Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Eliminating the National Debt


Donald Trump's Unusual Plan to Lower the National Debt: Sell Off Government Assets

As president, Donald Trump would sell off $16 trillion worth of U.S. government assets in order to fulfill his pledge to eliminate the national debt in eight years, senior adviser with the campaign Barry Bennett said.
"The United States government owns more real estate than anybody else, more land than anybody else, more energy than anybody else," Bennett told Chris Jansing Sunday on MSNBC. "We can get rid of government buildings we're not using, we can extract the energy from government lands, we can do all kinds of things to extract value from the assets that we hold."
In a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he would get rid of the $19 trillion national debt "over a period of eight years." The article noted that most economists would consider Trump's proposal impossible, as it could require slashing the annual federal budget by more than half.
Glenn Kessler, who writes the Post's Fact Checker column, deemed the plan "nonsensical" and gave it "Four Pinocchios." Kessler assessed that even if Trump were to eliminate every government function and shut down every Cabinet agency, he would still be short $16 trillion.
"We regret we have only Four Pinocchios to give for this whopper," Kessler said. "Trump is insulting the intelligence of Americans for making such a claim in the first place."
However, when pressed on whether the United States could sell off $16 trillion worth of assets, Bennett responded affirmatively on Sunday.
"Oh, my goodness," he said. "Do you know how much land we have? You know how much oil is off shore? And in government lands? Easily."
The federal government's assets totaled $3.2 trillion as of September 2015, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. However, that does not include include stewardship assets or natural resources.


  1. Awaiting the howls from the left on why this can't be done.

    1. Meanwhile back at the ranch the US continues to spend over half of government spending on 2 entitlement programs which are growing in size every year.

      Trump like Clinton are hucksters willing to say anything to be elected.

  2. "Postscript: I’m probably tilting at windmills here, but it’s worth noting from time to time that we’re stuck in the wrong conversation. Reducing the deficit and paying off the debt probably shouldn’t even be seen as worthwhile goals, at least in the short term.

    As Matt Yglesias noted the other day, “As of March 30, the inflation-adjusted interest rate on 30-year bonds was a staggeringly low 0.86 percent, and the inflation-adjusted interest rate on five-year bonds was an even more staggeringly lower negative 0.26 percent. Global investors, in short, are very eager to buy the federal government’s bonds. So eager that they have pushed the interest the government needs to pay down to freakishly low levels – below zero for shorter-term securities.”

    With conditions like these, the fiscally responsible move would be to borrow like crazy and invest heavily in domestic infrastructure. But that won’t happen, in part because Americans elected a Republican Congress, and in part because of faulty assumptions about the deficit and the debt being “bad” problems in need of a solution. Trump’s nuts for thinking he can pay off $19 trillion in debt in eight years, but the angle to this that too often goes overlooked is the fact that paying off the national debt isn’t even a good idea."

    -Rachel Maddow

    1. I still contend, we would not get away with what we get away with if we did not have the military ability to simply go and take what we want. I personally don't believe people want to buy our debt with a less than one percent return. But they do so because it is a security denominated in dollars.

    2. Being the prettiest pig in the pen has it's advantages.

      In December 2014, the RMB surpassed the Canadian and Australian dollars to become the world’s fifth-most-used currency for trade settlement. According to Deutsche Bank, in 2013, 17 percent of China’s trade was settled in RMB, up from almost nothing in 2009.

    3. To me Lou, THAT is the thing to watch. When the US has serious competition for being the reserve currency, that is when the rest of the world will make us play by the rules we dictate to everyone but never play by ourselves.

    4. And unfortunately it will be to late and all our excesses will catch up with us.

  3. Yglesias does bring up a couple of questions that've been on my mind a lot over the last few years, William, and I genuinely want to hear your (and anyone else's) take: How big a deal is the debt and if it is a critical concern, why?

    Again, I'm not trying to troll here. I'm asking for an explanation and I'd appreciate your response cuz I know this is a huge issue for you. Also, feel free to chime in Max, Lou, TS, etc. All you guys know more about this stuff than me.

    First, let me provide some context for my perspective.

    At this point in my life, I'm basically just a suburban mom. When I hear a number like "$19 trillion", it does sound ominous and intimidating but it's also fairly nebulous. It's a number that's so infathomably huge that it's almost meaningless. $19T might as well be $119T to me. I guess my question is why is it Armageddon if the debt hits $25T?

    Secondly, why the urgency? It took decades - centuries - for the debt to pile up, why do deficit hawks talk like it needs to be paid off by the end of the month? Is someone gonna shut off our electricity? If it is important to pay off (or down at least) it seems to make sense to me to allow a reasonably similar time frame to do so. Am I wrong about that?

    Third, why do we care? It mean, I am concerned and obviously it is better not to owe than it is to owe, at least that's true for me and my family, but my family doesn't print the reserve currency for the world nor do we possess command over an overwhelmingly powerful military force to back us up if we did. I read a conspiracy theory once that the real reason the US invaded Iraq was that Saddam threatened to sell his oil in Euros. I don't know if there's any truth to that, but it sounds like something I might do if I had the means and the sovereignty of my reserve currency was threatened. Who's gonna mess with us and who's gonna try to collect?

    Next question, who do we owe that money to? I know the Chinese owns $2+ trillion, the Saudis, maybe a trillion, and maybe there's $2-3T spread out between some other foreign powers, but rest of that, say $12-13T is owed to ourselves, right? I mean, aside from a dollar dump (which would also wreck their own economies), what is the big pressing concern here?

    Europe's got issues. The Chinese juggernaut has hit a huge speed bump (I haven't read any articles about the Yuan as the inevitable new RC lately), and everyone's running to the dollar as mentioned in your post. If our debt is such a ticking time bomb, why is everyone scrambling to the dollar? Is it just that the dollar is the least ugly girl left at the bar at last call or is it because it's a solid investment?

    Finally, what do you think the economic shockwaves would be if we did pay off the $19T debt in 8 years? I think it could be a disaster but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

    Whew ... Sorry. Long post. From my phone too - l have no idea if it makes any sense, lol. I hope it does and I look forward to any replies.

    1. Hey pfunky.
      The debt isn't the issue. The interest on the debt becomes the issue.
      As long as we remain at near zero percent interest rates and the 10 year is at 3% the interest on 19 trillion is quite manageable when the government pays itself (SS debt/Federal reserve debt) interest. When the interest rates on the debt increase and it will one day the amount required to service the debt increases. Today SS and healthcare spending is near 2.1 trillion. The rest of government spending 1.9 trillion. SS spending and Healthcare spending and interest are increasing every year.

      At what point is government spending unsustainable? How do you control the growing spending needs of entitlements and debt interest? Something will have to change as the debt grows larger increasing interest required to service the debt.
      The one factor in debt interest that has yet to come into play is risk factor. One day investors will demand a risk premium for US debt.

      Why the urgency? Do the math. At 10 trillion and 4% interest, the interest was high but manageable. Today 19 trillion at 3%. Do the math at 3% of 25 trillion. Add in 1 trillion for SS and pension and growing. Add in 1.1 trillion for healthcare and growing. Now recalculate the interest on 19 trillion at 4%.
      When do we reach the unsustainable?

      12-13T is owed to ourselves, right?

      There are 2 categories of US debt holders.
      The public, which includes foreign investors and domestic investors.
      Federal accounts, also known as intragovernmental holdings.

      The Government holdings represent 38% of debt today.

      The public/international investors/state and local governments needs to be paid interest.

      The government is a ledger transaction moving interest from the treasury to the Fed reserve and back to the treasury SS debt works the same way. Government holdings shrink public holding get larger.

      The risk is increasing interest rates held artificially low by the Federal Reserve.

      China is the manufacturing center of the world thanks to the US and our trade policies. If you think about it, the world hovers near recession as does the US. It would be expected that manufacturing/China's GDP would slow as less is consumed. The challenge is for China to manufacture goods the average Chinese citizen can afford stimulating their economy.

      Not to worry about paying off the debt. Nothing but rhetoric and impossible with today's economy and spending demands.

  4. Let me say that I admire anyone who can type like that on a phone. I'm struggling this evening on my phone. Your long and considered questions are appreciated and I will attempt to flesh out my views over a couple of reply's.
    A couple of thoughts this evening.

    When I started my building career I built and sold modest homes with a good profit for $19,900. Today the same homes sell for around $250,000.

    In the early 70's I would purchase gas for my trucks at about $.30/gallon. I remember during my days at Clemson purchasing gas for my VW Bus for $.14/gallon. We have had a break recently and I purchased gas today for $1.69. Over the past few years levels have been in the $3-4.00 range.

    My Dad retired comfortably during the late seventies on rental income from a number of homes he had built and owned. He probably had about a quarter of a million in assets and felt very secure. My wife and I are in the middle of another round of financial planning for our retirement. I won't pass along the target figure but you can extrapolate the amount from some of the other examples provided above.

    Needless to say that inflation has changed the profile of savers and investors. Max sometimes pines about the income divergence amoung various economic classes. I feel for Max, as I feel for my children as they attempt to secure a comfortable retirement. Will they need another ten timer to satisfy the ledger as I have? If so how does one project to save $30-40 million over their employed years?

    On the other side of the coin are those already in retirement who are trying to benefit from interest on their savings. Due to the massive national debt and the need for low rates to insure it's service the artificially low rates seriously hurt these savers.

    I tire and will continue tomorrow with more thoughts. I suggest you look and ponder some of the other figures associated with the debt clock. More on compounding and big numbers tomorrow.

  5. Hey Funky,

    I think Lou and William said some good stuff. Here's my spin. I agree in principle with what Lou is saying, when rates start to rise, our debt is going to become a burden. I also agree that the areas of the budget where the overwhelming majority of money is spent is medical costs and social security. We can fix the latter, but I don't see anything right now that is really addressing medical costs. To me, we can't do anything about our debt until we first fix our budgets. Fixing the budget is one piece. If we continually spend more than we take in, our debt will grow, same as it did when I was in my middle 20's and got in credit card trouble. Even if we found a way to spread the pain of cuts across every socioeconomic group, I personally believe there would be one sticking point we will would never get past. The sticking point would be the need to run a budget surplus until we paid down the debt. IE spend less than we take in, and use that money to buy back our debt. We had this in 1999, and we promptly destroyed it with tax cuts in 2000 and also promptly resumed our climb in debt.

    To what Lou said, I agree in principle. It will be much harder to carry debt when interest rates go up. Where I diverge is that I still believe there needs to be some catalyst that causes the rest of the world to stop buying our debt. For 15 years, I watched the treasury literally issue billions of dollars of debt every single month. Over and over and over, I asked the traders I talked to "Isn't there some point where people just stop buying it". They told me no, and regardless of how baffled I remained at that reality, it didn't stop. Somewhere out there, I think there is a catalyst that will make countries say, "Enough is enough". While it may be painful to pay higher interest rates, if countries keep buying our debt, I don't think that will do it. Related to what I said up top, I personally continue to believe that as long as the dollar remains strong, people will keep buying our debt and as long as they keep buying it, we will keep pushing the day of reckoning down the road.

    In Williams comment, which was quite good, William hit on one of my favorite things to bitch about, which is income and wealth inequality. Older folks typically were savers and used to make a pretty decent return with low risk. Greenspan slammed that door in their face by lowering and lowering and lowering rates. Now those people are in serious trouble unless they saved a shit ton of money. But for younger people, as Mitt Romney famously said, half the working population doesn't pay any taxes. My spin is that they don't any taxes because they don't make enough money to do so. Others spin that quite differently. To me, because they can't make enough money to pay taxes, they likely also spend less on a lot of other things, which is a drag on the economy. If they made enough to pay taxes, we would have more income to the treasury, more money circulating in the economy, and less inequality. We've chosen, however, to keep this the way it is and then we bitch when people apply for food stamps.

    At the other end, you have people like Romney who make all their money via investing, who pay 13% net taxes. Other professionals, like Doctors and so on, pay higher rates than that. Something seems seriously wrong to me with that reality. As I said on that long thread way way back, I believe we have created a situation where the money that keeps growing way way up at the top is dead money. The tie in to this discussion is that we see little investment in America, coupled with the use of deployment of every strategy known to man to avoid paying taxes. So the bottom doesn't pay taxes, and the top does everything they can, IMO, to dodge as much tax as possible. We will not pay down debt, or grow the economy, IMO, if we remain committed to keeping the status quo.

    1. The sticking point would be the need to run a budget surplus until we paid down the debt. IE spend less than we take in, and use that money to buy back our debt. We had this in 1999, and we promptly destroyed it with tax cuts in 2000 and also promptly resumed our climb in debt.

      Wasn't it a factor of the dot com recession in 2000 that spurred the effort to get out of the recession followed by 9/11? The mistake republicans make is that what worked no longer works. Tax cuts were great for stimulating the economy in the past when more people paid taxes. Today it no longer works as near half the country doesn't benefit as they pay no taxes.

      My spin is that they don't any taxes because they don't make enough money to do so.
      People pay local taxes for local services. State taxes for state services. Yet they are to poor to pay for Federal Services. People in the 60's made little however paid taxes. People did not have cell phones, cable, air conditioning, LED TV's iPods, iPads, Internet etc. That makes no sense. Could it be that restructuring the tax system has been a great way to garner votes?

    2. I partially agree with your second para. Tax cuts were a campaign promise of W and Gore to some degree. We were getting tax cuts period, the dot com bust had nothing to do with that. I also partially agree with the idea that the mistake was in enacting the same policy that had outlived it's ability to work. My believe is that supply side works when rates are so high that it kills any incentive. Weren't rates like 70% when Reagan took office? At some point, liquidity is not the issue. I'll agree a tax cut is no use to someone who doesn't make enough to pay federal taxes, then again, it also doesn't help to keep getting more productivity and profit out of workers without giving them a raise. Again, my belief that piling a shit ton of money into a few hands does nothing.

      I think the 60's analogy is a little disingenuous. I found this calculator http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/items/1960-united-states-minimum-wage this is also an interesting link to compare prices of commodities and other things http://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/1960-61.pdf to say that people didn't have all those things you listed is along the lines of Alan Greenspan's hedonics argument. Those things didn't exist back then. Poor or not, as you say, families got by on one income with a parent staying at home. They typically had a car, at least one tv and while they may not have made a TON of money, many people had pensions, which we have utterly destroyed today.

      The second website I posted there said that median family income was 5,620 which is 44,825 in today's dollars. Average family income in 2014 was 53,657, and that's likely with two people working in the house instead of one. It's become the rage these days it seems to claim how good the poor here have it. I'm not buying it. People have a bunch of gadgets and comfort measures, but decreased upward mobility.

      I don't know what to say about that last sentence. Typically, I hear it thrown out there as a claim that our benefits are SOOOOOOOOOOOOO juicy for the poor, that they vote democrat to get free shit. Arguably, I don't know any way you could convince me that poor people voting democrat have someone been given a kingdom of riches compared to wealthy people who vote Republican and get tax breaks that put real money in their pockets.

    3. Despite the tax cuts you rail about Max we raise record levels of taxes every year. Imagine if we actually displayed some growth how high the tax revenues would be.

      At the end of the day we spend to much.....and grow to little....and waste to much.

    4. And that is the reality of today.

    5. But it doesn't have to be the reality of tomorrow.

    6. Obama promised he would do on the campaign.

      Obama pledged tax cuts of $500 for each worker and $1,000 for working couples.

      Obama has signed off on three major tax cuts.

      The Making Work Pay tax credit that was part of the economic stimulus of 2009.

      A temporary reduction in Social Security payroll taxes that went into effect in 2011.

      Obama signed a law permanently extending the Obama/Bush rates on incomes below $450,000 for families and $400,000 for individuals.

      Not to mention:
      Obama also has passed an array of tax cuts for small businesses.

      Eight of them were included in the stimulus, the Affordable Care Act (also known as the health care law), and the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (also known as the HIRE Act). Among the cuts were the exclusion of up to 75 percent of capital gains on key small business investments; a tax credit for the cost of health insurance for small business employees and new tax credits for hiring Americans out of work for at least two months.

      Another eight cuts came via the Small Business Jobs Act, signed by Obama in September of 2010. These included: adding deductions for business cell phone use; creating a new deduction for health care costs for the self-employed; allowing greater deductions for business start-up expenses; eliminating taxes on all capital gains from key small business investments, and raising the small business expense limit to $500,000.

      Three months later, the president signed a tax bill that raised the expense limit to 100 percent of small business new investments until the end of 2011. It also extended the elimination of capital gains taxes for small business investments through the end of 2012.

      And for 2015:
      Dozens of tax breaks will be extended or made permanent, including some for low-income families, renewable energy development and businesses.

      He also reversed the sequester spending cuts, MORE SPENDING PLEASE.

      And the left complains about Republicans cutting taxes when they are equally as guilty.

      And yes William, it will be our reality as both parties are the same.

  6. "Despite the tax cuts you rail about Max we raise record levels of taxes every year. Imagine if we actually displayed some growth how high the tax revenues would be. At the end of the day we spend to much.....and grow to little....and waste to much."

    William, I really don't disagree with anything here, and Lou, taxes right now are really not my issue. In part, I think you genuinely believe this stuff, and the other part is that I think you enjoy yanking my chain because you know the romantacized views you espouse will get a rise out of me.

    I am far far more concerned about income inequality, not just because I allegedly want us all to wear Mao jackets, but because I believe this is a genuine drag on the economy and I believe we are not going to grow our economy again until we address it. I think it's very simple, if people who spend most of their paycheck take home less year after year, the economy is going to shrink. It's not like there hasn't been profit, or improved productivity out of hourly workers in particular, we've just chosen to send that income upward.

    I have been very lucky. I have reinvented myself several times. for a variety of reasons, including lack of willingness in some cases, a lot of American workers have not been able to do this. The capitalist mind set says, "too fucking bad" if you can't compete and reinvent yourself. And we h ave plenty of that attitude today from those who haven't suffered and haven't had to start way behind everyone else.

    To some degree, I do say American workers have a chunk of culpability in the decline of their lifestyle. They bought the foreign shit and they assumed their jobs would be there forever because it had been like that for their parents. Nonetheless, here is the situation we face, we have millions of people making shitty wages, gobs of millions who don't pay taxes because they don't make enough to do so, and we have an economy that is sputtering along with no real growth that will be self sustaining. So we can all argue all these political points and pick who we want to blame and finger wag, but until we see money circulate in this economy in a way that fosters more and more growth of small businesses that help local communities thrive, we will continue to see what we see right now and we will keep having the same useless arguments.

    1. Interesting that you could remake yourself over the years. I also have remade myself several times.

      Have you ever asked yourself why the people that are not keeping up have not remade themselves?

      Income inequality is an interesting topic as people scream about CRO's making so much yet few say a word about athletes who make millions for playing a sport. Football, plays 11-14 games per season and they make millions. Brady had a signing bonus of 28 million bucks.

      Income inequality is unjust when it is brought about by government interference in the marketplace. It's unjust, for example, when government prohibits the sale of incandescent light bulbs at a buck for a 4 pack and make people buy LED's for 5 bucks a pop.

      Income inequality hurts the coal miners when Obama says he will close all the coal companies via EPA regulations putting thousands that make a good living out of work.

      Income inequality hurts the middle class as government continues to approve free trade agreements transferring middle class jobs for cheap junk. NAFTA was a boon to Mexico. Manufacturing transferred to Mexico cheaper to bring the products back to the us. Mexican truck drivers can not deliver goods from Mexico directly to the distribution center in the US putting US truckers out of business.

      Isn't a factor of income inequality government regulations and interference? Th lack of people moving ahead to the next step or remaking themselves?

    2. Actually, I think are quite a few people who point out how ridiculous it is that we pay athletes what we do, and I also think it is ridiculous what actors make. They are not in a position, however, to determine the income of others, CEO's are.

      Fracking and the falling price of oil is doing far more damage to the coal industry than Obama, IMO. But, bringing them up highlights your second question. Why should coal miners be any different from other people when it comes to asking why don't they reinvent themselves.

      I see no single answer. I was able to reinvent myself because when I was younger, there were enough jobs that I could make a fair amount of lateral moves with only a high school education. This is no longer true. I also think that education is a big piece of it. If you are mid 40's with only a high school education, reinvention is that much more difficult. But I also think that a lot of people just don' want to do it. Coal miners are no different from auto workers or middle managers in a back. People don't want to embrace change and perpetually be in competition. They want comfort.

      You successfully pivoted from what I was saying to explain that no matter what the problem is, it's always the fault of the government.

    3. But I also think that a lot of people just don' want to do it.

      And there is one of the major problems coupled with the assistance of government.

      As a side note, would Mexican drivers be delivering goods portal to portal without NAFTA?
      Would manufacturing jobs have been transferred to low cost nations without free trade agreements?

      Is income inequality a function of government and government intervention, the greedy few, a function of the natural order of some people are smarter than others?

  7. Great posts, gentlemen! Thank you.

    One question, what do you think the economic repercussions would be if we did pay off the $19T in 8 years?

    1. But then again, is there a choice to address the debt or not?

      Although fiscal irresponsibility has worsened the budget outlook, the long term driver of rising debt remains the rapid growth of entitlement spending and interest on the debt. CBO projects 83 percent of the $2.7 trillion spending rise between 2015 and 2026 is from Social Security, health care, and interest.

      The budget outlook could be even worse than projected if lawmakers continue to pass legislation without truly offsetting its costs.
      For example, if lawmakers fully repeal (and don’t offset) future “sequester” cuts, continue various temporary tax breaks, and repeal the Affordable Care Act taxes delayed last December, debt would rise well beyond the projected $23.8 trillion (86 percent of GDP) by 2026, to $25.5 trillion (92 percent of GDP) in that year


  8. Easier said than done. Took far more than 8 years to get into debt and it will take far more to get out of debt.

    Taxes would need to be increased as well as spending cuts across the board.

    The resulting recession would make 08 look like a mild recession should anyone try and eliminate the debt in 8 years.

    Step one would be to raise taxes, 45% of workers would no longer be exempt and Max would get his wish of hammering the wealthy.

    Step 2 would be to review every spending program and eliminate waste, consolidate duplicate programs into 1 program. Eliminate departments than no longer serve the American people.

    Unfortunately some people with free phones would no longer have free phones, Many collecting subsidies and free healthcare would no longer get their subsidies and free. Many would be dropped from the food assistance rolls. Medicare would cost more for those eligible. All in medicare would be means tested, some would be back to paying for their healthcare. SS means testing would happen eliminating benefits for many.
    The list is endless of cuts that would need to be made just to balance the budget.

    Not balancing the budget and reducing the debt will be far more severe. The question is, do we take the pain today or the real pain in the near future should be continue down this destructive path.

    Personally, I believe we have reached the point of no return.

    1. Although the federal government brought in a record of approximately $1.48 trillion in revenue in the first half of fiscal 2016, according to the Treasury, it also spent approximately $1.94 trillion, leaving a deficit of approximately $461 billion.


    2. During an interview with the editorial team of the New York Daily News, Hillary Clinton admitted her tax proposals will increase taxes on the American people by at least $1 trillion over the
      Clinton: I have connected up my proposals for the kind of investments I want to make with the taxes that I think have to be raised. So on individual pieces of my agenda, I try to demonstrate clearly that I have a way for paying for paid family leave, for example, for debt-free tuition. So I would spend about $100 billion a year. And I think it's affordable, and I think it's a smart way to make investments, to go back to our economic discussion, that will contribute to growing the economy.

      Now I'm well aware that this is a heavy lift. I understand that. But I think connecting what I'm asking for to the programs, to the outcomes and results that I'm calling for give me a stronger hand, and that's how I'm going to go at it.

      Daily News: So if I understand you correctly, if you look at your proposals for college costs and for family leave, for infrastructure investments...

      Clinton: Well, that's a little bit different, because infrastructure investment, I'm still looking at how we fund the National Infrastructure Bank. It may be repatriation. That's one theory, or something else. It's about $100 billion a year.

      Daily News: A hundred billion a year, so that comes out to about a trillion dollars...

      Clinton: Over ten.

      Daily News: ...over ten years.

      Hillary’s $1 trillion tax increase takes the form of several proposals:

      $350 Billion Income Tax Increase for a “New College Compact” – Clinton has proposed a $350 billion income tax hike in the form of a 28 percent cap on itemized deductions.

      $275 Billion Business Tax Increase for “Infrastructure”—Clinton has called for a tax hike of at least $275 billion through undefined business tax reform. According to the Clinton campaign document, “Hillary will fully pay for these [Infrastructure] investments through business tax reform.”

      $400 Billion “Fairness” Tax Increase -- According to her published plan, Clinton has called for a tax increase of “between $400 and $500 billion” by “restoring basic fairness to our tax code.” These proposals include a “fair share surcharge,” taxing carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and raising the Death Tax.

      However, Clinton has also proposed several tax increases not included in the tally above. Because her campaign has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals, the true figure is likely much, much higher than $1 trillion.

      For instance:

      Capital Gains Tax Increase -- Clinton has proposed an increase in the capital gains tax to counter the “tyranny of today’s earnings report.” Her plan calls for an overly complex, byzantine capital gains tax regime with six brackets for those whose total taxable income puts them in the top 39.6 percent bracket. Her campaign has not said how much this will increase taxes.

      Tax on Stock Trading -- Clinton has proposed a new, unquantified tax on stock trading. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Inevitably, costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts.

      “Exit Tax” – Clinton has proposed a series of measures aimed at corporate inversions including an “exit tax” – on income earned overseas. The term “exit tax” is used by the campaign itself. This proposal would completely fail to address the underlying causes behind inversions. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will raise $80 billion in tax revenue, but claims some of the $80 billion will be plowed into tax relief. It does not specify a dollar amount.

      Read more: http://www.atr.org/hillary-confirms-trillion-dollar-tax-hike-plan#ixzz45hgaMXz3 
      Follow us: @taxreformer on Twitter