Clinton proposes tax relief for families with young kids

That “gives them a much better deal than carried interest”, said Eric Toder of the Tax Policy Center.

Clinton’s plans look like a mirror image.

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers would pay $800,000 more in taxes on average under Clinton’s plan while Trump’s plan, their taxes would decline by more than $1 million. About three-fourths of the decrease, the center said, would come from cutting business taxes, including reducing corporate income tax from 35 percent to 15 percent, and repealing the alternative minimum tax for wealthy people.

That’s what Clinton wants to change; she wants to make these tax credits available to families with especially low incomes, below $9,000 or even below $3,000.

Not since George and Martha in the play “Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” or for older readers Don Ameche and Frances Langford in the radio comedy “The Bickersons”, have we seen the kind of verbal pugilism practiced in Sunday night’s presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

After accounting for that reduced tax base, Clinton’s plan would increase federal revenue by $663 billion over 10 years, the Tax Foundation determined – a number that’s less than half of some previous estimates.

On a static basis, taxpayers in the top fifth of income would receive tax increases and everyone else would receive tax cuts.

Under current law, families with children 16 and under are eligible for a tax credit of $1,000 per child.

Last year, if you were a single woman and your taxable income was $100,000, you paid $21,064 in federal income tax.

Indeed, Clinton’s credit would help a small but needy group of people, Roberton Williams of the left-leaning Tax Policy Center said.

“This report is further evidence of the clear choice for voters in this election”, he said.

Donald Trump has called for historic tax relief for the rich, which would likely add trillions of dollars to the national debt. Trump, for his part, has been uniquely innovative, proposing once-unimaginable plans like building a border wall, clamping down on Muslim immigrants, and renegotiating NAFTA.

By contrast, an analysis by the Tax Foundation, which advocates for lower taxes, found Trump’s proposal could create $2 trillion in new tax revenues by triggering growth.

Many middle-income single parents and families with a lot of kids could see a tax increase under Trump’s plan.

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. The Trump campaign disputes this conclusion and said it would ensure no household pays more. Trump, who has refused to release his tax returns, acknowledged at Sunday’s debate that has he has used the loss to avoid paying taxes. She would increase the value of it for young children.

Citing that uncertainty, the Tax Foundation published an analysis of Trump’s latest plans that provided a range of amounts for its effects.

Trump would eliminate the estate tax on large inheritances, a potential windfall for his heirs, while Clinton would increase it from 40 per cent to 65 per cent.

Given the long term stagnation under President Obama’s policies, such tax and spending cuts are sorely needed now.

Traditional economic models show higher interest rates lead businesses to invest less and weaken productivity, which in turn leads to flat or negative wage growth. When adding those interest costs, the federal debt would grow by $7.2 trillion in 2026 and $20.9 trillion by 2036.

“We expect that the Trump plan would provide a short-term boost to the economy”, Burman said”.

Without providing a direct explanation of the economic situation if the tax cuts go into effect without contingencies, both experts simply emphasized the importance of trade policy changes as an offset.

Clinton still doesn’t have a broad middle-class tax cut, but maybe her thinking has changed and she now favors a more targeted, piecemeal approach. Politically, perhaps, she could use one.