Hillary Clinton, during a recent interview with the New York Daily News, admitted that her tax proposals would increase taxes on the American people by at least a trillion dollars over the next ten years. (But what’s a thousand millions between friends?!). Of course, by “American people,” she means the slightly over 50% of citizens that actually pay them, in order to shower ever more largess on those that don’t.
Her gigantic proposed tax hike takes many forms and is nearly an across-the-board measure. She would put a 28% cap on itemized deductions. She wants to grab a minimum of $275 billion from undefined “business tax reform.” Moreover, she has called for a tax increase of “between $400 and $500 billion” by “restoring basic fairness to our tax code.” If she really wanted to restore “basic fairness to our tax code,” she would have to reduce the tax burden on the wealthiest 20%, given that they currently pay over 80% of the taxes. These proposals include a “fair share surcharge (there she goes again),” automatically jacking up taxes 30% on those that make over a million a year, taxing carried-interest capital gains as ordinary income, and raising the Death Tax. The former First Lady and soon-to-be president has also proposed several tax increases not included in the $1 trillion tax figure. Since her campaign has failed to release specific details for most of her proposals, the true figure is likely much higher than $1 trillion.
During the interview she said “I have a way for paying for” some of her pet spending plans. (She doesn’t have much of a way “for” the English language, apparently).These plans include paid family leave and “debt-free tuition.” Paid family leave? I have often heard the phrase, “someone in this family has to make a living!” in the past. Apparently that no longer holds true. And debt-free tuition? Who’s paying for that? Not the student. Not the professors. Hmmm, a puzzler, that one. Oh well. Bring on the unicorns!
Predictably, Hillary says she thinks her plans are “affordable” and a “smart way to make investments that contribute to a growing economy.” They are affordable for her, she’s not going to be paying them. And why is it that every time the government comes to take more of our money, it’s an investment?!! And an affordable one at that! Yet, on the rare occasion that the government is ever asked to make a spending cut, it reflexively states “we can’t afford it.” What the Hell do you mean you “can’t afford” to spend less of our money?!
The Tax Policy Center flatly disagrees with Hillary’s assessment. It said her plan would reduce incentive to work, save and invest (the true definition of the word). Well, no kidding, Sherlock.
I wonder who would win an election between Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the
(sorry, “Spring”) Bunny, Robin Hood, Bernie and Hillary.
Post a Comment