The 1980s and 2000s offered little evidence to support trickle-down economics, the idea that tax cuts for the rich fertilize wage growth for the poor. Economic stagnation may be the great challenge of our time, but starving social insurance programs to give million-dollar tax cuts to the top 0.1 percent is an awfully bizarre strategy to grow the middle class. Yet apparently, that’s Trump’s strategy.

Here are the TPC’s estimates for how Clinton and Trump’s plans would change each households’ post-tax income—from the poorest 20 percent to the richest 0.1 percent.

Comparing Trump and Clinton’s Tax Plans

Thompson/TPC Data

On taxes, U.S. public opinion is clear: Americans want the rich to pay more, which means they side with the Clinton plan. In 2016, more than 60 percent of respondents told Gallup that upper-income households pay "too little" in taxes. This year is no outlier. More than 60 percent of respondents said the rich should pay more in 2012, and 2008, and 2004, and in every survey conducted between 1992 and 2000. Judged purely on the basis of the numbers in his plan, Trump’s tax policy seems to embrace the Paul Ryan wing of his party rather than the repeatedly-expressed interest of surveyed voters.

But wait: Whatever his stance on income taxes may be, doesn’t Trump deserve some credit for at least trying to raise other taxes on the richest households? In one of the more substantive portions of Sunday’s debate, he called for closing the so-called “carried interest loophole,” which gives hedge-fund managers a tax break on the income they earn from their clients before taking a cut of their fund’s total growth. It is one of the most egregious parts of the tax code; as former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers once said, “Rarely has a policy existed so long with such weak arguments in its favor.” Trump didn’t just slam the policy; he also accused Clinton of refusing to tweak carried-interest laws because they benefit her rich buddies in the investing community.

But there are three significant problems with Trump’s claim. First, Clinton had no power to single-handedly change the tax treatment of carried interest as a New York senator; in fact, it was the Republican President George W. Bush who threatened to veto laws to raise the tax. Second, as the TPC analysis confirms, “Clinton would tax ‘carried interest’ as ordinary income” and raise taxes on capital gains held between one and six years, to encourage investors to make more long-term investments. Third, although Trump criticized tax breaks for investors at Sunday’s town hall, his plan would in fact create new tax breaks for those same investors. As TPC explains:

Under [Trump’s] proposal, carried interest would be treated as labor income subject to ordinary income tax and payroll tax. However, hedge funds and private equity partnerships, which earn a substantial portion of income in the form of carried interest, would qualify for the special 15-percent business tax rate and thus would retain a substantial tax advantage on their income compared with wage earners.

In short, Trump would close the carried-interest loophole, only to open a nearly identical loophole for many of the same people, thus allowing him to criticize tax breaks for the rich while offering the rich even more tax breaks. And guess which sort of businesses would most benefit from this tax alteration? Closely held businesses, like Trump’s.