Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Just Asking Questions
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Hillary Clinton's Plan to Pay for Everything: New, Unspecified Taxes

Peter Suderman | 11.23.2015 1:32 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign rolled out new policy proposal today: a $6,000 tax credit for home caregivers, designed to offset the cost families incur when caring for elderly relatives. Clinton also said she would like to boost Social Security benefits for some family caregivers who leave their jobs.

The campaign estimates that the price tag for the new benefit will run about $10 billion over the course of a decade. But as The Washington Examiner notes, Clinton hasn't detailed exactly how she'll pay for it, saying only that it would be paid for with tax hikes of some kind.

This isn't the first time that Clinton has proposed billions in new spending without providing all the details. There's also Clinton's higher-ed plan, which she's pitched as a way to make college more affordable (but which might have the opposite effect). Her campaign estimates that it would cost about $350 billion over a decade. The plan will be "fully paid for," she promises, "by limiting certain tax expenditures for high-income taxpayers." So she'd raise the tax bills on the wealthy, but, once again, she doesn't say how she'd do so. Clinton has also said that, somehow, her mandatory family leave plan should be paid for the by the wealthy, though it's not clear what the mechanism would be.

It's not that there's no possible way to raise the revenue to pay for these programs. But paying for all of them together becomes much harder, especially given that Clinton has boxed herself in to some extent by promising not to raise taxes on households earning less than $250,000, and in fact has called for tax cuts for the broad middle class.

That promise itself shows how difficult the politics of revenue-raising are right now: Clinton has ruled almost every household in the country off-limits.

Sure, there are still some pay-fors floating around in Washington, but the fact that they haven't been used yet (the Affordable Care Act, for one, used up a lot of them) suggests that we're beginning to scrape the bottom of the barrel. There just aren't that many obvious untapped revenue sources left, and the interest groups who are likely to be targeted have already mobilized heavily against them. 

Clinton's political calculation here is obvious: Promising to provide broad new benefits that few people have to pay for is always popular in politics. But it suggests how difficult it will be to settle on workable, politically plausible revenue raisers or other offsets to pay for new programs. It's easy for candidates to propose new programs and spending, and much harder to find ways to pay for them. 

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: How Feminist Attacks on Porn Enable Rapists

Peter Suderman is features editor at Reason.

PoliticsPolicyHillary ClintonElection 2016Taxes
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Show Comments (66)

Latest

The Government Shutdown Isn't Stopping Trump From Amassing 'Emergency' Powers

Katherine Mangu-Ward | From the December 2025 issue

Maybe AI Therapists Will Suck. That Doesn't Mean We Should Ban Them.

Emma Camp | From the November 2025 issue

Vaccine Skeptics Said That COVID Shots Would Cause Mass Death. We're Still Here.

Ronald Bailey | 10.24.2025 5:05 PM

Michigan Mom Fights School District Rule That Says 7-Year-Old Can't Walk 3 Minutes Home From the Bus Stop

Lenore Skenazy | 10.24.2025 4:25 PM

New Jersey Town Tentatively Agrees to Not Seize 175-Year-Old Family Farm

Christian Britschgi | 10.24.2025 1:25 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300
Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300
Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300