Tuesday, 4 October 2016

Wonkbook: The stark differences between the Trump and Clinton tax plans

By Jim Tankersley Both candidates for president have promised to scale back the federal tax code's vast number of "loopholes." On his website, Donald Trump promises to "eliminate special interest loopholes, make our business tax rate more competitive to keep jobs in America, create new opportunities and revitalize our economy." On her site, Hillary Clinton …
 
Wonkbook
The latest economic and domestic policy from Wonkblog
 
 

Donald Trump's struggles in the New Jersey casino business predated his reported $916 million loss claimed on his 1995 tax returns. (Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images)

By Jim Tankersley

Both candidates for president have promised to scale back the federal tax code's vast number of "loopholes." On his website, Donald Trump promises to "eliminate special interest loopholes, make our business tax rate more competitive to keep jobs in America, create new opportunities and revitalize our economy." On her site, Hillary Clinton promises to "close loopholes that create a private tax system for the most fortunate, and ... close corporate and Wall Street tax loopholes and invest in America."

The New York Times's disclosure of 1995 tax information showing that Donald Trump booked $916 million in losses that year — and potentially carried them over to avoid paying income taxes for many years following — threw the candidates' tax proposals into stark relief, as well as their often different concepts of what a "loophole" entails.

For starters, it doesn't appear that Clinton or Trump's plan would affect the tax provision that, the Times reported, the real estate magnate could have employed to avoid paying federal income taxes for as much as 18 years, tax experts said. That provision states that a business that loses money in one year can apply those losses toward income gained in two previous and 15 future years.

But more broadly, both candidates would change the tax code in important ways. Trump would cut taxes on the wealthy and offer tax breaks to working parents so they can pay less to the government. Clinton would look to significantly raise taxes on millionaires — and make sure their heirs pay more, too.

"Both candidates would introduce new complexities," said Leonard Burman, who directs the independent Tax Policy Center. "In a lot of cases, complexity gives smart tax lawyers opportunities to manipulate the rules in the way policymakers never intended."

Read the rest on Wonkblog.

ADVERTISEMENT
 


 

Chart of the day

The real-estate industry has one of the most favorable effective tax rates in the economy. Max Ehrenfreund has more.

2300


Top policy tweets

 
Most Recent Posts from Wonkblog
How medical marijuana could help boomers get the most out of retirement
Studies are finding significant quality-of-life boosts for older Americans in medical marijuana states.
 
You probably weigh less now than you will all year
This is the time of year when Americans weigh the least
 
International Monetary Fund slashes prospect for U.S. growth
Outlook for American output falls by most of any developed economy
 
The stark differences between the Trump and Clinton tax plans and how they address 'loopholes'
Trump would cut taxes on the wealthy and offer tax breaks to working parents so they can pay less to the government. Clinton would look to significantly raise taxes on millionaires — and make sure their heirs pay more, too.
 
How Donald Trump and other real-estate developers pay almost nothing in taxes
Recently published documents suggest Trump might have avoided federal income taxes for 18 years.
 
This could be the worrisome reason why new cancer patients are not using a lifesaving medicine
Elderly patients were even more likely to delay the start of treatment.
 
Why thousands of millionaires don’t pay federal income taxes
There are millionaires in the 47 percent, too.
 
What the government does for people like Donald Trump that it won’t do for the poor
Donald Trump reportedly would have been able to offset income with massive losses incurred in 1995. Low-income families can't enjoy the same tax benefit.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
 
Recommended for you
 
Federal Insider
Federal news and policy update, in your inbox daily.
Sign Up »
 
     
 
©2016 The Washington Post, 1301 K St NW, Washington DC 20071
 
 
 

No comments:

Post a Comment