Tax Policy Center analysis of both presidential candidate tax plans are now in...

[yllus]

All added emphasis (bolding) is mine. Um, sort of speaks for itself, but worth a read of the full reports as well. Could someone remind of which party is the party of fiscal discipline?

Tax Policy Center - Updated Analysis of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals

ABSTRACT

This paper updates an analysis of Hillary Clinton’s tax proposals, which would raise taxes on high-income taxpayers, increase the child tax credit, modify taxation of multinational corporations, reform capital gains taxes, and increase estate and gift taxes. Her proposals would increase revenue by $1.4 trillion over the next decade. Nearly all of the tax increases would fall on the highest-income 1 percent; on average, low- and middle-income households would see small increases in after-tax income. Marginal tax rates would increase for high-income filers, reducing incentives to work, save, and invest, and the tax code would become more complex.

Full Report​

Tax Policy Center - An Analysis of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan

ABSTRACT

This paper analyzes presidential candidate Donald Trump’s revised tax proposal, which would significantly reduce marginal tax rates, increase standard deduction amounts, repeal personal exemptions, cap itemized deductions, and allow businesses to elect to expense new investment and not deduct interest expense. His proposal would cut taxes at all income levels, although the largest benefits, in dollar and percentage terms, would go to the highest-income households. Federal revenues would fall by $6.2 trillion over the first decade before accounting for added interest costs. Including interest costs, the federal debt would rise by $7.2 trillion over the first decade and by $20.9 trillion by 2036.

Full Report​

 

[yllus]

In simpler chart form:

 

[HamburgerBoy]

^ I don't see that particular chart as a good thing from either (even though Trump's is blatantly laughable and garbage). Doubling tax credits to reward parents for not aborting is not a good thing, but obviously she has to pander to women and first-gen Hispanics so I guess it's not surprising.

 

[JSt0rm]

^ I don't see that particular chart as a good thing from either (even though Trump's is blatantly laughable and garbage). Doubling tax credits to reward parents for not aborting is not a good thing, but obviously she has to pander to women and first-gen Hispanics so I guess it's not surprising.

You want to reward people who have abortions?

 

[Jhhnn]

^ I don't see that particular chart as a good thing from either (even though Trump's is blatantly laughable and garbage). Doubling tax credits to reward parents for not aborting is not a good thing, but obviously she has to pander to women and first-gen Hispanics so I guess it's not surprising.

That's ridiculous. Middle class families (including fathers, obviously) will benefit from Clinton's tax proposals while federal revenues actually increase. The only people who lose money are the people who can afford to lose money.

Compare that with Donald's good old trickle down-

However, the highest income taxpayers (0.1 percent of the population, or those
with incomes over $3.7 million in 2016 dollars) would experience an average tax cut of
nearly $1.1 million, over 14 percent of after tax income.

Not to mention gutting the treasury. It's something a Repub Congress would embrace with glee.

 

[senseamp]

Trump tax plan is basically Kansas basket case gone national. And it's GOP's plan even aside from Trump.

 

[MajinCry]

^ I don't see that particular chart as a good thing from either (even though Trump's is blatantly laughable and garbage). Doubling tax credits to reward parents for not aborting is not a good thing, but obviously she has to pander to women and first-gen Hispanics so I guess it's not surprising.

Single moms don't exactly have deft economic mobility, but whatevs. If it's that big of an issue, you could always become a hermaphrodite and get in on that dosh yerself.

 

[nickqt]

Look to Japan to see how a negative replacement rate destroys western economies.

 

[Paratus]

Look to Japan to see how a negative replacement rate destroys western economies.

Meh

I think the world could use a very slightly negative replacement rate that's offset by increasing productivity.

Let the negative rate slow towards neutral due to medical advances in longevity.

End up with a fairly stable population and a still growing economy.

 

[Exterous]

My biggest issue with Clinton's tax plan are the Capital Gains rates. Basically 40% or higher if you hold something for 3 years or less. That's crazy harsh considering how much businesses can change in a few months let alone a few years. I do think the lack of a step up basis is a bit harsh too considering, if my reading is correct, the assets will be transferred to the new person resulting in a resetting the Capital Gains tax duration of holding subjecting it to the high tax rates for what could be essentially a decades long holding period.

Also - I'm just generally against anything that the government takes more than 49% of so I do take issue with the estate tax setup. That said I noticed that none of her proposals touches on the myriad of financial trust setups that allow wealthy people to avoid taxes so, in reality, I don't think the increase in estate taxes will have much impact. Gotta make people think they're cracking down on those damn 1%ers while the low tax income continues to flow behind the curtain for everyone.

Thats another issue with these types of reports is that their impact projections don't take into account any changes in behavior people will make because of them. Why would anyone pay 55% estate taxes when they could pay 40% in traditional trust tax rates or as low as 2% in less conventional trusts? I'm assuming politicians know the wealthy have access to well informed financial planners so I'm guessing they just hope they can distract the public while they take advantage of these situations themselves.

I am glad to see some consideration for simplifying taxes for small businesses but did notice that section was smaller than the amalgamation of tax benefit proposals for various interest groups

I didn't bother to read Trump's because dude is a moron

 

[hal2kilo]

All added emphasis (bolding) is mine. Um, sort of speaks for itself, but worth a read of the full reports as well. Could someone remind of which party is the party of fiscal discipline?

Tax Policy Center - Updated Analysis of Hillary Clinton's Tax Proposals

ABSTRACT

This paper updates an analysis of Hillary Clinton’s tax proposals, which would raise taxes on high-income taxpayers, increase the child tax credit, modify taxation of multinational corporations, reform capital gains taxes, and increase estate and gift taxes. Her proposals would increase revenue by $1.4 trillion over the next decade. Nearly all of the tax increases would fall on the highest-income 1 percent; on average, low- and middle-income households would see small increases in after-tax income. Marginal tax rates would increase for high-income filers, reducing incentives to work, save, and invest, and the tax code would become more complex.

Full Report​

Tax Policy Center - An Analysis of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan

ABSTRACT

This paper analyzes presidential candidate Donald Trump’s revised tax proposal, which would significantly reduce marginal tax rates, increase standard deduction amounts, repeal personal exemptions, cap itemized deductions, and allow businesses to elect to expense new investment and not deduct interest expense. His proposal would cut taxes at all income levels, although the largest benefits, in dollar and percentage terms, would go to the highest-income households. Federal revenues would fall by $6.2 trillion over the first decade before accounting for added interest costs. Including interest costs, the federal debt would rise by $7.2 trillion over the first decade and by $20.9 trillion by 2036.

Full Report​

I'm shocked! Republicans don't care about deficits when they are in power?

 

[Meghan54]

I'm shocked! Republicans don't care about deficits when they are in power?

I know, it does come as quite a surprise, doesn't it?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


(Bunch of old man wheezing from laughing so much.)

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm shocked! Republicans don't care about deficits when they are in power?

Cut taxes, run up MIC spending to eventually starve the beast with insupportable debt. Then slash social spending out of necessity while holding the Govt of the People under the thumb of the financial elite. That's been their goal since the Reagan era, make no mistake about it.

 

[dank69]

Great, now the TPC is just another tool in the librul's pocket.

 

[Jhhnn]

Great, now the TPC is just another tool in the librul's pocket.

Not just the facts but the truth itself has a well known liberal bias.

 

[hal2kilo]

Cut taxes, run up MIC spending to eventually starve the beast with insupportable debt. Then slash social spending out of necessity while holding the Govt of the People under the thumb of the financial elite. That's been their goal since the Reagan era, make no mistake about it.

I know it's rinse, repeat as if that's the sum total knowledge of Republican economics. Hey, let's trot out Laffer while were at it.

Edit: several typos