Donald Trump Tax Plan Would Add to Debt and Hillary Clinton’s Wouldn’t, Study Finds

By JACKIE CALMES, OCT. 11, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10...ry-clinton.html?_r=0

Hillary Clinton greeted supporters at a campaign rally in Miami on Tuesday. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The stark choice that Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump pose for voters goes as well for their revised tax plans: Mr. Trump would simplify the tax code but cut taxes mainly for the rich and add trillions of dollars to the federal debt, while Mrs. Clinton would do the opposite, an independent analysis released Tuesday concluded.

The review by the Tax Policy Center, a joint research arm of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, is the first to examine the plans since Mr. Trump significantly rewrote his proposal after criticisms of its costs and inequities and Mrs. Clinton on Monday proposed to double the existing tax break for parents with young children.

“They really couldn’t be more different,” Len Burman, director of the center and a professor at Syracuse University, said in a conference call with reporters.

It is unclear that either plan would pass in Congress. If Republicans keep control of the House, even if they lose the Senate, they would probably block Mrs. Clinton’s proposed tax increases. And while Mr. Trump’s plan is similar to one that House Republicans have outlined, many Republicans would probably object to its cost given the size and projected growth of the federal debt as an aging population drives spending higher.

Mr. Trump’s tax cuts would be the deepest ever, reducing revenue $6.2 trillion in the first decade and mostly benefiting corporations and the highest-income Americans, the center said. Some middle-income families, however, would receive a tax increase.

With interest, the cost would be $7.2 trillion over 10 years, nearly doubling the growth in the federal debt that is otherwise projected. The cost would build in subsequent decades, though Mr. Trump denounces the size of the debt at nearly every campaign appearance.

His campaign disputed the cost estimates, saying that the Tax Policy Center did not account for the economic benefits of his tax cuts and other policies on trade, energy and federal regulations. The center’s economists said they would have another analysis of both candidates’ plans within days that accounts for economic changes, but said it was unlikely to alter their conclusions much.

Mrs. Clinton would substantially raise taxes on high-income taxpayers, mostly on the top 1 percent; slightly reduce taxes on average for middle- and low-income households; and overhaul corporate taxes. Her plan would increase federal revenue $1.4 trillion over the first decade. Rather than lower the federal debt, however, Mrs. Clinton would use the money to pay for education and other initiatives.

While Mr. Trump, with exceptions, would simplify the tax code, Mrs. Clinton would make it more complex for taxpayers other than small businesses, the center said. For example, the wealthiest households would face a 4 percent surcharge on adjusted gross income exceeding $5 million, a minimum tax rate of 30 percent, a 28 percent cap on deductions and other tax breaks and a higher capital gains tax on assets held less than six years.

Donald J. Trump spoke at a campaign rally in Abridge, Pa., on Monday. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

President Obama has repeatedly proposed the minimum tax rate, known as the Buffett Rule for the supportive billionaire Warren E. Buffett, and the cap on deductions, both to no avail in Congress.

While Mr. Trump, in keeping with his populist message, frequently points to his proposal to end the so-called carried interest tax break for hedge fund operators and other investment managers, the center’s analysis reaffirmed that his tax plan actually gave them “a much better deal” than the existing tax break, Mr. Burman said.

Under current law, much of their income is taxed as capital gains, at a preferential rate of 23.8 percent instead of higher income-tax rates. Though Mr. Trump would repeal that break, his plan would allow money managers to pay a new 15 percent business rate and “retain a substantial tax advantage on their income compared with wage earners,” according to the center.

The Trump plan would give the richest 0.1 percent of taxpayers — those with incomes of more than $3.7 million this year — an average tax cut of $1.1 million, for a 14 percent increase on average in their after-tax income. The middle one-fifth of Americans by income would receive a tax cut increasing after-tax income less than 2 percent, on average, while the poorest fifth would get a break of less than 1 percent.

But many large families and single parents — a separate study put the number at about eight million families — would face tax increases under Mr. Trump’s proposals. That reflects his proposals to repeal personal exemptions and the head-of-household filing status.

Mr. Trump would reduce the top marginal tax rate for individuals, now 39.6 percent, to 33 percent, and the corporate rate to 15 percent from 35 percent.

The Trump campaign has sent contradictory signals about the candidate’s plan for owners of so-called pass-through businesses — sole proprietorships, partnerships and S corporations. Campaign officials have told the National Federation of Independent Business that such businesses could pay a flat 15 percent business rate instead of the generally much higher individual rates they currently pay but told accountants calculating the cost of the plan that they would get no such choice.

Absent clarification from the campaign, the center assumed that choice would be available and concluded the change could lead to significant tax avoidance — of income taxes and payroll taxes that finance Social Security and Medicare — as high-wage employees reclassify themselves as pass-through businesses for tax advantage.

Unlike Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump would also repeal taxes on the wealthy that help finance the Affordable Care Act, and eliminate estate and gift taxes. He would tax some capital gains at death and cap some itemized deductions, to hold down his plan’s costs.

Mr. Trump, in his plan, does not address the tax breaks so beneficial to real estate developers that may have allowed him to avoid federal income taxes for as much as 18 years. Roberton C. Williams, an economist at the tax center, said about one-tenth of 1 percent of high-income taxpayers avoided any federal income taxes.

But the number may be larger: Mr. Burman noted that Mr. Trump would not have qualified as rich in the years in question because of the big real estate losses he was claiming.

I'm looking at the difference in the ethnic make up of the two groups, What I see in that one pic, Clinton has four in Trump's we see one. It's as though Trump's supporters who are darker than he never show up at his rallies fearing the worse. Why do some still back that man?

While Donald Trump will always get support from various groups he will unfortunately have far less to be elected president of the US_of_A.

Ryan may have to watch his back after distancing from Trump

Alan Fram, The Associated Press, Published Wednesday, October 12, 2016 6:56PM EDT,  http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ry...from-trump-1.3112723

CTV News: Trump clashes with the GOP

WASHINGTON -- The escalating clash between Paul Ryan and Donald Trump is prompting warnings of retaliation against the speaker from rank-and-file House Republicans, suggesting a potential rebellion like the one that drove his predecessor into retirement and that could jeopardize his own hold on the post.

After months of a relationship that devolved from cool to frigid, Ryan told GOP lawmakers this week that he won't defend Trump or campaign with him and urged them to do whatever it takes to win re-election. That sparked a barrage of venomous tweets from Trump and warnings from some House Republicans that they might oppose the re-election of Ryan, R-Wis., as speaker.

"Given the stakes of this election, if Paul Ryan isn't for Trump, then I'm not for Paul Ryan," Rep. Jim Bridenstine, R-Okla., said Wednesday on Twitter.

Bridenstine is a conservative and a member of the House Freedom Caucus, which often bucks leadership. He backed Ryan when the House elected him speaker last October.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., who also supported Ryan then, hinted in an interview with The Associated Press that he might not favour keeping Ryan in the House's top job.

"I never doubted he should be speaker. However, if he can't prevent himself from panicking and helping the enemy in a situation like this, well, then we'll find out," Rohrabacher said Monday.

During a conference call in which Ryan told House Republicans of his plan, Rohrabacher called Ryan's decision "cowardly" and demanded that party leaders stop their "Trump can't win defeatism," according to three participants in that call.

Ryan's Monday conference call followed the release of a 2005 video showing Trump making vulgar comments about how he sexually pursued women. Ryan did not withdraw his endorsement of Trump, but said he will spend the remaining weeks before Election Day working solely to protect his party's control of the House.

"Speaker Ryan is fighting to ensure we hold a strong majority next Congress, and he is always working to earn the respect and support of his colleagues," AshLee Strong, his spokeswoman, said Wednesday.

Ryan's tactic has cheered many GOP lawmakers nervous that Trump's flagging candidacy could cost them their own jobs. But it has infuriated other Republicans and conservatives in and out of Congress, especially Trump's die-hard backers -- who consider Ryan's decision a betrayal that will weaken Trump's chances of winning.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said Ryan was under pressure from both Trump supporters in the House and lawmakers in districts where the presidential candidate is doing poorly and who "wanted some kind of cover or absolution" to abandon him.

"There wouldn't even be a vote for speaker if we ended up losing 30 seats or 35 seats," said King.

Ryan, still only 46, was his party's 2012 vice-presidential candidate and many think he could run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2020 or beyond. Losing an election for the speakership could be a blow to any loftier political ambitions.

Ryan succeeded former Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who retired last October after it became clear that opposition from conservatives meant he did not have the votes to retain his job.

The warnings by Bridenstine and Rohrabacher are significant because Ryan may not have many votes to lose when lawmakers decide who will be speaker in next year's Congress.

It has long appeared likely that the GOP will retain its House majority, but that now seems less sure as Trump's campaign faces major struggles. Democratic House gains appear certain, but Democrats would have to pick up 30 seats to win control.

House Republicans meet after the November elections to select their nominee for speaker. Ryan would then need 218 votes -- a majority of the chamber's 435 members -- to become speaker when the full House votes in January.

There are currently 246 House Republicans, plus a vacant seat they seem likely to retain.

But that number will likely shrink after Election Day, with GOP moderates among the likeliest to lose. That means a greater proportion of conservatives, some of whom are hostile to established GOP leaders, and indicates that Ryan may not be able to afford losing much support.

On Wednesday, Trump seemed to suggest without evidence that Ryan and other Republicans are involved in a "sinister deal" against him.

"There is a whole deal going on and we're going to figure it out. I always figure things out. But there's a whole sinister deal going on," Trump said while campaigning in Ocala, Florida.

Trump criticized Ryan for not showing support of his performance in the second presidential debate.