海角大神

While neither candidate said much new about taxes in last night鈥檚 presidential debate, both clearly described their vastly different visions of tax policy. It was a true Mars and Venus moment.听听

Donald Trump听听that cutting taxes on business and high-income households will generate an unprecedented burst of economic growth. By contrast, Hillary Clinton听听that improving access to education and helping middle-income families address kitchen table issues like child care and health care鈥攑aid for by tax increases on the same firms and 听individuals whose taxes Trump would cut--is the key to future growth.

Both are probably wrong.听 听

For Trump, it was old-school supply side tax policy: 鈥淚'll be reducing taxes tremendously, from 35 percent to 15 percent for companies, small and big businesses. That's going to be a job creator like we haven't seen since Ronald Reagan. It's going to be a beautiful thing to watch.鈥�

And a few minutes later, 鈥淢y tax cut is the biggest since Ronald Reagan. I鈥檓 very proud of it. It will create tremendous numbers of new jobs.鈥澨� And finally, when Clinton accused him of not paying any federal income taxes at all in past years, Trump replied that this was 鈥渟mart鈥� on his part.

Clinton鈥檚 view of the world could not be more different. This is how she put it:

鈥淚 want us to do more to support people who are struggling to balance family and work鈥�. So let's have paid family leave, earned sick days. Let's be sure we have affordable child care and debt-free college. How are we going to do it? We're going to do it by having the wealthy pay their fair share and close the corporate loopholes.鈥�

And in case you didn鈥檛 get it, this is what each said about the other鈥檚 tax plan:

Trump on Clinton:

鈥淵ou are going to approve one of the biggest tax increases in history.听You are going to drive business out.鈥�
听

Clinton on Trump:

鈥淲e鈥�need to have a tax system that rewards work and not just financial transactions. And the kind of plan that Donald has put forth would be trickle-down economics all over again. In fact, it would be the most extreme version, the biggest tax cuts for the top percent of the people in this country that we've ever had. I call it trumped-up trickle-down, because that's exactly what it would be.鈥�

First, a bit of dreaded fact-checking. Trump was wrong, at least about the original versions of both his plan and Clinton鈥檚. The version he proposed last year wouldn鈥檛 be the biggest since Ronald Reagan. It would be the biggest鈥攅ver--as a share of the Gross Domestic Product. And while the Tax Policy Center has not yet scored his latest version, it too will be very, very big.

As far as Clinton鈥檚 tax increases, Trump was wrong again. In her version from earlier this year, Clinton proposed raising taxes by about $1 trillion over 10 years, or about 0.5 percent of GDP. Her latest version, which TPC is also still analyzing, would be a somewhat bigger tax cut. But not by much. Since World War II, Congress has passed at least nine tax hikes that were bigger than what she鈥檚 proposed.

To see how their plans stack up with past tax changes, take a look at this 听听by Jerry Tempalski, a career analyst at the Treasury Department.

Would their plans unleash a burst of economic growth, as they promise? Unlikely.

Trump鈥檚 tax cuts would increase incentives to save, work and invest. Except for one problem: They鈥檇 add trillions of dollars to the budget deficit, which would drive up interest rates and very likely wipe out most or all of the benefits of his tax cuts.

By contrast, Clinton鈥檚 plan would provide some new tax subsidies for middle-income households with specific financial challenges, such as high medical or education costs. But these subsidies wouldn鈥檛 do very much to boost the economy, at least in the short run. And her tax increases on businesses and high-income households would likely reduce their incentives to save and invest.

So both were perfectly clear last night about what they鈥檇 do, at least when it comes to taxes. But both overstated the benefits of their ideas, Trump more than Clinton.

This article first appeared in .