Woodlands you pay more.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

If someone has the money to buy a yacht, they have the means to purchase that yacht elsewhere to avoid taxes. Didn't we see exactly that a couple years ago in one of the elections? One of the candidates lived in one state, but had a luxury yacht purchased and legally registered in a different state, avoiding a shitload of taxes in his home state?

The same can be said about state personal and business income taxes. It is not that hard for the wealthy to "work" in one state but claim residency in another state. Neither is it difficult for people to have business headquartered in say Nevada with a tiny office but have the bulk of their operations in other states.

Taxation is always going to be regressive for anyone but the most wealthiest of the wealthiest who will have ways out already put into the often byzantine style tax code we have today.

 

[Texashiker]

If someone has the money to buy a yacht, they have the means to purchase that yacht elsewhere to avoid taxes. Didn't we see exactly that a couple years ago in one of the elections? One of the candidates lived in one state, but had a luxury yacht purchased and legally registered in a different state, avoiding a shitload of taxes in his home state?

Kinda like how people in Louisiana drive to Texas to buy food because there is no tax on unprocessed food in Texas.

But, since the federal government has the right to regulate interstate trade, they could put an end to those loopholes.

Disagree all you want. Facts are facts.

Fact is state sales tax brings in a lot of money.

 

[Anarchist420]

She's a liberal on economic policy, meaning she will not support regressive taxation.

Ron Paul is the most conservative person ever on economic policy and he doesn't support a VAT, so I disagree with you. Nancy pelosi supported the VAT and Bill Clinton supports the internet sales tax mandate.

VAT would bring in the revenue she'd need while raising the top marginal rate some more wouldn't.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Fact is state sales tax brings in a lot of money.

Agreed its sticking around. It seems Texas intends to enforce it rather than raise it, such as with the shaking down of Amazon.

As long as there is no income tax I am happy.

 

[trenchfoot]

Well, considering that Hillary was on Wamart's Board of Directors for what, six years? and favored NAFTA along with her hubby, I'd say anything's possible as far as her potential economic policies are concerned.

 

[Texashiker]

As long as there is no income tax I am happy.

Income tax in Texas is prohibited by the state constitution. The only way to get a state income tax is for the people to vote on it.

There have been a few pushes by state officials to get a state income tax. Hopefully the people will reject such a stupid idea.

 

[hal2kilo]

well, considering that hillary was on wamart's board of directors for what, six years? And favored nafta along with her hubby, i'd say anything's possible as far as her potential economic policies are concerned.

bingo

 

[Darkman]

Estrich: Let's not get ahead of ourselves with visions of Hillary

By Susan Estrich
Columbian staff writer

Sunday, August 18, 2013

http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/aug/18/lets-not-get-ahead-of-ourselves-with-visions-of-hi/

 

[Attic]

Higher marginal rates at the top and a new tax bracket on the high end is my call.

Hilary will win in 2016 if she runs IMO.

 

[Darkman]

Clintonian – Not Disconnected Stories In The Media…

Posted on August 20, 2013 by sundance

Anyone who has ever followed the Clintons’ political maneuverings would rightly suspect these are not just some random disconnected stories:

March 12th - [...] former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the American Bar Association annual meeting in San Francisco that she would be launching a series of speeches about American foreign policy in the “next few months.” According to Philip Rucker, White House correspondent for The Washington Post, Hillary planned to emphasize restoring faith in government – an ironic theme, considering that she was a member of the current administration presiding over the rapid decline in faith in government.

The speech today was clearly a launching point for a 2016 campaign. She put heavy emphasis on bashing voter ID laws suggesting that they were “often [passed] under the cover of addressing the phantom epidemic of ‘voter fraud.’” Such laws have been a bugaboo of the Obama administration, which has sought to portray them as racist in an attempt to stir outrage against Republicans. Continue reading →

Read more: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/08/20/clintonian-not-disconnected-stories-in-the-media/

 

[IGBT]

Dowd doesn't hold much back as she slams the Clintons, saying memories of the former first couple are being replaced by reminders of the seediness and greed that always hovered around them like a bad odor. It's a "nostalgia" that is turning into a "neuralgia," Dowd writes.

"Why is it that America’s roil family always seems better in abstract than in concrete? The closer it gets to running the world once more, the more you are reminded of all the things that bugged you the last time around," she quips.

The Clintons’ neediness, their sense of what they are owed in material terms for their public service, their assumption that they’re entitled to everyone’s money.

Are we about to put the “For Rent” sign back on the Lincoln Bedroom?

If Americans are worried about money in politics, there is no larger concern than the Clintons, who are cosseted in a world where rich people endlessly scratch the backs of rich people.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...ey-Think-They-re-Entitled-to-Everyone-s-Money

 

[rockyct]

I think you need to choose to be paranoid about things that could possibly happen in the more near future. Hillary can't do anything you describe until 2017 (and even then, you grossly overestimate the power of the executive branch) so you've got about three years before you can give into the paranoia with her. There are so many other things to be worried that could possibly happen right now.

 

[IGBT]

I think you need to choose to be paranoid about things that could possibly happen in the more near future. Hillary can't do anything you describe until 2017 (and even then, you grossly overestimate the power of the executive branch) so you've got about three years before you can give into the paranoia with her. There are so many other things to be worried that could possibly happen right now.

the clintons are scumbag slimeBalls. No amount of time will change that. They will fit right in with today's democrat party.

 

[Ancalagon44]

She will support whatever economic policies that will benefit the military-industrial and financial complexes, whatever those be. Just like all other US presidents.

 

[Smoblikat]

I respectfully disagree.

If someone has the money to buy a yacht, they should have money to pay taxes on it.

If a VAT tax is repressive, then we need to abolish state sales tax.

That makes no sense, what about people who pinched pennies and saved for a decade just to buy a small used boat?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Republican light.

Basically. Just more of what Obama is doing.