The Urban-Brookings Tax Center has provided two excellent comparative write-ups on the two proposed tax plans of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. I will provide the links below. They also used three tax experts, whose credentials are noted below, that grade the two proposals on four key factors. Those factors and the average of these grades is noted below:
Factor Trump Clinton
Legislative Feasibility D C
Economic Growth C- D+
Fiscal Responsibility D- B-
Impact on Tax Payers D+ B-
Overall Average* D+ C+
*My composite calculation using a four point scale (A = 4, B = 3, etc.) with 0.3 modifier for +/ – like colleges do in grading. Note, the articles did the composites of each factor.
The Urban-Brookings Tax Center found that the Trump plan was disproportionately beneficial to the wealthy, and would greatly increase the national debt.
“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,” the TPC analysis found. “The plan would reduce federal revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects. The plan would improve incentives to work, save, and invest. However, unless it is accompanied by very large spending cuts, it could increase the national debt by nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product by 2036, offsetting some or all of the incentive effects of the tax cuts.”
“Looking at economic growth, Wiiliam Gale (see below) said that the Clinton plan “will probably be close to a wash in terms of economic growth over the medium term.” Gale also said that the increase in tax rates might hurt growth in the short-term. But he said that a reduction in debt under the plan “should help growth in the long-term.” However, the Tax Policy Center analysis of Clinton’s plan used by Gale doesn’t address Clinton’s long-term spending proposals and the effect they might have in raising the long-term debt.”
This is consistent with the measurement of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation that showed Trump’s plan would increase the $19 Trillion debt over the next ten years by approximately $12 Trillion. Clinton’s plan would reduce the debt over the next ten years by about $500 Billion. In my view, neither of these numbers is enough to reduce the debt, but at least Clinton’s is in the right direction.
Truth be told, there are not enough spending cuts to make up for Trump’s increase in debt and we need serious discussion on reducing the debt from both. And, per the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Plan and ideas shared by Fix the Debt and The Concord Coalition, we will need both revenue increases and spending cuts. To say otherwise, is misleading the American people.
The Fiscal Times convened a panel of experts in tax and fiscal policy to analyze the Clinton and Trump tax plans. Details of each plan were reviewed by three well-respected policy experts: William G. Gale, the Arjay and Francis Miller Chair in Federal Economic Policy at the Brookings Institution and co-director of the Tax Policy Center; Doug Holtz-Eakin, President of the American Action Forum and a former Congressional Budget Office Director; and G. William Hoagland, a vice president of the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Republican Senate budget official.