Newsmax TV & Webwww.newsmax.comFREE - In Google Play
Newsmax TV & Webwww.newsmax.comFREE - On the App Store
Tags: peter morici | hillary clinton | donald trump | economy

Peter Morici: Hillary 'More Stable' for Stocks but Trump 'Better for Economy'

(AP Images)

By    |   Thursday, 13 October 2016 03:22 PM EDT



Economist and professor Peter Morici told Newsmax TV that while a Hillary Clinton presidency would be “more stable” for the stock market, a Donald Trump White House would be better for the economy in the longer run.


“I think it's fair to say that a Clinton victory would be more stable for the stock market than a Trump victory simply because he represents change,” said the professor at the University of Maryland Smith School of Business and former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission.


“But longer term, a Trump victory would be better for the economy than for the stock market because his policies would be more conducive to growth,” the Newsmax Finance Insider told Miranda Khan on “America Talks Live” on Newsmax TV.


See JD Hayworth and Miranda Khan on Newsmax TV: Tune in beginning at 1 PM EDT to see "America Talks Live" – on FiOS 115, YouTube Livestream, Newsmax TV App from any smartphone, NewsmaxTV.com, Roku, Amazon Fire – More Systems Here


Public opinion is viciously split as to how Trump and Clinton would guide the economy.

A recent analysis reported that Clinton and Trump's tax plans are "mirror images" of one another, with the Democrat proposing steep tax hikes on the wealthy while the Republican candidate proposes even deeper reductions in the taxes paid by America's richest people.

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers would pay $800,000 more in taxes on average under Clinton's plan while Trump's plan, their taxes would decline by more than $1 million.

The study found that Trump's proposed cuts would cost $6.2 trillion over 10 years while Clinton's would raise $1.4 trillion in new revenue over that time period -- money the Democrat proposes using for new government programs, the Associated Press reported.

The analysis does not account for the possible economic effects of the tax plans. The Trump campaign has already complained to the Tax Policy Center that it is failing to account for the growth that it says the GOP nominee's tax cuts would unleash. But the analysts predicted that Trump's plan would hurt economic growth by running up large deficits that cause interest rates to soar, cutting into the economy.

In contrast, an analysis by the Tax Foundation, which advocates for lower taxes, found Trump's proposal could create $2 trillion in new tax revenues by triggering growth. But even that analysis found it would leave a net deficit and that more of its benefits would accrue to wealthier taxpayers.

Clinton's tax hikes would fall almost exclusively on businesses and taxpayers in the top 1 percent. The analysis found that some of the cuts in the plan — including a doubling of the child tax credit the Clinton campaign announced Tuesday morning — could lead to a 1 percent increase in income for the poorest 20 percent of U.S. households.

By contrast, Trump would cut taxes for most, but not all, Americans. The analysis found Trump would cut the average tax bill by $2,940, or 4.1 percent. But those in the top 0.1 percent would have their bill reduced by 14 percent, or $1.1 million.

Because of the way it changes standard deductions, the Trump proposal would actually raise taxes for an undetermined number of middle-class and lower-income households that have many children or are headed by a single parent, the analysis found.

Meanwhile, Clinton’s proposed tax increases on people with high incomes and on businesses would constrain economic growth, leading to lower wages and about 697,000 fewer jobs, according to a right-leaning policy group’s analysis.

The Democratic presidential nominee’s tax plan, which includes proposals to raise taxes on multimillionaires and impose a “financial risk fee” on banks, would change economic behavior enough to reduce U.S. gross domestic product by 2.6 percent over the long run, according to a study prepared by the Washington-based Tax Foundation. In that slightly smaller economy, wages would be 2.1 percent lower, Bloomberg quoted the report as saying.

(Newsmax wire services contributed to this report).

Peter Morici is an economist and business professor at the University of Maryland, and a national columnist. He tweets @pmorici1

To read more from Morici, CLICK HERE NOW.

© 2023 Newsmax Finance. All rights reserved.

Economist and professor Peter Morici told Newsmax TV that while a Hillary Clinton presidency would be "more stable" for the stock market, a Donald Trump White House would be better for the economy in the longer run.
peter morici, hillary clinton, donald trump, economy
Thursday, 13 October 2016 03:22 PM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Sign up for Newsmax’s Daily Newsletter

Receive breaking news and original analysis - sent right to your inbox.

(Optional for Local News)
Privacy: We never share your email address.
Join the Newsmax Community
Read and Post Comments
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
Get Newsmax Text Alerts

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved