Hillary Clinton’s plan focuses on increasing taxes on the wealthy. (Daniel Acker/Bloomberg)

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s plan to increase taxes on the wealthy would raise $1.1 trillion in new revenue over the next decade, but it also would cut incentives for investment and saving, according to an analysis released Thursday.

Clinton’s proposal stands in stark contrast to those put forward by Republican candidates, which call for massive across the board tax cuts that analysts project would cost the government trillions but that the candidates argue would help give the economy a jolt.

Under Clinton’s proposal, the top 1 percent of earners would pay for three quarters of the revenue gains, according to the analysis from the non-partisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

The analysis found the plan would have little impact on the overall size of the economy, but the federal debt would decline by around $1.2 trillion over a decade as a result of the revenue increases. But much of those gains would likely be eliminated by spending proposals that Clinton has discussed on the campaign trail, such as debt relief for college graduates with student loans and expanded early childhood education. The center’s analyses focus on candidates’ tax proposals not their corresponding spending plans.

Clinton has proposed a 30 percent effective tax rate for anyone earning more than $1 million with an additional 4 percent surtax on income over $5 million. Her plan would also increase the estate tax and limit deductions for wealthy earners. The result would be an average tax bill increase of more than $78,000 for taxpayers with incomes over $730,000.

The bottom 95 percent of taxpayers, identified as those earning less than $300,000, would see very little change in their tax bill. Analysts said their calculations only include elements of the plan Clinton has so far released.

Clinton’s large tax increases on the wealthy mirror the “Buffett rule,” the concept advanced by investor Warren Buffett that people earning more than $1 million should never pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class earners.  It also would make the tax code far more complex for wealthy taxpayers.

The goal of Clinton’s plan is to make the tax code more progressive, but the center’s analysts said the same goal “could be attained much more simply” by just increasing tax rates and converting deductions into credits.

The former secretary of State has also proposed a set of new, higher rates on investment income and a tax on high-frequency stock trades, which proponents argue would raise needed revenue while making the stock market more efficient by discouraging high-frequency trading practices.

Those higher rates and new rules would discourage wealthy taxpayers from investing aggressively and would drive up the cost of borrowing, according to the analysis.

New higher tax rates could also drive down the labor supply, particularly among second-earners like spouses who tend to be more sensitive to tax rates when considering whether to work.

The center is trying to work it’s way through all the 2016 candidates’ tax proposals and focused first on the Republican field.

It earlier found that over the next decade business mogul Donald Trump’s plan would cost about $9.5 trillion, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio‘s proposal would cost $6.8 trillion and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s plan would cost $8.2 trillion.

It plans to release an analysis of Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Friday.

Read more:

A $9.5 trillion price tag for Trump’s tax plan

Rubio tax plan would cost $6.8 trillion over a decade, still less than Trump’s

Cruz tax plan would cost $8.6 trillion, second only to Trump’s