TRUMP AGENDA - The Tax Windfall That Wasn't

"The tax windfall that wasn't: A troubling new IRS report suggests many Americans may be giving money right back to the government" by Alex Raskolnikov, Daily News 11/1/2018

Americans like their tax refunds.  Refunds are good for tax administration, too.  Plenty of evidence shows that tax compliance is higher when taxpayers see refunds on their tax returns.

But millions of Americans looking forward to their tax refunds are about to be disappointed, even upset.  They will not see their expected refunds when they file their returns in 2019.  Even worse, many will be required to pay extra taxes.  Why the change?  The Republicans’ push to sell their tax law to the American public is the culprit.

The tax law signed by President Trump in December of 2017 made many changes to the tax code.  The standard deduction increased, but the personal exemptions disappeared.  Business owners got a rate cut but the deduction for state and local taxes shrunk.  Mortgage interest deduction became less generous, but child credit expanded.  Because of all these changes and many others, the withholding form that every American employee filed with his or her employer became outdated when 2018 arrived.

Employers needed new information from employees to keep the refunds roughly the same.  But getting this information would take time.  And Republicans wanted American workers to see tax savings from the 2017 tax law in their paychecks right away, before the 2018 midterm elections — whether these savings were real or not.

So the IRS took a leap of faith, came up with an updated withholding schedule as best it could, and told employers to follow it going forward.  The IRS then tried to convince Americans to do a “paycheck checkup” using its new “withholding calculator” to make sure that the employers’ withholding is not grossly off the mark.

Well-intentioned, but how realistic?

Democrats had doubts about the Republican tax strategy all along.  Ron Wyden (D-Ore) the highest ranking Democrat on the Senate tax-writing committee, warned all the way back in January that “the Trump administration is tampering with Americans’ paychecks, resulting in a whopping tax bill next year.”  The Trump administration dismissed these concerns as “ridiculous.”

At first, it seemed that the rushed implementation of the new tax law was not going to create a big problem.  At Democrats’ request, the Government Accountability Office evaluated the new withholding regime and issued a report in July.  The report concluded that the number of taxpayers who will have to pay extra tax rather than get a refund may increase by 3 million in 2018.  Not chump change, but nothing earth-shattering either given the total of 150 million returns filed.

But last month a new report became public.  This one came from the IRS Information Reporting Advisory Committee.  And this new report drops a few troubling hints.

The IRS decision not to wait until employers obtain the necessary information from the employees, the report explains, “may cause a significant number of taxpayers to be under-withheld when they file their 2018 personal income tax returns.”  The IRS calculator, it turns out, did not exactly catch fire.  “Despite the IRS’s efforts to inform taxpayers to check their withholding and encourage the use of the ‘calculator’ on the IRS website, usage of the ‘calculator’ through completion has been minimal because of the complexity (per IRS comments).”

How concerned is the Advisory Committee about a major increase in the number of “under-withheld” taxpayers who will have to pay extra tax during the filing season?  Concerned enough to officially recommend that the IRS waive penalties for under-withholding.

That’s right, if you did nothing during 2018 about your taxes at all, you may end up owing not just extra taxes, but penalties as well — all because the IRS decided to rely on the old forms that you may have given to your employer years ago.  The idea, of course, was for you to “start seeing a lot more money in your paycheck” as soon as possible, as Trump said.  Unfortunately, all that money can come right out of your bank account in a few months, and then some.

If the IRS Advisory Committee is worried, you should be as well.  So do yourself a favor — check that IRS withholding calculator.  You may need to cut back on your holiday shopping after that.

Raskolnikov is 'Wilbur H. Friedman Professor of Tax Law' at Columbia Law School.

TRUMPONOMICS - What Wage Growth?

"Why hasn’t the GOP tax bill supercharged wage growth?" PBS NewsHour 5/4/2018

Answer:  Because 'trickle-down economics' is a GOP lie, and Trump always lies.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The U.S. jobless rate is the lowest it's been in 17 years and President Trump claimed credit in his address to the NRA, saying the GOP tax cuts are part of the reason.  But while companies have reported a very profitable first quarter, wage growth remains sluggish.  Has the tax law really translated into the hiring that was promised?  William Brangham talks with Jim Tankersley of The New York Times.

TAXING MATTERS - 2018 Tax Year

"Know your rights and other tips for filing your taxes this year" PBS NewsHour 1/3/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The IRS faces a time crunch to implement changes under the new tax law.  Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS, joins Lisa Desjardins to describe how the agency is getting up to speed and the resources available to taxpayers.

REPUBLICAN AGENDA - The Regressive Tax Plan (including final bill)

"How does the GOP tax plan affect you?  You asked, we answer" PBS NewsHour 12/13/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Republicans are poised to work out their differences on the tax overhaul bill, a major piece of legislation that could affect work, health care, education, charity and other facets of American life.  How does it affect you?  We received an avalanche of questions from viewers, and Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff to answer some of them.

"Republicans rush to finalize tax overhaul as roadblocks loom" PBS NewsHour 12/14/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Republicans are racing to keep their promise of sending a final tax overhaul bill to the White House by Christmas.  On Wednesday GOP lawmakers announced they reached a compromise in principle to bridge the House and Senate bills.  But with only two votes to spare, Senate Republicans are facing health issues and holdouts.  William Brangham reports on how the bill is shaping up.

"Who will reap the wealth of the GOP corporate tax cut?" PBS NewsHour 12/14/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The corporate tax rate is set to drop 14 percent under the new tax bill.  Will big businesses invest more in American plants and factories?  What will it mean for American workers?  Economics correspondent Paul Solman breaks down the numbers.

"What's in the GOP's final tax plan" by Jeanne Sahadi, CNN Money 12/17/2017

Well, that was fast.

Just six weeks after lawmakers and the public got their first glimpse of the first draft of a tax overhaul bill, Republicans on Friday released their final version.  They aim to pass it next week and send it to President Trump for his signature.

The final bill still leans heavily toward tax cuts for corporations and business owners.  But it also expands or restores some tax benefits for individuals relative to the earlier bills passed by the House and Senate.

The individual provisions would expire by the end of 2025, but most of the corporate provisions would be permanent.

All told, the final bill includes trillions in tax cuts, most of which but not all are offset by revenue-raising measures.  The bill on net would increase deficits by an estimated $1.46 trillion over a decade, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.  That number would be much higher if, as Republicans assume, a future Congress does not allow the individual tax cuts to expire after 2025.

One important note:  The bill would not affect 2017 taxes, for which Americans will start filing their returns in a month or so.

With that, here's a quick rundown of 16 key provisions in the final bill.

FOR INDIVIDUAL FILERS

1.  Lowers (many) individual rates:  The bill preserves seven tax brackets, but changes the rates that apply to: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%.

Today's rates are 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35% and 39.6%.

Here's how much income would apply to the new rates:
-- 10% (income up to $9,525 for individuals; up to $19,050 for married couples filing jointly)
-- 12% (over $9,525 to $38,700; over $19,050 to $77,400 for couples)
-- 22% (over $38,700 to $82,500; over $77,400 to $165,000 for couples)
-- 24% (over $82,500 to $157,500; over $165,000 to $315,000 for couples)
-- 32% (over $157,500 to $200,000; over $315,000 to $400,000 for couples)
-- 35% (over $200,000 to $500,000; over $400,000 to $600,000 for couples)
-- 37% (over $500,000; over $600,000 for couples)

2.  Nearly doubles the standard deduction:  For single filers, the bill increases it to $12,000 from $6,350 currently; for married couples filing jointly it increases to $24,000 from $12,700.

The net effect:  The percentage of filers who choose to itemize would drop sharply, since the only reason to do so is if your deductions exceed your standard deduction.

3.  Eliminates personal exemptions:  Today you're allowed to claim a $4,050 personal exemption for yourself, your spouse and each of your dependents.  Doing so lowers your taxable income and thus your tax burden.  The GOP tax plan eliminates that option.

For families with three or more kids, that could mute if not negate any tax relief they might get as a result of other provisions in the bill.

4.  Caps state and local tax deduction:  The final bill will preserve the state and local tax deduction for anyone who itemizes, but it will cap the amount that may be deducted at $10,000.  Today the deduction is unlimited for your state and local property taxes plus income or sales taxes.

The SALT break has been on the book for more than a century.  The original House and Senate GOP bills sought to repeal it entirely to help pay for the tax cuts, but that met with stiff resistance from lawmakers in high-tax states.

Residents in the vast majority of counties across the country claim an average SALT deduction below $10,000, according to the Tax Foundation.  So for low- and middle-income families who currently itemize because of their SALT deduction, they're likely to take the much higher standard deduction under the bill if it becomes law, unless their total itemized deductions, including SALT, top $12,000 if single or $24,000 if married filing jointly.

Preserving the break -- albeit with a cap -- is likely to provide more help to higher income households in high-tax states.

5.  Expands child tax credit:  The credit would be doubled to $2,000 for children under 17.  It also would be made available to high earners because the bill would raise the income threshold under which filers may claim the full credit to $200,000 for single parents, up from $75,000 today; and to $400,000 for married couples, up from $110,000 today.

Like the first $1,000 of the child tax credit, $400 of the additional $1,000 also will be refundable, meaning a low- or middle-income family will be able get the money refunded to them if their federal income tax liability nets out at zero.

Even with the additional $400 in refundability, however, 10 million children from working low-income families would receive only an additional $75 in benefit under the bill, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates.

6.  Creates temporary credit for non-child dependents:  The bill would allow parents to take a $500 credit for each non-child dependent whom they're supporting, such as a child 17 or older, an ailing elderly parent or an adult child with a disability.

7.  Lowers cap on mortgage interest deduction:  If you take out a new mortgage on a first or second home you would only be allowed to deduct the interest on debt up to $750,000, down from $1 million today.  Homeowners who already have a mortgage would be unaffected by the change.

The bill would no longer allow a deduction for the interest on home equity loans.  Currently that's allowed on loans up to $100,000.

8.  Curbs who's hit by AMT:  Earlier bills called for the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax.  The final version keeps it, but reduces the number of filers who would be hit by it by raising the income exemption levels to $70,300 for singles, up from $54,300 today; and to $109,400, up from $84,500, for married couples.

9.  Preserves smaller but popular tax breaks:  Earlier versions of the bill had proposed repealing the deductions for medical expenses, student loan interest and classroom supplies bought with a teacher's own money.  They also would have repealed the tax-free status of tuition waivers for graduate students.

The final bill, however, preserves all of these as they are under the current code.  And it actually expands the medical expense deduction for 2018 and 2019.

10.  Exempts almost everybody from the estate tax:  Unlike the House GOP bill, the final bill does not call for a repeal of the estate tax.

But it essentially eliminates it for all but the smallest number of people by doubling the amount of money exempt from the estate tax -- currently set at $5.49 million for individuals, and $10.98 million for married couples.  Even at today's levels, only 0.2% of all estates ever end up being subject to the estate tax.

11.  Slows inflation adjustments in tax code:  The bill would use "chained CPI" to measure inflation, which is a slower measure than is used today.  The net effect is your deductions, credits and exemptions will be worth less -- since the inflation adjusted dollars defining eligibility and maximum value would grow more slowly.  It also would subject more of your income to higher rates in future years than would be the case under the current code.

12.  Eliminates mandate to buy health insurance:  There would no longer be a penalty for not buying insurance.  While long a goal of Republicans to get rid of it, the measure also would help offset the cost of the tax bill.  It is estimated to save money because it would reduce how much the federal government spends on insurance subsidies and Medicaid.

The Congressional Budget Office expects fewer consumers who qualify for subsidies will enroll on the Obamacare exchanges, and fewer people who are eligible for Medicaid will seek coverage and learn they can sign up for the program.

But policy experts also note that the mandate repeal could raise premiums because more healthy people might decide to skip buying insurance.

FOR BUSINESSES AND CORPORATIONS

13.  Lowers tax burden on pass-through businesses:  The tax burden on owners, partners and shareholders of S-corporations, LLCs and partnerships -- who pay their share of the business' taxes through their individual tax returns -- would be lowered by a 20% deduction, somewhat less than the 23% called for in the Senate-passed bill.

The 20% deduction would be prohibited for anyone in a service business -- unless their taxable income is less than $315,000 if married ($157,500 if single).

14.  Includes rule to prevent abuse of pass-through tax break:  If the owner or partner in a pass-through also draws a salary from the business, that money would be subject to ordinary income tax rates.

But to prevent people from characterizing their wage income as business profits to get the benefit of the pass-through deduction, the bill would place limits on how much income would qualify for the deduction.

Tax experts nevertheless have warned that this kind of anti-abuse measure still presents taxpayers with a lot of opportunities to game the system, and favors passive owners of a business over active owners who actually run things.

15.  Slashes corporate rate:  The bill cuts the corporate rate to 21% from 35%, starting next year.  That's somewhat higher than the 20% called for earlier.  The increase was made to free up some revenue to accommodate lawmaker demands on other provisions.  The bill would also repeal the alternative minimum tax on corporations.

16.  Change how U.S. multinationals are taxed:  Today U.S. companies owe Uncle Sam tax on all their profits, regardless of where the income is earned.  They're allowed to defer paying U.S. tax on their foreign profits until they bring the money home.

Many argue that this "worldwide" tax system puts American businesses at a disadvantage.  That's because most foreign competitors come from countries with territorial tax systems, meaning they don't owe tax to their own governments on income they make offshore.

The final GOP bill proposes switching the U.S. to a territorial system.  It also includes a number of anti-abuse provisions to prevent corporations with foreign profits from gaming the system.

In the meantime it would require companies to pay a one-time, low tax rate on their existing overseas profits -- 15.5% on cash assets and 8% on non-cash assets (e.g., equipment abroad in which profits were invested), slightly higher than the rates in the Senate- and House-passed bills.

GOP TAX PLAN - The Republican Regressive Tax Attack on America

"What the GOP tax plan could mean for average taxpayers" PBS NewsHour 12/4/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The House and Senate are getting to work on reconciling the differences between their tax plans.  How will the provisions proposed by Congress affect middle- and lower-income taxpayers?  Miles O’Brien gets analysis from Lisa Desjardins (NewsHour), Veronique de Rugy of George Mason University, and historian and political analyst Thomas Frank.

"Do tax cuts spur growth?  What we can learn from the Kansas budget crisis" PBS NewsHour 12/7/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Four years ago, businesses in Kansas went from paying over 6 percent taxes to paying nothing at all, as part of a Republican experiment to boost the limp state economy.  But when the massive drop in tax revenue destabilized the economy lawmakers started slashing the budget and social programs and underfunding schools.  Economics correspondent Paul Solman reports on what happened next.

THE GIVEAWAY - Big Tax Breaks for the Rich

From the 'people' who think money is more important than funding programs for the poor and middle class.

"Who wins and loses in the GOP's proposed tax overhaul" PBS NewsHour 9/27/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump and congressional Republicans unveiled the most sweeping overhaul of the tax code in more than three decades.  Many details are not yet decided, but the president told supporters in Indianapolis that the current tax code is a “relic” that must be made simpler.  Judy Woodruff learns more from Greg Ip of The Wall Street Journal about the key changes in the proposal and its cost.

OPINION - Brooks and Dionne 8/12/2016

"Brooks and Dionne on the GOP's dilemma and the role of ‘common decency' in the campaign" PBS NewsHour 8/12/2016

Excerpts

SUMMARY:  Donald Trump made more controversial statements this week and remains behind in polls.  But it was not a great week for Hillary Clinton, either, more emails were leaked that could prove damaging.  Judy Woodruff speaks with David Brooks of The New York Times and E.J. Dionne Jr.  of The Washington Post about Republicans' quandary, the characters of the candidates, and “unimaginative” tax plans.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  And now back to the world of politics, and to the analysis of Brooks and Dionne.  That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne.

Welcome.

Mark Shields is away this week.

So, let's pick up, gentlemen, with where I left off a few minutes ago with Robert Costa of The Washington Post.

David, what a week for Donald Trump.  I guess we all thought maybe things were going to slow down, but first there was the comment about the Second Amendment that — seen by some as a threat to Hillary Clinton, and then the ISIS comments.

How do we interpret how Donald Trump is communicating with everybody?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  Well, this isn't a decision he is making.  It's a condition he possesses.

And we're not used to talking about the psychological mental health of our candidates.  And in some things, I think it's not fair to talk about his mental health, in terms of how he operates with his kids in his private life, but there is a such a thing as public psychology and political psychology.

And in public, he obviously displays extreme narcissism, but most of all, he displays a certain manic, hyperactive attention.  And so if you graph a Trump sentence, every eight-word verse, he's like associative thinking.

And there is a term in psychology called the flights of thought, where one word sets off an association, which sets off an association.  And as one psychiatrist said, compare his speeches to Robin Williams' monologues, but without the jokes, but with insults.

And so he's not in control of his own attention, I don't believe.  And, therefore, you get these rambling, weird sentences.  You get things he patently shouldn't be saying.  And then even this, I'm being sarcastic about the sarcasm, I'm obviously being sarcastic, and then maybe a fifth a second later, he said, but not that much.

So he is contradicting himself within 12 words.  And that's a condition.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  So, E.J., how are we to understand this, as people trying to understand this election?

E.J. DIONNE, Washington Post:  Well, I have been thinking about it, that there is the English language and then there's the Trump language.

And in the Trump language, words change their meaning day by day depending on his own political needs.  I won't go into the learned psychological explanation that David gave, but there are a lot of people now talking that way about him.

But, politically, he doesn't seem to care much about what he says.  He gauges the effect.  Sometimes, in the middle of a speech, he will change his direction if the audience doesn't like him.

And I had a very instructive trip this week to York, Pennsylvania.  It's a conservative county, Southern Pennsylvania, not far from here.  And one of the most interesting conversations I had was with Allison Cooper, the editor of The York Dispatch.

And talked about how people in this very Republican area — York City is Democratic, but the county is very Republican — are people who care about manners and decorum.  And she spoke about — what she said is, common decency is a core part of who people are.

And I think in this campaign, we have talked about soccer moms, we have talked about angry white men, and I think you're starting to develop common decency voters who are just reacting to what Trump says.

A Republican county commissioner I talked to up to there said that she's been active with veterans.  And after what Trump said about the Khan family and what he said about the Purple Heart, she said, I can't vote for him.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  The convention.

E.J. DIONNE:  And so something deep is happening, and it has nothing to do with ideology or even party.
-----
JUDY WOODRUFF:  Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump said something about their economic plans this week.

David, do we learn anything from this?  What’s the bright line between the two of them?

DAVID BROOKS:  Well, there certainly are bright lines.

I was depressed by both of them.

(LAUGHTER)

DAVID BROOKS:  I think the country, the economy has some new, genuine challenges.

We have had incredibly laggard growth.  Productivity increases have been meager and terrible. Hundreds — millions of people have dropped out of the labor force.  These have all happened this century.  And to me, what both Clinton and especially Trump did was have economic plans built for 1973, as if we’re going to have labor-rich manufacturing jobs come back.

Labor-rich manufacturing doesn’t exist anymore.  Manufacturing jobs are white-collar, Silicon Valley programmers or highly-skilled technicians.  They are not going to employ lots of people.  And so we had two economic plans that had, in my view, very limited growth agendas.

Infrastructure is good, but not it.  Very limited productivity agendas, and really nothing to help people who are out of the labor force.  So, they were so unimaginative.  They were sort of grab bags, in Clinton’s case, of either the normal policies that Democrats have been proposing 20 years, or, in Trump’s case, a mixture of weird things that are left over from supply-side and populism.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  How did you read all that?

E.J. DIONNE:  I saw — I thought there was more growth and sort of forward-looking stuff in the Clinton plan than David was.

I was particularly struck that she began her speech by talking about the inventiveness of companies in Michigan and how they were taking advantage of change.  And it reflected this issue that Democrats have to deal with.  They want to sort of talk about how things are a lot better than they were eight years ago — and they really are — but if they say that too much, they look out of touch with all the people who are hurting, whereas Trump, I thought, if you listened carefully, he’s giving the words to the workers and money to the rich.

The tax cuts that he has sort of make Reagan look like a — you know, almost like a Democrat.  I mean, these are steep tax cuts for the wealthy, getting rid of the inheritance tax, the estate tax, which would be particularly good, as Hillary Clinton loves to point out…

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Well, he’s trimmed some of the taxes…

E.J. DIONNE:  I’m sorry?

JUDY WOODRUFF:  He’s trimmed some of the tax changes he’s talked about.

E.J. DIONNE:  He trims it, but it’s still a huge tax cut, with nothing, no talk of compensation for the deficit or anything else.

And Hillary had fun saying that this is really good for Trump’s family and his friends, but it’s not clear who it’s going to help.

I don’t know what the net of this exchange is, but I think you’re seeing is, Clinton is not going to leave blue-collar voters to Trump.  She is fighting for them.  And a lot of what she’s done in the last two or three weeks has been to try to shore up her position in those swing states with a lot of blue-collar voters.

VOTE 2016 - Tax Proposals

"How the candidates' tax proposals highlight different economic priorities" PBS NewsHour 8/11/2016

The ultimate Flim-Flam Man ("Master of Back-Stabbing, Cork-Screwing, and Dirty-Dealing") vs Hillery.

Excerpts

SUMMARY:  Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both spoke about their intended tax policies this week.  On Monday, Trump proposed tax cuts for all, while on Thursday, Clinton pledged to increase taxes on the wealthy and use that money for the middle and lower classes.  Judy Woodruff speaks with Neil Irwin of the The New York Times and David Wessel of the Brookings Institution for analysis of both plans.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Few things are certain in life, and this year's presidential campaign has certainly defied tradition.  But when it comes to taxes, it's become clear there are pretty big differences between the two major party candidates.

Lisa Desjardins reports.  It's part of our ongoing look at issues shaping this election.

LISA DESJARDINS (NewsHour):  Taxes, among the most powerful of government policies, affecting how we live and work every day.  This week starts the first head-to-head policy speeches between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, starting with Trump Monday.

DONALD TRUMP (R), Presidential Nominee:  I am proposing an across-the-board income tax reduction, especially for middle-income Americans.

LISA DESJARDINS:  Trump's plan?  He would simplify the tax system to just three smaller rates and fewer deductions.  His top rate would be 33 percent vs. the current 39.6 percent.  We don't yet know who would see which rates.

He's more specific on the estate tax.  That's the tax on inheritances over $5.4 million.  Trump would eliminate that tax altogether, a big benefit for (big) farmers and wealthy families.  Republicans say it is fair and positive.

Hillary Clinton, in her economic speech in Michigan today, could not have disagreed more.

HILLARY CLINTON (D), Presidential Nominee:  Multimillionaires shouldn't be able to pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries.

(APPLAUSE)

LISA DESJARDINS:  Clinton would charge a minimum 30 percent tax on incomes over a million dollars, and she'd raise the total tax rate to 43.6 percent for those making over $5 million.  Clinton wouldn't change rates for the lower or middle classes.

Clinton charges that Trump's tax plan is a giveaway to the wealthy, especially one big change.

HILLARY CLINTON:  In his speech on Monday, he called for a new tax loophole — let's call it the Trump loophole — because it would allow him to pay less than half the current tax rate on income from many of his companies.

LISA DESJARDINS:  Clinton is talking about something complicated, but important, called pass-through income.  Here's how it works.

Classically, a business pays a 35 percent rate on taxable incomes.  But some businesses, where the owner or family is the business — think about attorneys with their own firms, for example — can pay using what's called a pass-through.  In that case, the business doesn't pay a corporate tax.  Instead, the company pays the owner and the owner pays an individual income tax of up to 39.6 percent.

This exists so the owner isn't taxed twice, as a business and individual.  Donald Trump's plan would cut all corporate taxes to 15 percent.  And he would set a new 15 percent rate for these pass-through incomes, a huge cut that could apply to his own businesses.  He responds that Clinton and Democrats overtax companies.
-----
JUDY WOODRUFF:  Neil, what about changes in the estate tax?  This is the tax people are charged when they die.  They pass on everything they have to their children and there’s a tax associated with that.  How do Clinton and Trump deal with that?

NEIL IRWIN:  Well, with Trump, it’s simple.  He wants to get rid of it entirely.

And one thing to remember, right now, the cutoff there for a married couple, it’s $10.9 million, meaning you have to be a multimillionaire when a person dies to face that tax at all.  He still wants to get rid of it.

Hillary Clinton wants to go the other direction, reduce those exemptions down to $7 million for a married couple.  So it would affect more people than it does now if Hillary Clinton got her way.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  And, again, what would the effect be on revenue, David?

DAVID WESSEL:  Well, we don’t get a lot of revenue from the estate tax.

We know the direction.  But I think what Neil says is really important.  So, of every 1,000 people who die in a given year, only two of them face the estate tax.  So, it affects only the very rich.  It’s almost more of a talking point than it is a real tax policy.