WASHINGTON – THE ISSUE: Politicians love trying to use the tax code to highlight their goals to voters. This year, it’s a battlefield between Hillary Clinton, who wants to boost levies on the rich to pay for expanding social programs and Donald Trump, who says cutting taxes would gird the economy. The clash has consequences for the rich, poor and those in the middle.
WHERE THEY STAND
Trump: The Republican trotted out an initial plan but has pared it back twice so far. He’d slice individual income taxes across the board: the current seven brackets, which peak at 39.6 per cent, would collapse into three tiers with a maximum 33 per cent rate. The corporate tax rate would fall from 35 per cent — which few companies pay because of deductions — to a maximum 15 per cent. There would be new tax breaks for some expenses for caring for children or the elderly. And he’d eliminate the estate tax, which hits inheritances exceeding $10.9 million this year for married couples. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says the proposal would likely bestow “outsized benefits” to the wealthiest families, but it lacks sufficient detail to be too specific.
Clinton: The Democrat’s proposal is more detailed than Trump’s and targets the rich — big-time. She’d slap a 4 per cent surtax on incomes over $5 million, impose a minimum 30 per cent tax on those earning over $1 million and cap itemized deductions for higher earners. She’d impose the estate taxes on inheritances starting at $7 million for couples. Clinton would leave corporate tax rates alone, though she’d raise levies on U.S. companies shielding overseas income and would eliminate tax breaks for fossil fuel producers. She’d help some families pay for child care but without involving the tax code. The Tax Policy Center says the bottom 95 per cent of taxpayers — those earning under $300,000 — would see little if any change in their tax bill.
WHY IT MATTERS
One way or another, tax proposals by whoever becomes president will affect most Americans.
Clinton would hit the wealthy hard and use the money to bolster public works, medical research and other domestic programs. The Policy Center says the top 1 per cent of households, with annual incomes averaging $2.1 million, would pay over three-quarters of the $1.1 trillion extra federal revenue her proposal would raise over a decade. Her plans would have a “relatively modest” tax impact on everyone else, the Policy Center says. She’d help working families pay college costs and cut taxes for companies that share profits with workers.
The Policy Center said last year that Trump’s original plan would reduce revenue by $9.5 trillion over 10 years. His campaign says his newest, scaled-back version would cut taxes by $4.4 trillion over that same period. The Policy Center hasn’t estimated the price tag of Trump’s new proposal, citing a lack of detail, but says some of its estimates are unsubstantiated.
Under Trump’s earlier proposal, people from all income levels would enjoy tax cuts but the best-off would benefit most, the centre said. The top 0.1 per cent of earners — with incomes exceeding $3.7 million — would have gotten tax breaks averaging over $1.3 million, or 19 per cent of after-tax earnings. Though lacking enough detail to be precise, the group said, Trump’s new plan “is probably somewhat less regressive,” meaning it’s less tilted toward helping the rich.
Major tax overhauls are enacted infrequently because they spark brutal battles over winners and losers, especially if Congress and the White House are controlled by opposite parties.
Yet with Republicans expected to retain House control next year, Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has already outlined plans to cut families’ and businesses’ taxes. He’d no doubt find it tougher to find common ground for reshaping the tax code if Clinton, not Trump, wins the White House.
This story is part of AP’s “Why It Matters” series, which will examine three dozen issues at stake in the presidential election between now and Election Day. You can find them at http://apne.ws/2bBG85a
EDITOR’S NOTE _ One in an AP series examining issues at stake in the presidential election and how they affect people