Hillary Clinton Twists the Knife in Donald Trump’s Tax Proposals - Polidicks

[QUOTE]To that end, Mrs. Clinton tried to sprinkle personal stories around her policy details. “I am proud to be the granddaughter of a factory worker and the daughter of a small-business man and standing here before you,” she said, while portraying her rival as part of the top 1 percent in terms of wealth. She said Mr. Trump’s plan to eliminate the estate tax would save his family an estimated $4 billion, which, by Mrs. Clinton’s calculations, would pay for publicly funded prekindergarten classes for 890,000 4-year-olds and provide a year’s worth of health care for 360,000 veterans. “Donald Trump doesn’t need a tax cut,” she said. She waited for the crowd to quiet down, and then Mrs. Clinton, whose tax returns show that she and former President Bill Clinton earned an adjusted gross income of $10.6 million in 2015, added, “I don’t need a tax cut.” [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/us/politics/hillary-clinton-twists-the-knife-in-donald-trumps-tax-proposals.html[/url]

How anyone can trust a tax plan from a billionaire businessman is beyond me. Obviously he's going to make it easier on himself. You think blue collar Joe is really affected by an inheritance tax? Trump is in it for himself

I like how she acknowledges her own wealth by saying she doesn't need a tax cut rather than just being like "im down with the poor people"

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50905305]How anyone can trust a tax plan from a billionaire businessman is beyond me. Obviously he's going to make it easier on himself. You think blue collar Joe is really affected by an inheritance tax? Trump is in it for himself[/QUOTE] Right-wing voters tend to unknowingly vote against their best interests because they know fuck-all about political process and are more concerned with being patriotic and upholding traditional values. Basically, they don't care, but he says he wants to "Make America Great Again" and he hates those dirty liberals, so he gets support from uninformed people that happen to make up half of the country.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50905305]How anyone can trust a tax plan from a billionaire businessman is beyond me. Obviously he's going to make it easier on himself. You think blue collar Joe is really affected by an inheritance tax? Trump is in it for himself[/QUOTE] Most middle-class people and up are affected by inheritance tax.

Estate tax is bullshit, and I'm not someone who makes enough to lose anything from it anyway. There's no sane reason to tax a single money/item transfer twice. Taxing it as both income and as estate tax is brutally unfair to the recipient of the money, even if you're jealous that he's getting a decent sum. Remember that [B]estate taxes can be up to 40%[/B], and[B] income taxes can be up to another 40%.[/B] So, say you worked hard all your life, and you've made a pretty good living for yourself-- and you're trying to leave your son your house. Imagine being [B]taxed for what could be up to 80% of its value[/B], simply because the owner died and wanted to pass it to you. It's bullshit, and the only reason you guys don't hear about that more often is because there are ways of getting around that taxation, which is what most wealthy people do. [QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50905472]Right-wing voters tend to unknowingly vote against their best interests because they know fuck-all about political process and are more concerned with being patriotic and upholding traditional values.[/QUOTE] No, I'm actually well-knowledged that voting Democrat would benefit me more personally. That being said, voting simply for who promises me more money is a cheap and unethical way of voting in the first place. Thanks for insulting my intelligence with those awful strawmen, though-- they actually make me feel a lot more confident about my political beliefs, seeing how strawmen are seemingly all you've got.

Her trying to tout herself as some humble and down-to-earth individual because her parents may have been is actually disgusting. It's very hard to hear this coming out of the mouth of a woman who has been part of the political elite for decades and decades, and most stable and marginally successful (or at least one of the few that didn't explode in her face) position was being married to a president. Props to her for that, though. That ended well. I get why she is trying to portray herself that way, but I don't think anyone who doesn't scrape moss off the walls of a cave for dinner is going to see her as much different than Trump, if at all. They're both from the same exact group elite. Fuck, they were good friends up until all this, apparently.

[QUOTE=MissZoey;50905469]I like how she acknowledges her own wealth by saying she doesn't need a tax cut rather than just being like "im down with the poor people"[/QUOTE] also amazingly she pays exactly as much taxes as expected from the rich while still donating and ending up with tens of millions left over. her tax returns were golden and trumps are non existent because hes probably funneling it through off shore accounts and other things to get 0% rates [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;50905501]According to the IRS, at least "$5,450,000 in 2016" has to be involved for you to need to file inheritance tax. In other words, that is the exemption. I'm unfamiliar with old people's net worth, isn't that quite high?[/QUOTE] extremely. most peoples net worth will be much lower but of course thats never mentioned by the people who want to eliminate it

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50905472]Right-wing voters tend to unknowingly vote against their best interests because they know fuck-all about political process and are more concerned with being patriotic and upholding traditional values. Basically, they don't care, but he says he wants to "Make America Great Again" and he hates those dirty liberals, so he gets support from uninformed people that happen to make up half of the country.[/QUOTE] It's not "voting against their interests." Well, maybe if you decide to summarize their beliefs as in the way that suits your views best, it is, I guess. Seriously. You realize not everyone thinks they deserve whatever may be in their "best interests" according to you simply because they exist, regardless of how it may help them if they received one, right? But really, I'm sure the other half of the country are just ignorant baby-boomers. How could anyone have a different opinion..

[QUOTE=Monkah;50905479]No, I'm actually well-knowledged that voting Democrat would benefit me more personally. That being said, voting simply for who promises me more money is a cheap and unethical way of voting in the first place. Thanks for insulting my intelligence with those awful strawmen, though-- they actually make me feel a lot more confident about my political beliefs, seeing how strawmen are seemingly all you've got.[/QUOTE] Well, I needed an example to prove my point anyways...

[QUOTE=evilweazel;50905527]Her trying to tout herself as some humble and down-to-earth individual because her parents may have been is actually disgusting. It's very hard to hear this coming out of the mouth of a woman who has been part of the political elite for decades and decades, and most stable and marginally successful (or at least one of the few that didn't explode in her face) position was being married to a president. Props to her for that, though. That ended well. I get why she is trying to portray herself that way, but I don't think anyone who doesn't scrape moss off the walls of a cave for dinner is going to see her as much different than Trump, if at all. They're both from the same exact group elite. Fuck, they were good friends up until all this, apparently.[/QUOTE] I kind of giggle when people actually praise her for.. not evading her taxes? As if the bar is set so low that paying your taxes is somehow worthy of praise, and as if it's in any way a challenge or sacrifice for her to pay taxes when she gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak to bankers in closed room sessions, and is the [I]wife of the former President of the United States[/I]. You guys understand that this is nothing to be proud of, right? It's like, bare minimum to not be a total scumbag. "Yeah, she may be awful in a million other ways, but you gotta admire how she pays taxes!"

[QUOTE=Sableye;50905542]also amazingly she pays exactly as much taxes as expected from the rich while still donating and ending up with tens of millions left over. her tax returns were golden and trumps are non existent because hes probably funneling it through off shore accounts and other things to get 0% rates [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] extremely. most peoples net worth will be much lower but of course thats never mentioned by the people who want to eliminate it[/QUOTE] He's probably taking loans from Putin

[QUOTE=evilweazel;50905565]It's not "voting against their interests." Well, maybe if you decide to summarize their beliefs as in the way that suits your views best, it is, I guess. Seriously. You realize not everyone thinks they deserve whatever may be in their "best interests" according to you because they exist, regardless of how it may help them if they received one, right? But really, I'm sure the other half of the country are just ignorant baby-boomers. How could anyone have a different opinion..[/QUOTE] "Best interests" in that progressive policies will actually help many poorer right-wing civilians. But they don't realize that because they're so obsessed with patriotism that the idea of progress and moving along with the changing world environment is a completely foreign idea to them. Look, just about every major battle in history, both actual wars and social/ideological fights were about liberals vs. conservatives. And the majority of the time (not all the time, the Cold War is a huge exception), liberals are the victors. The American Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, Civil Rights movement, and those are just American examples. Progression and change needs to come eventually, you can't just stick with the exact same social and political views forever. That's just a part of life that not many people accept. And that's where the current Republican party fits in.

"Best interests" is taking money from people, running it through the bureaucracy (losing a considerable percentage) and then giving that money to someone else, with the promise that you'll get the same from the next poor sap.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50905606]"Best interests" in that progressive policies will actually help many poorer right-wing civilians. But they don't realize that because they're so obsessed with patriotism that the idea of progress and moving along with the changing world environment is a completely foreign idea to them.[/QUOTE] Wow, LTJGPliskin, you're so smart! Up until now, I didn't realize that my reasons for having opinions different than yours are entirely invalid! If only I had known that my economic and social beliefs were secretly all brainwashed into me by my [I]patriotism[/I], and that a true [I]free-thinker [/I]should really just be voting for the candidate that'll give them a slightly more money, regardless of the economic consequences! Thanks, LTJGPliskin! [QUOTE]The American Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, Civil Rights movement, and those are just American examples. Progression and change needs to come eventually, you can't just stick with the exact same social and political views forever. That's just a part of life that not many people accept. And that's where the current Republican party fits in.[/QUOTE] You know, back in my basic high-school level history classes, they taught me that there were [I]plenty[/I] of "liberal" social movements (you know, really just about any communist nation ever) that ended awfully, but I guess my teachers, the writers of my history books, and history itself were all blinded by the alt-right agenda's patriotism! I would've never guessed!

[QUOTE=Monkah;50905643]Wow, LTJGPliskin, you're so smart! Up until now, I didn't realize that my reasons for having opinions different than yours are entirely invalid! If only I had known that my economic and social beliefs were secretly all brainwashed into me by my [I]patriotism[/I], and that a true [I]free-thinker [/I]should really just be voting for the candidate that'll give them a slightly more money, regardless of the economic consequences! Thanks, LTJGPliskin! You know, back in my basic high-school level history classes, they taught me that there were [I]plenty[/I] of "liberal" social movements (you know, really just about any communist nation ever) that ended awfully, but I guess my teachers, the writers of my history books, and history itself were all blinded by the alt-right agenda's patriotism! I would've never guessed![/QUOTE] So are you, or aren't you holding those communist and socialist revolutions you learned about in high school to the same degree as something like the Sanders campaign?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50905656]So are you, or aren't you holding those communist and socialist revolutions you learned about in high school to the same degree as something like the Sanders campaign?[/QUOTE] Considering how he's one of our resident Trumpsters, you're probably not far off.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50905656]So are you, or aren't you holding those communist and socialist revolutions you learned about in high school to the same degree as something like the Sanders campaign?[/QUOTE] No, but his argument directly states that "progression and change must come", and generally implies that he finds all liberal progress to be 'good progress', which is far, far from reality. His argument is literally that the movement of progress/change has always for the better, citing past historical examples of successful progressive wars/movements as his 'evidence'. Is this really the argumentative hill you wish to die on?

[QUOTE=Monkah;50905643]but I guess my teachers, the writers of my history books, and history itself were all [B]blinded by the alt-right agenda's patriotism[/B]! I would've never guessed![/QUOTE] how does the alt-right factor into this [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Monkah;50905691]No, but his argument directly states that "progression and change must come", and generally implies that he finds all liberal progress to be 'good progress', which is far, far from reality. His argument is literally that the movement of progress/change has always for the better, citing past historical examples of successful progressive wars/movements as his 'evidence'. Is this really the argumentative hill you wish to die on?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50905606]And the majority of the time (not all the time, [B]the Cold War is a huge exception[/B])[/QUOTE] Learn to read.

[QUOTE=Monkah;50905691] His argument is literally that the movement of progress/change has always for the better, citing past historical examples of successful progressive wars/movements as his 'evidence'. Is this really the argumentative hill you wish to die on?[/QUOTE] Except those were pretty good examples and valid evidences. Can you explain to us mortals how a liberal social movement doesn't bring good progress?

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50905694] Learn to read.[/QUOTE] Don't pretend like you didn't [I]just[/I] edit that in. Are you that desperate to prove me wrong? Here's an idea-- instead of trying to edit your posts in some attempt to seem as if you were always right all along, how about you actually research the arguments of your opposition (or, even better, researching both sides of the argument before deciding who your opposition actually is) before spewing strawmen and generally making a fool of yourself?

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50905472]Right-wing voters tend to unknowingly vote against their best interests because they know fuck-all about political process and are more concerned with being patriotic and upholding traditional values. Basically, they don't care, but he says he wants to "Make America Great Again" and he hates those dirty liberals, so he gets support from uninformed people that happen to make up half of the country.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ridge;50905641]"Best interests" is taking money from people, running it through the bureaucracy (losing a considerable percentage) and then giving that money to someone else, with the promise that you'll get the same from the next poor sap.[/QUOTE] "The other side is wrong"

[QUOTE=Monkah;50905719]Don't pretend like you didn't [I]just[/I] edit that in. Are you that desperate to prove me wrong?[/QUOTE] I didn't. You just cherry pick shit and don't read the posts you argue against. Stop being paranoid.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50905727]"The other side is wrong"[/QUOTE] Politics in a nutshell.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50905727]"The other side is wrong"[/QUOTE] I'd hate to say it, but I guess I fit in that mentality as well. Then again, that's modern politics for you.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50905742]I didn't. You just cherry pick shit and don't read the posts you argue against. Stop being paranoid.[/QUOTE]are you really going to criticize my debate etiquette (cherrypicking!!!) after you posted this hell of a strawman? who are you to accuse anyone of anything? [QUOTE]Right-wing voters tend to unknowingly vote against their best interests because they know fuck-all about political process and are more concerned with being patriotic and upholding traditional values. Basically, they don't care, but he says he wants to "Make America Great Again" and he hates those dirty liberals, so he gets support from uninformed people that happen to make up half of the country.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50905727]"The other side is wrong"[/QUOTE] I think a lot of people only really bother researching one side of the argument-- and that's why these types of things happen. I'm progressive in a fair number of areas, conservative in a fair number alongside that. I'm not perfect, but I think that anyone who tries to argue without knowing why each side is arguing what is going to end up simply looking severely misinformed and generally end up making a fool out of themselves. People, both conservatives and liberals, often claim the other is unreasonably irrational-- and I entirely disagree with that. Generally speaking, both sides of an argument have a genuine and perfectly logical reason for their beliefs. The point of a debate/argument is to exchange these beliefs, not to shut down the beliefs of others-- and when people are unreceptive to hearing the viewpoints of others, that's exactly what happens.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50905606]"Best interests" in that progressive policies will actually help many poorer right-wing civilians. But they don't realize that because they're so obsessed with patriotism that the idea of progress and moving along with the changing world environment is a completely foreign idea to them. Look, just about every major battle in history, both actual wars and social/ideological fights were about liberals vs. conservatives. And the majority of the time (not all the time, the Cold War is a huge exception), liberals are the victors. The American Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, Civil Rights movement, and those are just American examples. Progression and change needs to come eventually, you can't just stick with the exact same social and political views forever. That's just a part of life that not many people accept. And that's where the current Republican party fits in.[/QUOTE] I get your point, but this is Whig history at it's finest. History isn't always necessarily an inevitable fight towards liberalism, that's just the way it's portrayed - as a story.

[QUOTE=Monkah;50905756]are you really going to criticize my debate etiquette (cherrypicking!!!) after you posted this hell of a [B]strawman[/B]?[/QUOTE] You really love that word, don't you? "Strawman". You know how if you say a word too many times, it eventually loses its meaning and you begin to question the word itself? That's how I feel about you. You just love buzzwords. If you had "debate etiquette", you wouldn't skirt over details and sentences that don't fit your skewed way of thinking. A skewed way of thinking that has been highly publicized here on Facepunch, specifically Sensationalist Headlines, completely voiding you of any sense of credibility. Meanwhile, all you can do is parrot the rhetoric of Donald Trump, pick through statements, and act incredibly paranoid, unwittingly digging yourself into a hole without realizing that people stopped listening to your bullshit a long time ago.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50905777]You really love that word, don't you? "Strawman". You know how if you say a word too many times, it eventually loses its meaning and you begin to question the word itself? That's how I feel about you. You just love buzzwords. If you had "debate etiquette", you wouldn't skirt over details and sentences that don't fit your skewed way of thinking. A skewed way of thinking that has been highly publicized here on Facepunch, specifically Sensationalist Headlines, completely voiding you of any sense of credibility. Meanwhile, all you can do is parrot the rhetoric of Donald Trump, pick through statements, and act incredibly paranoid, unwittingly digging yourself into a hole without realizing that people stopped listening to your bullshit a long time ago.[/QUOTE] I use the word 'strawman' because you're making strawmen arguments by literally word for word, accusing all who disagree with you as, in your own words, people who "know fuck-all about political process and are more concerned with being patriotic and upholding traditional values." Me using the word 'strawman' doesn't make your argument any less of just that. It's not a buzzword, it's me attempting to communicate to you that you're painting roughly 50% of the US population as ignorant, brainwashed people who are scared of change and don't know anything about politics, rather than people who simply disagree with you for perfectly legitimate reasons. And no, conservatism is not 'highly publicized' here on Facepunch. Most conservatives I know that are on Facepunch generally tend to stay far away from these threads simply due to the vitriol people like you inflict upon them. [QUOTE=Monkah;50905756]The point of a debate/argument is to exchange these beliefs, not to shut down the beliefs of others-- and when people are unreceptive to hearing the viewpoints of others, that's exactly what happens.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50905777]people stopped listening to your bullshit a long time ago.[/QUOTE] I rest my case.

[quote]She supports the “Buffett rule,” which would require millionaires to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes, and wants to close the carried interest loophole that lets hedge fund managers pay a lesser tax rate on much of their income. She has also proposed an “exit tax” on corporations that move jobs overseas, and wants to limit tax deductions, impose a 4 percent tax surcharge for income over $5 million, and close corporate tax loopholes to help pay for her costly domestic agenda.[/quote] Go on... Does anyone have her entire tax plan?