Over the final few months of the election, In Theory will be asking policy experts to weigh in on the critical questions our presidential candidates should be addressing — but often aren’t. This week, we’re discussing tax policy solutions for wealth inequality.

In the years after the Great Recession, public discussion of the gap between the richest and poorest Americans has risen from a whisper to an uproar. Wealth inequality is one of the most talked-about issues in this electoral season.

After a surprisingly robust Democratic primary challenge from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who made the widening gap between the top 1 percent and the rest of Americans the centerpiece of his campaign, Hillary Clinton has clearly taken the fight against inequality to heart (or at least to her campaign). Her platform includes proposals for a progressive tax structure with “fair share surcharges” on multimillionaires.

Donald Trump has spent much of his campaign railing against the rich and well-connected, but, in a nod to Republican orthodoxy, offered a tax proposal that would cut rates for top earners. And although he promised to close the “carried interest loophole,” which allows some investment managers to reduce the taxes they owe on investment gains, many of his other tax proposals — such as eliminating the estate tax and offering a tax deduction for child care — wouldn’t help most of the earners who fall into low-income brackets. These proposals further muddle the Republican stance on inequality, which has long been unclear. Can tax policies reduce inequality? And what specific policies should the next president embrace?