Both Trump and Clinton have proposed massive infrastructure investments to create jobs and improve the condition of America’s roads, bridges, rail lines, airports, and more. But they’ve both been, at times, vague about how they’d pay for it. Clinton has proposed $275 billion in new spending, and her website claims she’d pay for the improvements through “business tax reform.” But a recent report from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found her corporate tax proposals would only net $150 billion over a decade – how would she make up the remainder?
A new analysis estimates Hillary Clinton’s tax and spending proposals would have a relatively modest effect on the national debt, while Donald Trump’s fiscal plans would sharply boost deficits and the debt over the next decade. The report from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that advocates debt reduction, examines the fiscal proposals of both candidates as of Sept. 21.
John Dickerson: Let me ask you about debt, you mentioned debt. You have worked with the Center [Committee] for a Responsible [Federal] Budget. They have scored the Trump plan as created $5.3 trillion in increased debt.
The advisers think Trump's plan will boost U.S. annual economic growth from an average of 2 percent, as many forecasters expect, to an average of 3.5 percent, creating millions of additional jobs in the process. They also think that, coupled with spending cuts, the plan will generate additional tax revenue that will make up for all the revenue lost from his tax cuts — between $4.4 and $5.9 trillion, by one analysis — meaning that the plan would not add to the deficit. The independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget disagrees with that assessment, projecting Trump would in total add $5.3 trillion to the budget; its analysis did not account for any higher growth from the plan.
Clinton has made childcare and early childhood education a key plank of her campaign...She also has proposals to lower the cost of childcare for families, and particularly for parents who are also college students. She hasn't talked a lot about how she would pay for these proposals, which the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates could cost up to half a trillion dollars.
Trump is proposing to increase the national debt significantly over the next 10 years. As CNBC reported last week, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that the Trump plan would increase the debt by $5.3 trillion over the next decade, “26 times more than Hillary Clinton’s plan ,” which would only increase the debt by $200 billion over the same period.
According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates fiscal restraint, Clinton's updated estate tax and other new proposals would generate $260 billion over the next decade. That same think tank analyzed both Clinton's and Trumps's tax and spending proposals and found that Trump's would increase the debt 26 times more that Clinton's.
"Both candidates have focused on the importance of growing the economy but they haven't recognized that getting the debt under control is a huge piece of growing the economy." – Maya MacGuineas
On Thursday, Hillary Clinton drastically increased the top rate in her estate-tax plan, calling for Uncle Sam to impose a 65 percent tax on the assets of people who die with more than $500 million in wealth to their names. Clinton also unveiled new rules for the taxation of inherited capital assets...Taken together, these two proposals would generate $260 billion over the next decade, which Clinton would use to finance some tax cuts on small businesses and an expansion of the child tax credit. (The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan entity that urges fiscal restraint, says that her math checks out).
Under the Clinton plan, the heir would pay taxes on the difference between the cost of the stock when it was first purchased and last sold, in this case the entire $99 difference. Experts for the watchdog group Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimate that this change could raise $150 billion in new revenues over a 10-year period.