Clinton’s Tax Plan Won’t Just Hurt High Earners

Dallas, TX (8/25/2016) Hillary Clinton’s tax plan would hurt most taxpayers – not just the rich, according to a new study from the National Center for Policy Analysis’ Tax Analysis Center.

“The tax increases proposed by Hillary Clinton would increase federal tax revenues by an estimated $615 billion over the period 2017-2026, an increase of 1.5 percent,” says Dr. David Tuerck, NCPA Senior Fellow and co-author of the study. “Second, the great bulk of the incremental revenue – 86 percent – would come from those in the top tenth of the income distribution. The proposed changes would thus be sharply progressive, but given that most taxpayers would pay more in taxes, it would do almost nothing to increase ‘tax fairness’ as Clinton would define it.”

The NCPA study results are based on modeling of the U.S. economy for the NCPA’s Tax Analysis Center, in partnership with NCPA Senior Fellow Dr. David Tuerck and his team at the Beacon Hill Institute in Boston.

The distributional analysis found that:

  • The top 10 percent of earners would lose nearly 2 percent of broadly measured income in 2017 alone.
  • This is not surprising considering Clinton’s motive for taxing the rich, but what is particularly startling is that incomes in all other deciles except for one would also fall.
  • In fact, the poorest 10 percent would lose 0.7 percent of their broadly measured income. This is the largest loss among the bottom 90 percent of the population!

“Clinton’s plan to promote equity and fairness in the economy means that everybody will suffer,” says NCPA Senior Fellow Pam Villarreal, who authored a short analysis of the study. “Slowing economic growth hurts even the lowest income earners.”

Earlier this week, the NCPA released a companion study on the economic effects of Clinton’s tax plan, which found that the plan would fund tens of thousands of government jobs at the cost of five times as many private sector jobs, while lowering personal income, GDP and business investment.

The Distributional Effects of the Clinton Tax Proposals