SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
While the tax cuts in Trump's latest proposal are not as high as in his previous plans, they favor rich households and burden lower-income ones even more than the $9.5 trillion in cuts he proposed last year. (Photo: Gage Skidmore/flickr/cc)
Surprise: Trump's Latest Tax Plan Would Benefit the 1%, Burden the Poor
New analysis from Brookings-Urban Research Center finds 47 percent of all cuts would go to wealthiest U.S. households
Oct 12, 2016
Donald Trump's latest tax proposals would give the biggest windfalls to the richest households in the U.S. and raise the debt by $20.9 trillion by 2036, according to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC).
The Republican presidential nominee would cut taxes by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, with 47 percent of all cuts next year going to the top 1 percent, the analysis found. By contrast, TPC found, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's plan would increase revenue by a net $1.4 trillion over the next decade, and nearly all tax hikes would go to the richest 1 percent, with low- and middle-income families seeing "small increases" in after-tax income.
And while the tax cuts in Trump's latest proposal are not as high as in his previous plans, they favor rich households and burden lower-income ones even more than the $9.5 trillion in cuts he proposed last year.
Under Clinton's plan, the top 1 percent would pay an average of $117,760 in 2017, while the top .01 percent would see an average tax jump of $805,250.
TPC director Leonard Burman called the two candidates' plans "mirror images" in an interview with Forbes reporter Janet Novack.
Novack adds: "Clinton's plan also takes aim at certain groups of wealthy folks. It closes the 'carried interest' loophole that reduces taxes for hedge fund and private equity managers and limits 'like kind' exchanges, which allow real estate developers and investors to defer capital gains taxes, in some cases indefinitely. (It's hard to say how that would affect Trump, since he hasn't released his tax returns; a leaked 1995 Trump return showing a $916 million tax loss suggests he may have paid no income taxes for nearly 20 years without needing the like-kind break.)"
Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) also recently released its analyses of Clinton's and Trump's tax plans, coming to similar conclusions. CTJ director Bob McIntyre said of the Republican nominee's proposal at the time, "To be sure, Trump's latest tax plan costs less than the initial deficit-inflating tax proposal that he laid out earlier this year. But this new tax plan is in the same spirit as Trump's initial proposal. He would cut taxes for the rich, cut taxes for businesses, provide miniscule tax cuts for lower-income groups, and then claim it's a populist plan that helps working families."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
Donald Trump's latest tax proposals would give the biggest windfalls to the richest households in the U.S. and raise the debt by $20.9 trillion by 2036, according to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC).
The Republican presidential nominee would cut taxes by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, with 47 percent of all cuts next year going to the top 1 percent, the analysis found. By contrast, TPC found, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's plan would increase revenue by a net $1.4 trillion over the next decade, and nearly all tax hikes would go to the richest 1 percent, with low- and middle-income families seeing "small increases" in after-tax income.
And while the tax cuts in Trump's latest proposal are not as high as in his previous plans, they favor rich households and burden lower-income ones even more than the $9.5 trillion in cuts he proposed last year.
Under Clinton's plan, the top 1 percent would pay an average of $117,760 in 2017, while the top .01 percent would see an average tax jump of $805,250.
TPC director Leonard Burman called the two candidates' plans "mirror images" in an interview with Forbes reporter Janet Novack.
Novack adds: "Clinton's plan also takes aim at certain groups of wealthy folks. It closes the 'carried interest' loophole that reduces taxes for hedge fund and private equity managers and limits 'like kind' exchanges, which allow real estate developers and investors to defer capital gains taxes, in some cases indefinitely. (It's hard to say how that would affect Trump, since he hasn't released his tax returns; a leaked 1995 Trump return showing a $916 million tax loss suggests he may have paid no income taxes for nearly 20 years without needing the like-kind break.)"
Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) also recently released its analyses of Clinton's and Trump's tax plans, coming to similar conclusions. CTJ director Bob McIntyre said of the Republican nominee's proposal at the time, "To be sure, Trump's latest tax plan costs less than the initial deficit-inflating tax proposal that he laid out earlier this year. But this new tax plan is in the same spirit as Trump's initial proposal. He would cut taxes for the rich, cut taxes for businesses, provide miniscule tax cuts for lower-income groups, and then claim it's a populist plan that helps working families."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
Donald Trump's latest tax proposals would give the biggest windfalls to the richest households in the U.S. and raise the debt by $20.9 trillion by 2036, according to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC).
The Republican presidential nominee would cut taxes by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, with 47 percent of all cuts next year going to the top 1 percent, the analysis found. By contrast, TPC found, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's plan would increase revenue by a net $1.4 trillion over the next decade, and nearly all tax hikes would go to the richest 1 percent, with low- and middle-income families seeing "small increases" in after-tax income.
And while the tax cuts in Trump's latest proposal are not as high as in his previous plans, they favor rich households and burden lower-income ones even more than the $9.5 trillion in cuts he proposed last year.
Under Clinton's plan, the top 1 percent would pay an average of $117,760 in 2017, while the top .01 percent would see an average tax jump of $805,250.
TPC director Leonard Burman called the two candidates' plans "mirror images" in an interview with Forbes reporter Janet Novack.
Novack adds: "Clinton's plan also takes aim at certain groups of wealthy folks. It closes the 'carried interest' loophole that reduces taxes for hedge fund and private equity managers and limits 'like kind' exchanges, which allow real estate developers and investors to defer capital gains taxes, in some cases indefinitely. (It's hard to say how that would affect Trump, since he hasn't released his tax returns; a leaked 1995 Trump return showing a $916 million tax loss suggests he may have paid no income taxes for nearly 20 years without needing the like-kind break.)"
Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) also recently released its analyses of Clinton's and Trump's tax plans, coming to similar conclusions. CTJ director Bob McIntyre said of the Republican nominee's proposal at the time, "To be sure, Trump's latest tax plan costs less than the initial deficit-inflating tax proposal that he laid out earlier this year. But this new tax plan is in the same spirit as Trump's initial proposal. He would cut taxes for the rich, cut taxes for businesses, provide miniscule tax cuts for lower-income groups, and then claim it's a populist plan that helps working families."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.