Details and Analysis of Hillary Clinton s Tax Proposals

Similar documents
Details and Analysis of Senator Bernie Sanders s Tax Plan

Details and Analysis of Dr. Ben Carson s Tax Plan

How do the 2016 Presidential Tax Plans Compare So Far?

The Economic Effects of Adopting the Corporate Tax Rates of the OECD, the UK, and Canada

A Dynamic Analysis of President Obama s Tax Initiatives

A Comparison of the Tax Burden on Labor in the OECD

A Comparison of the Tax Burden on Labor in the OECD By Kyle Pomerleau

Eliminating Double Taxation through Corporate Integration

Jobs and Growth Effects of Tax Rate Reductions in Ohio

Tax Subsidies for Health Insurance An Issue Brief

April 8,2005 JEFFREY KUPFER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PRESIDENT S ADVISORY PANEL ON FEDERAL TAX REFORM

Crunch or Crucible? Upcoming Changes in the Federal Tax Law A Special Edition Tax Guide for Friends and Alumni of Pomona College

UPDATED: Details and Analysis of The Nunes Plan to Reform Business Taxation

How To Know If A Health Insurance Tax Is Progressive

Corporate Income Tax Rates and Base Broadening from Income Shifting

The Tax (and Wage) Implications of Bernie Sanders s Medicare for All Health Plan

Reducing the Deficit by Increasing Individual Income Tax Rates

INCOME TAX REFORM. What Does It Mean for Taxpayers?

Post Election Focus: Stars, Stripes & Taxes

United States General Accounting Office. Testimony Before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate

Staying Healthy, Wealthy & Wise: The Aftermath of the Fiscal Cliff. Heather Kovalsky, CPA

TAX PROVISIONS IN THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT OF 2012 (ATRA) James Nunns and Jeffrey Rohaly Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center January 9, 2013

Highlights of the 2010 Tax Relief Act

Overview of the Philanthropic Impact of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

Capital Gains Taxes: An Overview

Taxing Capital Gains FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: To Build A Better Future For Our Children: WHAT ARE CAPITAL GAINS?

How To Get A Small Business Tax Credit

OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM AS IN EFFECT FOR 2013

NAR Frequently Asked Questions Health Insurance Reform

Governor Walker's Tax Reform Initiative. Wisconsin Department of Revenue February 2013

OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM AS IN EFFECT FOR 2012

The District of Columbia Considers Impressive Tax Reform Options

Taxes and Transitions

Five Flaws of the Current Pension System

Is the Tax Code the Proper Tool for Making Higher Education More Affordable?

What the federal tax system is costing you besides your taxes! Tax Compliance Facts

ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE TAX POLICIES OF THE KENNEDY AND JOHNSON ADMINISTRATIONS

The Impact of Proposed Federal Tax Reform on Farm Businesses

OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM AS IN EFFECT FOR 2015

New Legislation Enhances the Benefits of a Section 1042 Tax-Deferred Sale

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

How Much Do Americans Pay in Federal Taxes? April 15, 2014

The Tax Benefits and Revenue Costs of Tax Deferral

LIFE INSURANCE DIVISION

The 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief: The Benefit of Lower Tax Rates

2015 Individual Tax Planning Letter

Illustration of the President s Health Care Tax Initiative

Health-Related Revenue Provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L )

Tax Facts Quick Reference 2012

Obama Administration Budget Proposals Would Expand Impact on Tax-Favored Retirement Benefits

CTJ s Presidential Candidate Tax Policy Scorecard

The Revenue and Taxpayer Impacts of the Income Tax Provisions of SB 407

PATRICK J. RUBEY & COMPANY, LTD. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

2014 tax planning tables

The views and opinions expressed in this presentation are those of the author and presenter and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of

VERY FEW SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WOULD FACE TAX INCREASES UNDER PRESIDENT S BUDGET Vast Majority Would Benefit From Other Key Proposals

2014 Year-End Tax Planning Client Letter

INTERACTION OF AUTOMATIC IRAS AND THE RETIREMENT SAVINGS CONTRIBUTIONS CREDIT (SAVER S CREDIT)

The American Tax Relief Act of 2012 (HR 8, the Act )

What You Need to Know About Roth IRA Conversions in 2010

THE GRADUATED PERSONAL INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

The FairTax treatment of insurance

Reforming Our Tax System, Reducing Our Deficit

2016 Tax Planning & Reference Guide

Average Federal Income Tax Rates for Median-Income Four-Person Families

2013 TAX PLANNING TIPS FOR INDIVIDUALS

An Overview of The Tax Relief Act on 2010

AN ANALYSIS OF DONALD TRUMP S TAX PLAN

Effective Federal Income Tax Rates Faced By Small Businesses in the United States

What You Do Today Shapes Your Profits Tomorrow Top 10 Reasons to Start Tax Planning Now

Roth IRA. Answers. To Your. Questions

Hawaii Individual Income Tax Statistics

Congressional Budget Office s Preliminary Analysis of President Obama s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget

1040 Review Guide: MARKETS ADVANCED. Using Your Clients 1040 to Identify Planning Opportunities

SELECTED PROVISIONS OF MAJOR TAX LEGISLATION BY ACT 1981 to 2006 PROVISION ERTA 1981 TRA 1986 OBRA 1989 OBRA 1990 OBRA 1993 TRA 1997 EGTRRA 2001

June 4, Honorable Elizabeth Warren United States Senate Washington, DC Dear Senator:

What s New for the 2009 Income Tax Return and the 2010 Tax Year

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE CBO. The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009

OPTIONS TO REFORM THE DEDUCTION FOR HOME MORTGAGE INTEREST

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web

North Carolina s Reference to the Internal Revenue Code Updated - Impact on 2015 North Carolina Corporate and Individual income Tax Returns

2013 Year End Tax Planning Seminar

Federal Tax and Capital Gains: Rates Over Time

Stocks and Taxes Ordinary Income Versus Capital Gains Jobs & Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

2014 Tax Newsletter HIGHLIGHTS. Potential Tax Reform Income Tax Rates Tax Extenders. Repair Regulations. Affordable Care Act

Medicare's New Administration Budget For Retirement and Welfare Plans

2010 Update for The Case Approach to Financial Planning: Writing a Financial Plan

EXTENDING EXPIRING TAX CUTS AND AMT RELIEF WOULD COST $3.3 TRILLION THROUGH 2016 By Joel Friedman and Aviva Aron-Dine

How To Pass The 2001/2003 Tax Cuts

June 6, Honorable Elizabeth Warren United States Senate Washington, DC Dear Senator:

2008 Presentation created by: Michael E. Kitces, MSFS, MTAX, CFP, CLU, ChFC, RHU, REBC, CASL, CWPP

American Taxpayer Relief Act of UPDATED

AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT OF April 2000

ENTITY CHOICE AND EFFECTIVE TAX RATES

Revised April 26, Summary

PREVIEW. California Tax Facts. An Overview of the Golden State s Tax Structure

Client Tax Letter. Reducing Uncertainty, Increasing. Complexity. What s Inside. April/May/June 2013

Fixing the Corporate Income Tax

CAMP TAX REFORM DISCUSSION DRAFT PROVISIONS OF INTEREST TO COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Tax Provisions in Administration s FY 2016 Budget Proposals

Transcription:

FISCAL FACT Jan. 2016 No. 496 Details and Analysis of Hillary Clinton s Tax Proposals By Kyle Pomerleau and Michael Schuyler Economist Senior Fellow Key Findings: Hillary Clinton would enact a number of tax policies that would raise taxes on individual and business income. Hillary Clinton s plan would raise tax revenue by $498 billion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up collecting $191 billion over the next decade when accounting for decreased economic output in the long run. A majority of the revenue raised by Clinton s plan would come from a cap on itemized deductions, the Buffett Rule, and a 4 percent surtax on taxpayers with incomes over $5 million. Clinton s proposals to alter the long-term capital gains rate schedule would actually reduce revenue on both a static and dynamic basis due to increased incentives to delay capital gains realizations. According to the Tax Foundation s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would reduce GDP by 1 percent over the long-term due to slightly higher marginal tax rates on capital and labor. The Tax Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-partisan, non-profit research institution founded in 1937 to educate the public on tax policy. Based in Washington, DC, our economic and policy analysis is guided by the principles of sound tax policy: simplicity, neutrality, transparency, and stability. On a static basis, the tax plan would lead to 0.7 percent lower after-tax income for the top 10 percent of taxpayers and 1.7 percent lower income for the top 1 percent. When accounting for reduced GDP, after-tax incomes of all taxpayers would fall by at least 0.9 percent. 2016 Tax Foundation Distributed under Creative Commons CC-BY-NC 4.0 Editor, Melodie Bowler Designer, Dan Carvajal Tax Foundation 1325 G Street, NW, Suite 950 Washington, DC 20005 202.464.6200 taxfoundation.org

2 Over the past few months, former Secretary of State and Senator Hillary Clinton has proposed a number of new and expanded government programs. 1 In order to pay for these new or expanded services, she has proposed raising and enacting a number of new taxes. Her plan would increase marginal tax rates for taxpayers with incomes over $5 million, enact a 30 percent minimum tax (the Buffett Rule), alter the long-term capital gains tax rate schedule, and limit itemized deductions to a tax value of 28 percent. Her plan would also restore the estate tax to its 2009 parameters and would limit or eliminate other deductions for individuals and corporations. Our analysis finds that the plan would increase revenue by $498 billion over the next decade. The plan would also increase marginal tax rates on both labor and capital. As a result, the plan would reduce the size of gross domestic product (GDP) by 1 percent over the long term. This reduction in GDP would translate into 0.8 percent lower wages and 311,000 fewer full-time equivalent jobs. Accounting for the economic effects of the tax changes, the plan would end up increasing federal tax revenues by $191 billion over the next decade. Details of the Plan Individual Income Tax Changes Creates a 4 percent surcharge on high-income taxpayers, which effectively adds an additional marginal tax rate of 43.6 percent for taxable income over $5 million and a 24 percent top marginal tax rate for qualified dividend and long-term capital gain income (Table 1). 2 Table 1. Table 1. Tax Brackets under Hillary Clinton s Tax Plan Ordinary Income Capital Gains and Dividends Single Filers Married Filers Head of Household 10% 0% $0 to $9,275 $0 to $18,550 $0 to $13,250 15% 0% $9,275 to $37,650 $18,550 to $75,300 $13,250 to $50,400 25% 15% $37,650 to $91,150 $75,300 to $151,900 $50,400 to $130,150 28% 15% $91,150 to $190,150 $151,900 to $231,450 $130,150 to $210,800 33% 15% $190,150 to $413,350 $231,450 to $413,350 $210,800 to $413,350 35% 15% $413,350 to $415,050 $413,350 to $466,950 $413,350 to $441,000 39.6% 20% $415,050 to $5 million $466,950 to $5 million $441,000 to $5 million 43.6% 24% $5 million and above $5 million and above $5 million and above Enacts the Buffett Rule, which would establish a 30 percent minimum tax on taxpayers with adjusted gross income (AGI) over $1 million. The minimum tax would phase-in between $1 million and $2 million of AGI. Caps all itemized deductions at a tax value of 28 percent. 1 Issues. Hillary for America. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/. 2 This excludes the impact of the 3.8 percent Net Investment Income Tax. If that surtax is included, the top tax rate on ordinary taxable income would be 47.7 percent, and the top tax rate on qualified dividends and long-term capital gains would be 27.8 percent.

3 Adjusts the schedule for long-term capital gains by raising rates on medium-term capital gains to between 27.8 percent and 47.4 percent (Table 2). Table 2. Top Marginal Long-Term Capital Gains Tax Rate Schedule under Hillary Clinton s Tax Plan Years Held Marginal Tax Rate Net Investment Income Tax Surtax on incomes over $5 million Combined Rate on Capital Gains Less than One 39.6% 3.8% 4% 47.4% One to Two 39.6% 3.8% 4% 47.4% Two to Three 36% 3.8% 4% 43.8% Three to Four 32% 3.8% 4% 39.8% Four to Five 28% 3.8% 4% 35.8% Five to Six 24% 3.8% 4% 31.8% More than Six 20% 3.8% 4% 27.8% Limits the total value of tax-deferred and tax-free retirement accounts.* Taxes carried interest at ordinary income tax rates instead of capital gains and dividends tax rates.* Enacts a new $1,200 tax credit for caregiver expenses.* Business Tax Changes Eliminates the deductibility of reinsurance premiums paid by corporations to foreign subsidiaries and provides an exclusion from income for reinsurance recovered for any arrangement where the deduction was disallowed. Establishes business tax credits for profit-sharing and apprenticeships.* Other Changes Restores the federal estate tax to 2009 levels. This would increase the estate tax rate to 45 percent and reduce the exemption to $3.5 million. Enacts a tax on high-frequency trading, at an unspecified rate.* Note: The asterisks (*) indicate provisions that were not modeled. For more information, see Modeling Notes, below. Economic Impact According to the Tax Foundation s Taxes and Growth Model, Hillary Clinton s tax plan would reduce the economy s size by 1 percent in the long run. The plan would lead to 0.8 percent lower wages, a 2.8 percent smaller capital stock, and 311,000 fewer full-time equivalent jobs. The smaller economy results from somewhat higher marginal tax rates on capital and labor income.

4 Table 3. Economic Impact of Hillary Clinton s Tax Reform Proposals GDP -1.0% Capital Investment -2.8% Wage Rate -0.8% Full-time Equivalent Jobs (in thousands) -311 Revenue Impact Overall, the plan would increase federal revenue on a static basis by $498 billion over the next 10 years. Most of the revenue gain is due to increased individual income tax revenue, which we project to raise approximately $381 billion over the next decade. The changes to the estate tax will raise an additional $106 billion over the next decade. The remaining $11 billion would be raised through increased taxes on corporations. If we account for the economic impact of the plan, it would end up raising $191 billion over the next decade. The slightly smaller economy would reduce wages, which would narrow the revenue gain from the individual income tax changes to about $173 billion and reduce payroll tax revenue by about $80 billion over the next decade. Table 4. Ten-Year Revenue Impact of Hillary Clinton s Tax Reform Proposals (Billions of Dollars) Tax Static Revenue Impact (2016-2025) Dynamic Revenue Impact (2016-2025) Individual Income Taxes $381 $173 Payroll Taxes $0 -$80 Corporate Income Taxes $11 $12 Excise Taxes $0 -$7 Estate and Gift Taxes $106 $102 Other Revenue $0 -$8 Total $498 $191 Note: Individual items may not sum to total due to rounding. The largest sources of revenue in the plan are the new taxes targeted at high-income taxpayers (Table 5). The introduction of the Buffett Rule, the 28 percent cap on itemized deductions, and the new 4 percent surtax on high-income taxpayers would raise about $755 billion on a static basis. On a dynamic basis they raise slightly less ($521 billion) due to their impact on the supply of labor and capital.

5 We estimate that Clinton s proposal to alter the schedule for long-term capital gains would end up losing $374 billion on a static basis. The higher rate for capital gains in the mediumterm (assets held between two and five years) would push people to realize their capital gains later. Overall, this would reduce the number of realizations, and even with higher rates, the policy will lose revenue. 3 Dynamically, the policy would lose slightly more revenue ($409 billion) due to its small impact on the cost of capital. Table 5. Ten-Year Revenue and Economic Impact of the Clinton Plan by Provision (Billions of Dollars, 2016-2025) Provision 10-Year Static Revenue Impact 10-Year Change in Level of GDP 10-Year Dynamic Revenue Impact Enact Buffett Rule 30 Percent Minimum Tax on Millionaires $321-0.39% $209 4 Percent Surtax on Taxpayers with Incomes over $5 Million $141-0.16% $95 Restore Estate Tax to 2009 Parameters $106-0.10% $76 Eliminate Deduction for Reinsurance Premiums Paid by Businesses $11-0.03% $2 Cap the Tax Value of Itemized Deductions at 28 Percent $293-0.24% $218 Adjusts the Schedule for Long-Term Capital Gains -$374-0.12% -$409 Distributional Impact On a static basis, Clinton s tax plan would only reduce the after-tax incomes of top-income taxpayers. Those in the top 10 percent would see a reduction in income of 0.7 percent. The top 1 percent of all taxpayers would see a 1.7 percent reduction in after-tax income. On a dynamic basis, the plan would reduce after-tax incomes by an average of 1.3 percent. All deciles would see a reduction in after-tax income of at least 0.9 percent over the longterm. Taxpayers that fall in the bottom nine deciles would see their after-tax incomes decline by between 0.9 and 1 percent. The top 10 percent of taxpayers would see a reduction in after-tax income of 1.7 percent. The top 1 percent of all taxpayers would see the largest decline in after-tax income: 2.7 percent. 3 Alan Cole, The Details of Hillary Clinton s Capital Gains Tax Proposal. Tax Foundation. July 28, 2015. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/ details-hillary-clinton-s-capital-gains-tax-proposal.

6 Table 6. Distributional Analysis for Hillary Clinton s Tax Plan Effect of Tax Reform on After Tax Income Compared to Current Law All Returns by Decile Static Distributional Analysis Dynamic Distributional Analysis 0% to 10% 0.0% -1.0% 10% to 20% 0.0% -0.9% 20% to 30% 0.0% -0.9% 30% to 40% 0.0% -1.0% 40% to 50% 0.0% -1.0% 50% to 60% 0.0% -1.0% 60% to 70% 0.0% -1.0% 70% to 80% 0.0% -1.0% 80% to 90% 0.0% -0.9% 90% to 100% -0.7% -1.7% 99% to 100% -1.7% -2.7% TOTAL FOR ALL -0.3% -1.3% Conclusion Hillary Clinton would enact a number of tax policies that would raise tax revenue over the next decade in order to fund new or expanded programs. Most of her policies raise tax revenue as designed, except for her capital gains policy, which would actually end up losing revenue both on a static and a dynamic basis due to the incentives it creates to hold on to assets longer. If enacted, her tax policies would impose slightly higher marginal tax rates on capital and labor income, which would result in a reduction in the size of the U.S. economy in the long run. This would decrease the revenue that the new tax policies would ultimately collect. The plan would lead to lower after-tax incomes for taxpayers at all income levels, but especially for taxpayers at the top.

7 Modeling Notes The Taxes and Growth Model does not take into account the fiscal or economic effects of interest on debt. It also does not require budgets to balance over the long term, nor does it account for the potential macroeconomic or distributional effects of any changes to government spending that may accompany the tax plan. We modeled the revenue and economic impacts of the tax provisions outlined above except for the taxation of carried interest at ordinary income tax rates, 4 the new tax credit for profit sharing, the new credit for caregiver expenses, the IRA limitation, and the new tax on highfrequency trading. The omissions were due to either data limitations or insufficient details from the candidate. We do not model any potential transitional costs associated with the plan. The proposal to alter the long-term capital gains schedule was modeled by taking into account behavioral effects of shareholders, who react to the higher tax rates on mid-term capital gains by delaying their realizations. We used an elasticity derived from research by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation. 5 Consistent with the Clinton campaign s pledge not to raise taxes on households earning less than $250,000, we assumed that the new schedule for long-term gains only would apply to the top marginal tax rate of 20 percent. We assumed that the 28 percent limitation on itemized deductions was consistent with the policy proposed by President Obama, which would limit the tax value of itemized deductions to 28 cents on the dollar. We assumed that the reinsurance proposal was similar in content to legislation introduced by Representative Richard Neal and Senator Bob Menendez. 4 This proposal would raise approximately $1.3 billion per year, according to other estimates. Estimated Budget Effects Of The Revenue Provisions Contained In The President s Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Proposal. Joint Committee on Taxation. https://www.jct. gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4739. 5 Dowd, Tim, Robert McClelland, and Athiphat Muthitacharoen. New Evidence on the Tax Elasticity of Capital Gains. Joint Working Paper of the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office. June 2012. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/ files/112th-congress-2011-2012/workingpaper/43334-taxelasticitycapgains_0.pdf.