Final Debate Yields Few Details on Candidates’ Tax Policy

Oct 21, 2016

Reading Time : 3 min

By: Matthew Thomas, Senior Public Policy Specialist

Third Presidential Debate

Tax policy was largely overshadowed by the candidates’ larger attacks on their respective economic plans, with each candidate criticizing the other and stating that their opponent’s plan would result in job losses, poor economic growth and tax increases.

When questioned on her plan to improve the economy, Secretary Clinton reiterated the basic tenets of her economic platform—to lower tax rates for middle-class earners while increasing tax rates on wealthy individuals and corporations in order to pay for increased spending on social programs such as education and health care. Secretary Clinton stated that only those individuals earning more than $250,000 per year would see an increase in tax rates. When questioned on whether she would enact policies to prevent Social Security and Medicare programs from running out of funds, Secretary Clinton indicated that she would use revenue gained from tax increases on wealthy earners, specifically, by raising the payroll tax wage cap, to replenish the Social Security Trust Fund. Mr. Trump responded to the question by saying he would cut taxes, but did not explain how he would boost revenue for the two entitlement programs, except to say that his plan would produce “tremendous” economic growth.

Mr. Trump criticized Secretary Clinton’s plan, arguing that it would increase tax rates for all earners. Mr. Trump restated his plan to use lower tax rates to repatriate foreign corporate earnings. When questioned by moderator Chris Wallace over several analyses of his tax plan, which conclude that it would increase the national debt and fail to result in the economic boost he claims, Mr. Trump refuted such analyses and pivoted away from the question by criticizing U.S. free trade agreements.

Outlook

As evidenced by the discussions during each of the three presidential debates, tax policy has become a lesser issue in this controversial campaign season, with the possible exception of Mr. Trump’s failure to release any of his tax returns. While the candidates have formulated comprehensive tax plans (detailed in an explanatory chart available here), they have released the details of their plans in piecemeal fashion over the course of the past several months.

As stated above, Secretary Clinton’s plan emphasizes raising revenue through increased tax rates on corporations and wealthy earners, such as the so-called Buffett tax on high-earners, while lowering rates for the middle-class and using the additional revenue to pay for social programs and possibly infrastructure investments. She has also proposed a number of tax credits aimed at reducing the burdens of costs for families, including child care, education and health care. While her plan would seek to eliminate loopholes and other tax provisions that advantage corporate employers, she has proposed tax credits for businesses that share profits with employees, hire additional workers and invest in economically distressed areas of the country.

In contrast, Mr. Trump has developed a tax plan that seeks to simplify the tax code and lower taxes for both middle-class and wealthier earners by reducing the existing seven individual tax brackets to three lower-rate brackets. Mr. Trump’s plan would also reduce the corporate tax rate to 15 percent and provide a one-time, 10 percent tax rate for the repatriation of foreign earnings. Mr. Trump has said he would repeal or eliminate many deductions for wealthier individuals (with the exception of the mortgage interest and charitable giving deductions), while increasing deductions (though he provides little specifics) for middle-class earners. He has also proposed to cap the total amount of itemized deductions that could be claimed at $100,000 for single filers and $200,000 for joint filers.

With the election less than three weeks away, current polling suggests that Secretary Clinton is likely to win the presidency. What remains to be seen is whether Republicans will retain their majorities in the House and Senate. Any change in control of either chamber increases the chances for Secretary Clinton (should she be elected) to successfully implement parts or all of her tax plan. Given that much of her domestic policy planning will require significant revenue increases, it is possible that her efforts to advance those policies will include a piecemeal approach to tax policy rather than the pursuit of comprehensive reform. Secretary Clinton has promised that she would seek to work with Republicans (who, at this point in time, are expected to at least retain control of the House) on all issues, which leaves open the door to a continued debate over comprehensive tax reform in the 115th Congress.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.