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
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, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —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.