IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/atlecj/v45y2017i4d10.1007_s11293-017-9554-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Distributional Effects of the Trump and Clinton Tax Proposals

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Haughton

    (Suffolk University)

  • Paul Bachman

    (Suffolk University)

  • Keshab Bhattarai

    (University of Hull)

  • David G. Tuerck

    (Suffolk University)

Abstract

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the Democratic and Republican candidates for President of the U.S. in 2016, proposed several changes in the federal tax code. Hillary Clinton would add a personal income tax surcharge of 4% on high annual incomes, limit the tax benefits of non-charitable deductions, set a minimum tax rate of 30% on taxpayers earning more than one million dollars a year, increase the tax rates on capital gains for taxpayers in the top tax bracket, and expand the base of the estate tax. Donald Trump would reduce the number of personal income tax rates, increase the standard personal deduction, cut all taxes on business income to no more than 15%, and abolish the inheritance tax. Using a tax calculator model, we estimate the static effects of these very different changes. Over a ten-year period, Clinton’s proposals would raise federal tax revenue by a total of $816 billion, an increase of 1.9% over projected baseline revenue, while Trump’s tax changes would lower tax revenue by $9.8 trillion. Clinton’s higher taxes would reduce incomes and revenue somewhat, while Trump’s tax cuts would potentially boost output substantially. Using an extended simulation model, we find that 86% of the incremental tax burden of Clinton’s tax increases would fall on those in the top tenth of the income distribution. Most other taxpayers would see only minor changes in their tax burdens, and the revenue and redistributive effects of her proposed changes are relatively modest. Meanwhile, 70% of Trump’s tax cuts would go to those in the top decile, and the effects are large, with gains of over $15,000 annually per person for this group, compared to gains of less than $500 per person for the poorest 40% of the population. On tax policy, the two candidates propose strikingly different policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Haughton & Paul Bachman & Keshab Bhattarai & David G. Tuerck, 2017. "The Distributional Effects of the Trump and Clinton Tax Proposals," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 45(4), pages 453-472, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:atlecj:v:45:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s11293-017-9554-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11293-017-9554-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11293-017-9554-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11293-017-9554-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arnold C. Harberger, 1962. "The Incidence of the Corporation Income Tax," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70, pages 215-215.
    2. Maurice Obstfeld, 1993. "International Capital Mobility in the 1990s," NBER Working Papers 4534, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Daniel R. Feenberg & Andrew W. Mitrusi & James M. Poterba, 1997. "Distributional Effects of Adopting a National Retail Sales Tax," NBER Chapters, in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 11, pages 49-90, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Keshab Bhattarai & Jonathan Haughton & Michael Head & David G Tuerck, 2017. "Simulating Corporate Income Tax Reform Proposals with a Dynamic CGE Model," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(5), pages 20-35, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pourya Darnihamedani & Joern Hendrich Block & Jolanda Hessels & Aram Simonyan, 2018. "Taxes, start-up costs, and innovative entrepreneurship," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 355-369, August.
    2. Bhattarai, Keshab, 2017. "Impacts of GST reforms on efficiency, growth and redistribution of income in India: A Dynamic CGE Analysis," MPRA Paper 92139, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fullerton, Don & Metcalf, Gilbert E., 2002. "Tax incidence," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 26, pages 1787-1872, Elsevier.
    2. Benjamin Carton & Emilio Fernández Corugedo & Mr. Benjamin L Hunt, 2019. "Corporate Tax Reform: From Income to Cash Flow Taxes," IMF Working Papers 2019/013, International Monetary Fund.
    3. Bhattarai, Keshab & Bachman, Paul & Conte, Frank & Haughton, Jonathan & Head, Michael & Tuerck, David G., 2018. "Tax plan debates in the US presidential election: A dynamic CGE analysis of growth and redistribution trade-offs," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 529-542.
    4. Benjamin Carton & Emilio Fernández Corugedo & Mr. Benjamin L Hunt, 2017. "No Business Taxation Without Model Representation: Adding Corporate Income and Cash Flow Taxes to GIMF," IMF Working Papers 2017/259, International Monetary Fund.
    5. Keshab Bhattarai & Dung Thi Kim Nguyen & Chan Van Nguyen, 2019. "Impacts of Direct and Indirect Tax Reforms in Vietnam: A CGE Analysis," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-36, May.
    6. Fehr, Hans, 1999. "Welfare Effects of Dynamic Tax Reforms," Beiträge zur Finanzwissenschaft, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, edition 1, volume 5, number urn:isbn:9783161470165, September.
    7. William M. Gentry & R. Glenn Hubbard, 1997. "Distributional Implications of Introducing a Broad-Based Consumption Tax," NBER Chapters, in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 11, pages 1-48, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Barış Kaymak & Immo Schott, 2023. "Corporate Tax Cuts and the Decline in the Manufacturing Labor Share," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(6), pages 2371-2408, November.
    9. Canavire-Bacarreza, Gustavo & Martínez-Vázquez, Jorge & Vulovic, Violeta, 2013. "Taxation and Economic Growth in Latin America," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 4583, Inter-American Development Bank.
    10. Fehr, Hans & Ruocco, Anna, 1999. "Equity and efficiency aspects of the Italian debt reduction," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 569-589, December.
    11. M. Buch, Claudia & Hanschel, Elke, 2000. "The Effectiveness of Capital Controls: The Case of Slovenia," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 15, pages 602-628.
    12. Glenn P. Jenkins & Chun-Yan Kuo, 2019. "Taxing mobile capital in free trade zones to the detriment of workers," Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 207-222, May.
    13. Rajagopal, Dagmar & Shah, Anwar, 1995. "A rational expectations model for tax policy analysis: An evaluation of tax incentives for the textile, chemical and pharmaceutical industries of Pakistan," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 249-276, June.
    14. Yoonkyo Cho & Taehwan Kim & Jaewhak Roh, 2021. "An analysis of the effects of electronic commerce on the Korean economy using the CGE model," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 831-854, September.
    15. Olga Kiuila & Thomas F. Rutherford, 2014. "Economic modeling approaches: optimization versus equilibrium," Working Papers 2014-04, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    16. Kevin J. Murphy, 2003. "A General Equilibrium Model of the Payroll Tax Incidence of State Unemployment Insurance Systems," Public Finance Review, , vol. 31(1), pages 44-65, January.
    17. Omolo, Miriam W.O., 2012. "The Impact of Trade Liberalization on Poverty in Kenya: A Microsimulation," Conference papers 332220, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    18. Fabien Candau & Jacques Le Cacheux, 2017. "Corporate Income Tax as a Genuine own Resource," Working papers of CATT hal-01847937, HAL.
    19. Bjarne S. Jensen, 2004. "Pareto Efficiency, Relative Prices, and Solutions to CGE Models," DEGIT Conference Papers c009_006, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    20. David Albouy & Andrew Hanson, 2014. "Are Houses Too Big or In the Wrong Place? Tax Benefits to Housing and Inefficiencies in Location and Consumption," Tax Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 63-96.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:atlecj:v:45:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s11293-017-9554-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.