Democrats in 2016 are making the case that using the tax system fairly aggressively to counteract inequality and boosting G.D.P. can actually be complementary. PHOTOGRAPH BY WIN MCNAMEE / GETTY

With all the attention given to whether Donald Trump would accept the results of the election, one major claim made by Hillary Clinton at last week’s Presidential debate was all but overlooked by the general public. Three times during the proceedings, Clinton asserted that her economic proposals—which call for about $1.65 trillion in additional spending over the next ten years on infrastructure, health care, education, and other items in the federal budget—wouldn’t “add a penny” to the national debt.

Clinton’s words prompted some dismissive scoffs from conservative observers, and they sent me searching for independent analyses of her plans. Fortunately, there are at least three of them, and they all indicate that while Clinton is probably exaggerating when she says she won’t “add a penny” to the debt, her campaign has, in fact, gone to great lengths to find ways to pay for her proposals. Most notably, Clinton has proposed a series of tax hikes on the ultra-rich. If all these tax increases were enacted, her economic plan may still increase the national debt, but only by about twenty billion dollars a year—a small fraction of the over-all level of debt, which is about $19.7 trillion.

Where Clinton’s plan would have a big impact is on the after-tax incomes of many of the richest people in the country. Here are some numbers from a newly updated analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute:

• About ninety-two per cent of the Clinton tax increase would fall on the richest one per cent of the population—people who earn at least $699,000 a year.

• These high earners would face, on average, a tax increase of $117,760. They would see their after-tax incomes reduced by 7.4 per cent.

• Nearly two-thirds of the Clinton tax increase would fall on the richest 0.1 per cent of the population—people with annual incomes greater than $3.75 million.

• These ultra-high earners would face, on average, a tax increase of about $800,000. They would see their after-tax incomes reduced by 10.8 per cent.

Clinton has made no secret of her intention to raise taxes on the rich. Understandably, she has spent little time laying out the details of the increases she is proposing. If she spelled out how much more money the wealthy would be paying to the U.S. Treasury under a Clinton Administration, some of her well-heeled donors might have second thoughts. In any case, there are five main ways in which the Clinton tax plan would hit the very rich: