I've heard a lot of people claim that Hillary's tax plan will only raise taxes for the rich. But last night, she said she would reverse the Bush tax cuts.

Now that would raise taxes on the rich, no question. But it would also raise taxes on the lowest income bracket from 10% to 15%. And reduce per child credit from $1000 back to the previous $600. This would have a net affect of increasing the tax liability of low income families by more than 50%.

Does anyone know if she has a provision to exclude these two things from happening? If not, she is raising taxes on everyone. Not just the rich.

Found it. Bottom tax bracket is safe. I found this about 10 pages deep in her economic speech after 40-50 self promoting shots at Bush she finally got to actual policy:

"I'll extend the middle-class tax cuts, give generous tax breaks to help families afford health care, offer up to $1,000 in matching tax cuts to help families save for retirement.

I'll expand the earned income tax credit, increase tax credits for child care, and provide a new $3,500 tax credit to help middle-class families send their children to college."

Did she mention raising corporate taxes so that everybody pays more for goods and services?

Of course as you raise the taxes on the wealthy them move their money to offshore accounts (totally legal) which deprives the nation of investment capital which drives up interest rates on things like home mortgages. Did anyone think of that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a supporter of her or her tax plan in any way. I'm just a realist who has resigned himself to the likelihood of her being our next president.

The reason behind this question was simply damage assessment. I'm trying to figure out how much its going to directly impact me.

I totally agree with your point about raising corporate taxes and the implications. I work for exactly the sort of company that could all too easily relocate to a more tax friendly environment.

At least I won't be directly hit by a tax increase but I will surely pay a different kind of price for the affect her policies will have on business and the economy.

It is dangerous for democracy for to have two classes of people: one who pay the taxes and one who receive the largesse.

I can see why poltiically the Democrats would want something like that, but it's incredibly irresponsible. It's the kind of thing that could literally destroy this country.

__________________
chicken butt

Obama's plan is essentially the same but focuses more on Corporate loop-holes and tax havens, two issues which lose the government billions each year. Truly, I feel that redistribution of wealth is one of the base principles of creating a land of equal opportunity. Taxing the poor is one of the most maniacal and backwards practices any government can engage in, and remember that the upper tax bracket used to be taxed upwards of 70%. I don't believe in complete socialism or equal income but i do feel strongly that there is no legitimate reason that the top 10% of Americans live like kings while the bottom 20% live like refugees. Its shameful and its one of the key issues of our time. We are poised to eliminate poverty for good in this country, and for anyone to oppose that is contrary to what America stands for and truly not healthy in forming a sound economy

__________________
OBAMA IN '08
Change We Can Believe In

I do agree that the poor should not pay income taxes at all.

But as a general rule, you want everyone contributing.

Besides, it would be awfully hard to tell the wealthy that they can't control the goverment when they have to pay for it all.

One of the implicit things about being a net receipient of federal money is that you essentially give up your right to be heard. Politicians don't listen to non-contributors, and frankly I don't blame them. The country would be a terrible place to live if the noncontributors got to make the rules.

__________________
chicken butt

Well the majority of tax money is paid by the middle-class, have no misconceptions about that. Further, the rich practically do run the government, whether it be through politics or lobbying. I feel that everyone who has stood to benefit from the American system owes the system taxes proportional to the success they've enjoyed. When the class-system of America has been reformed such that the division between the richest and poorest is less than 100 million dollars and that the poorest can provide for themselves and/or their families without needing social programs.

__________________
OBAMA IN '08
Change We Can Believe In

The simple fact that McCain Feingold passed makes it hard for anyone to beleive that the rich ever ran the government, unless you mean to say that those who run for big offices like Senate seats and the Presidency tend to be financially well off.

Well the majority of tax money is paid by the middle-class

Yes, through sheer numbers. Also, the majority of tax money is received by the middle class. That is a well balanced tax system.

If we switch to a system where the wealthy pay for almost everything and the middle class receives almost everything, our democracy won't survive, nor will our economy.

Further, the rich practically do run the government, whether it be through politics or lobbying

Which is their right since they pay disproportionately.

The simple fact that McCain Feingold passed makes it hard for anyone to beleive that the rich ever ran the government,

Actually, McCain-Feingold inhibits grassroots efforts far more than it inhibits the efforts of rich individuals. In fact, McCain-Feingold opened the way for people like George Soros to have huge influence in the 2004 election.

__________________
chicken butt