Haskell's type system is crafted for Haskell and core.typed is crafted for Clojure. I don't see how they can be compared given how different the two languages are.
I'd say your statement is not true, type classes arrived early on and adjustments needed to made. I imagine adjustments will continue to be made as Haskell evolves as a language.
It is true that Haskell & its type system evolve together whereas core.typed must follow Clojure wherever it may go.
turing complete, i.e. you can do type level computation
Turing completeness → computation, but the converse is not valid (i.e. computation → Turing completeness is not necessarily true). e.g. GADTs allow for some amount of type-level computation, but they do not in and of themselves form a Turing complete system.
Alas, looking at your link, it does seem that Haskell's type system is sadly Turing-complete.
correct, "turing complete, i.e. you can do any possible computation at the type level."
I don't know if I feel joy or sadness, but I have the feeling that if type level computation is allowed, then it's better to be turing complete than falling short while giving the illusion to be useful.
As for the practical applications of a powerful type system, I know about this (but I would be interested into finding more examples, as most of the information about that is very theoretical):
