The objective of this thesis is to provide rigorous analysis of 2016 presidential candidates' tax proposals outside of the sensationalized context of mainstream media and political discourse. Specifically, I studied the tax plans of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders and compared them on their implications for economic inequality. I read a broad range of materials on the proposals and then compared and contrasted them on four points which are especially revealing of broader trends in American political economy. I found that Cruz and Rubio's plans are consistent with the literature on the increasing influence of radical conservative ideology. Sanders's approach gives voice to class indignation and inserts progressive economic theory back into mainstream political discourse in a way that has not been seen in more than thirty years. Clinton's proposals demonstrate conservative economic ideology and indicate the under-representation of redistributive economics by the Democratic Party. Because the effects of candidates' proposals are not consistent with campaign rhetoric, citizens cannot readily connect policies and their implications, thus undermining American democracy.