The raising of any kind of taxes draws criticism no matter . Hillary Clinton put an end to two years of speculation by announcing that she will run for President in 2016 Mrs. Clinton has also a elaborate tax plan that is just as puzzling as her (3)>> Husband's old tax plan , but not so similar . For all of us Americans , they have been stuck back and forth between tax plans . I have problems with the the tax system . I agree that the top earners need to pay more .(***)>> ALSO that REAL Tax relief should be given to people struggling . Every President since I have been alive has made obvious tax plans to help Americans , but HONESTLY we have been undercut to corporate billionaires. With the last Bush tax plan which "merged" with President Obama's plan of 2008 , now soon to be "sandwiched" between Mrs. Clinton's new plan.The proposal, called the "Rising Incomes, Sharing Profits" Tax Credits, is her first economic policy roll-out of the campaign and comes days after Clinton outlined her economic platform in New York.The plan, according to campaign aides, said Thursday, would cost in the low tens of billions of dollars over a 10-year period, and would be paid for by closing tax loopholes that Clinton "will identify as part of the comprehensive agenda ... in the weeks and months ahead." With wages are stagnating while corporate profits are hovering around record highs. So it's easy to see the logic behind Hillary Clinton's latest economic proposal, which she unveiled Thursday in New Hampshire: a tax cut for companies that share their profits with their employees. That may be true. But it's easy to imagine companies introducing profit sharing with the help of a tax credit, then holding back on raises, or hiring new workers for lower pay. After all, President Obama raised the top rate to 39.6%, but he, himself, only paid between 16% and 20% effective tax rates in any given year. Let’s not forget the $5.5 million he made in one year during his first term, thanks to well selling books. Given the fact that members of Congress are not required to disclose their tax returns, it certainly makes this citizen wonder how much tax there are actually paying – or how much they are actually NOT paying. I have always said that MOST tax plans we have seen come out of Washington D.C. over the years always favors the vary rich .In theory, most individuals are supposed to pay 40% in taxes. In practice, however, the wealthy pay closer to 22% for various reasons: many have a predominance of investment income, which is taxed at 20%; some may enjoy tax breaks from mortgage interest payments; some may donate to charities or have rental income that’s excluded; and most are able to deduct state and local taxes from their federal taxable income. The list goes on. Even those with $200,000 to $500,000 in annual income enjoy an effective tax rate of only 23%.! However, there is a widening partisan gap in several public attitudes about the federal tax system. Today, Republicans are 20 points more likely than Democrats to say they are paying more than their fair share in taxes (50% vs. 30%). In the 2011 survey, nearly identical percentages of Republicans (37%) and Democrats (38%) said they were paying more than their fair share. The six-year-old (Obama ) economic recovery plan has only succeeded in restoring corporate profits and creating some jobs, but it hasn’t brought pay raises for many workers. Wage growth is running ahead of inflation, but it remains low and hasn’t accelerated as the economy as a whole has improved. And as Clinton stressed throughout her speech, many of those problems predate the recession, suggesting deeper structural challenges in the U.S. economy. So the finger pointing. Mrs. Clinton to Senator Rubio's proposed tax plan: (1)>> "Another priority must be reforming our tax code. Now, we hear Republican candidates talk a lot about tax reform. But take a good look at their plans. Sen. Rubio's would cut taxes for households making around $3 million a year by almost $240,000, which is way more than three times the earnings of a typical family." Many of Clinton’s themes will sound familiar to anyone who’s been listening to President Obama over the past eight years. She wants to boost incomes for the (2)>> middle class, raise taxes on the wealthy and make it easier for parents to juggle work and family. Recently announced presidential candidate Ted Cruz hit on that pressure point in his speech this week when he mentioned the tax code. "Instead of a tax code that crushes innovation, that imposes burdens on families struggling to make ends meet, imagine a simple flat tax that lets every American fill out his or her taxes on a postcard," the GOP senator from Texas said. "Imagine abolishing the IRS."Cruz may be a dreamer, but he's not the only one — 59 percent of Americans agree "there is so much wrong with the federal tax system that Congress should completely change it," according to a recent study by the Pew Research Center. Calling inequality a "drag" on the entire economy, Clinton targeted Bush directly for saying last week that Americans needed to "work longer hours" -- a portion of the former Florida governor's discussion of economic solutions that his campaign said critics have taken out of context. Clinton said Bush "must not have met very many American workers," and challenged him to repeat the claim to nurses, teachers and others who she said "do not need a lecture. They need a raise." For example, she endorsed a Buffett tax on very-high-income households, tax relief for small business but new taxes on multinationals that benefit from “overseas loopholes,” a $1500 tax credit for business that hire or train new workers, and an end to the carried interest rules that allow managers of some investment firms to turn compensation into tax favored capital gains. She embraced the New Markets Tax Credit and Empowerment Zones, two tax-based subsidy programs aimed at encouraging investment in low-income communities. She also proposed less specific ideas to encourage firms on how to create profit-sharing plans for workers, reform capital gains taxes to reward longer-term investments, and give “hard working families tax relief and simplification.” For Clinton, some tax subsidies are useful tools for economic development while others are loopholes or giveaways. The new twist for Clinton isn't a surprise: That same day, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has been stealing Clinton's thunder and firing up crowds in Iowa and New Hampshire, sent a letter to President Obama saying that "it is critical that we fight to protect and expand Social Security." Among the 71 congressional Democratic co-signers calling on the White House to join the fight was leading Senate liberal Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.In her detail-light speech, Clinton gave no hint of how she planned either to defend or enhance Social Security. Sanders, on the other hand, has been quite specific.A detailed analysis of his Social Security Expansion Act by the retirement program's actuaries reveals that Sanders would raise taxes by more than trillion over a decade to improve the program's solvency and pay for a benefit increase. So we have to take heed on this , If Mrs. Clinton wins , your taxes are going to shoot the roof. Back in 2012 Hillary Clinton gave us fair warning . "One of the issues that I have been preaching about around the world is collecting taxes in an equitable manner — especially from the elites in every country," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in her speech at the Clinton Global . "It is a fact that the elites in every country are making money. There are rich people everywhere, and yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries," Clinton said. Yes, she has taxation on her mind . Regardless of your yearly earnings she is coming after (4)>> YOU!
NOTES AND COMMENTS:
(***)>>The rich already have enough money to live a great lifestyle; it won't hurt them as much to increase their taxes. The power of rich individuals such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and George Soros, must be contained by limiting their wealth. with more funds instead going to lobbyists, campaign contributors, and other friends of politicians (i.e. "crony capitalism"). Even when money is directed to worthy causes, the federal bureaucracy incurs so much inefficiency and fraud that only a fraction of it goes to the intended recipients. While running for president, Clinton also advocated repealing the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000. While this was very much in line with President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party more generally, this policy also meant extending about three-quarters of the Bush tax cuts and adding trillions to the deficit. Even so, sticking to the $250,000 threshold would have been better than the ultimate deal that President Obama cut (and Clinton may have cut as well), which only repealed the Bush tax cuts for those making over $450,000.
(1)>> Clinton said that Rubio’s tax plan "would cut taxes for households making around $3 million a year by almost $240,000, which is way more than three times the earnings of a typical family."It is possible to take issue with the statement in some ways. The source of her claim uses an earlier version of Rubio’s plan in its analysis, and she said $3 million when she should have said $3.3 million. But the thrust of her statement is sound. An analysis of a plan extremely similar to the one put forth by Rubio would cut taxes for those making $3.3 million and more by nearly $240,000, which is more than three times the U.S. median household income of $53,046. We rate her statement Mostly True. (2)>> The typical (median) U.S. household earned just less than $52,000 before taxes in 2013, the latest year for which full data is available. Adjusting for inflation, that’s less than in 1989, suggesting that the middle class has experienced two and a half decades of income stagnation. (3)>> Mr Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law. This act created a 36 percent to 39.6 income tax for high-income individuals in the top 1.2% of wage earners. Businesses were given an income tax rate of 35%. The cap was repealed on Medicare. The taxes were raised 4.3 cents per gallon on transportation fuels and the taxable portion of Social Security benefits were increased. The Taxpayer Relief Act (1997) reduced some federal taxes. Due to certain phase-in rules, the rate 28% was lowered to 20% in the top capital gains. The bracket that was 15% fell to 10%. In 1980, a tax credit was put into place based on the number of individuals under the age of 17 in a household. In 1998, it was $400 per child. In 1999, it was raised to $500. High-income families had this Act phased out. This Act took out from taxation profits on the sale of a house of up to $500,000 for individuals who are married, and $250,000 for single individuals. Educational savings and retirement funds were given tax relief. Some of the expiring tax provisions were extended for selected businesses. Since 1998, an exemption could be taken out for those family farms and small businesses that qualified for it. In 1999, the correction of inflation on the $10,000 annual gift tax exclusion was accomplished. By the year 2006, the $600,000 estate tax exemption had risen to $1 million. (4)>> YOU! . Well, at least Hillary is honest on one issue, she's come out and admitted that she is nothing but a traditional "Tax & Spend Democrat". Obama spewed this same B.S. in that his "tax the rich" mantra did increase taxes, but not just the rich.