What are Kamala Harris's economic plans? For that matter, what are Donald Trump's?
To start, we can assume Trump has ordinary Republican opinions and Harris has ordinary Democratic opinions. Beyond that, here are their specific major proposals:
Trump
Harris
Taxes
Extend 2017 tax act
20% tariffs across the board
Reduce corporate tax rate
Tax-free Social Security, tips, overtime
Reinstate SALT deduction
60% tariff on all Chinese imports
Allow most of 2017 tax act to expire
Raise corporate tax rate
Tax-free tips
Tax unrealized capital gains above $100 million net worth
Increase ordinary capital gains rate above $1 million income
Increase top income tax rate to 39.6% above $400,000 income
Eliminate carried interest loophole above $400,000 income
Spending
Build the wall
Free IVF
Cut IRA spending on green energy
Cut environmental spending
Reinstate impoundment
Build Iron Dome
Child tax credit
Increase EITC
$25,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers
$50,000 tax deduction for startups
Extend middle-class subsidies for Obamacare
Other
Cap credit card interest rates at 10%
Deregulate crypto
Anti-union
Regulate price gouging
Raise minimum wage?
Pro-union
For what it's worth, I don't see much difference between the two on the level of detail. We know the same amount about both of them.
Am I missing anything big?
38 thoughts on “Trump vs. Harris on economic policy”
lower-case
trump wants to defund law enforcement at the IRS
bbleh
Noting that reducing "environmental spending" also includes defunding NOAA, presumably because they utter Forbidden Words about global warming / climate change.
But exactly NONE of this will matter to even a tiny, tiny fraction of voters. It's all about tribes and vibes, and nobody trusts a politician's promises anyway.
Personally, I would expect a continuing stumble from crisis to crisis under the Felon, with the very real possibility of a trip into economic disaster (which would duly be blamed on non-Whites and Democrats), and the only constant being policies that benefit the wealthy, either because he knows it will benefit him personally or because it's put under his nose to sign. But that's just my expectation based on years and years of evidence with Republicans and him, and what is that compared to their platforms?
Crissa
Defund NOAA, but don't save any money on it since they plan to fund private weather collection.
Citizen99
Glad you noted this. "Reduce environmental spending" sounds kind of ordinary until you elaborate. I would also point out something that drives me nuts: "climate change" is not about "the environment" in the same way that protecting some endangered fish. Climate change is a dire economic threat and should be divorced from "the environment" in the media discourse. I'm disappointed that even Kevin, the most astute of observers, hasn't seen this yet.
mandolin
Rhetorically, I would argue that we should return to "global warming." It is more powerful because more descriptive and less abstract than "climate change."
skeptonomist
If Trump and Republicans get control we know what they will do - cut taxes for the rich and corporations, try to cut as many social programs as they can and deregulate big business and finance.
Why would you suppose that Trump would do anything like what he promises? Did he fulfill his promises last time? His stated plans are largely crazy but probably have little relation to what he would do in office.
When people say they don't have enough detail about Harris's plans they are just indicating that they belong to the White Christian tribe, but don't want to admit it explicitly. They have to find some supposedly objective reasons for their preference. Anybody who really wants details could have got them by now.
reino2
Harris wants to raise or eliminate the social security tax cap.
msobel
You forgot pardons for income and protection from witnesses.
Oh, sorry, that goes into the Presidential Personal Budget.
pjcamp1905
"Am I missing anything big?"
Trump doesn't have opinions.
lower-case
yeah, he hated the 'green economy' until musky dumped a bunch of money into his campaign
and he's about as pro-life as a monitor lizard but he stayed pretty quiet when ohio tried to force a ten year old into giving birth to a rapists child
Mike Russo
Mass deportation isn't primarily couched as economic policy, but rounding up several million people and removing a significant chunk of the workforce of several major industries (notably but not exclusively ag) *probably* won't have a great impact on the economy.
iamr4man
Mass deportation has just as much place in this discussion as “iron dome”. The costs of the Stephen Miller scheme would be enormous. How will the concentration camps and massive air lifts necessary be paid for? Who will pay for the massive use of military and police necessary to round up “illegals” and other “undesirables?” The plan is to deport 20 million people and Trump’s fans are all in on this. Impossible to believe this won’t have a very negative effect on the economy for various reasons.
But most importantly the plan is monstrous.
Citizen99
Of course, it would never actually happen. But if it did, it would cost lots and lots of billions and would also devastate the economy by removing a huge tranche of workers that do stuff no one else wants to do.
There will not be mass deportation. They will create a militia "to do deportation", but once it is up it will be used for general population suppression, rather than deportation.
middleoftheroaddem
No matter who wins the Presidency, it seems likely the GOP will take a small advantage in the Senate: maybe 51 to 49 GOP. The House is unclear.
My point, mostly either Trump or Biden would really just appointment people (Judges, Cabinet Sec etc) and do Executive Orders, at least for the first two years...
Motinda
Someone needs to update the algorithm for their trollbot...Biden has been out of the race for a while now.
D_Ohrk_E1
Trump policy says isn't a reflection of his principles, it's a grab bag of ideas meant to divide and conquer different demographics.
Harris' policy is an expression of principles and values, even if most of them won't ever reach the Resolute Desk.
Lounsbury
Sure it is - his sole and unique principle is "whatever wins for me is good".
For the rest of the humanity this is unprincipled, but rest of humanity for Trump only exists for Trump servicing.
Crissa
How the heck do you make overtime non taxable?
Lounsbury
Simple enough, a tax regulation.
It is an entirely stupid and distortive idea, but not as such difficult - it woudl certainly create significant perverse incentives of course.
Citizen99
Hm, how can we categorize everything our executive committee (or partners) do as "overtime." How about we institute a 16-hour workweek? Can we get away with that?
golack
No worries, regular salary will be at minimum wage, OT at $1000+ an hour.
cephalopod
By 2026 all of America's investment bankers will also put out a tip jar to supplement their massive overtime pay.
Jasper_in_Boston
How the heck do you make overtime non taxable?
It's been many years since I've held an hourly job, but IIRC one's paycheck separates out OT (or indeed holiday time) from regular pay. Doesn't seem much of a heavy life to exempt these wages from the income tax, from an administrative standpoint.
iamr4man
Is there some reason to believe that there is even the slightest possibility of this happening? Or any of Trump’s pandering to the working class promises?
jdubs
The key will be to work in new rules that make it easier for companies to avoid overtime pay or pay a reduced rate, preferrably equal to the amount of the tax subsidy.
Less tax revenue, better for the ownership class, no net benefit for most Americans. Win, win, win.
Bardi
It will take an extraordinary amount of tax "police" away from investigating the wealthy. That is the point.
lower-case
almost forgot the non-policy stuff...
use the justice department to prosecute political enemies on bullshit charges
make 'beautiful' phone calls to allies to arrange political fuckery and kickbacks in return for military support
toss out all of his criminal cases
pardon all the j6 criminals
fire a few thousand civil servants and install maga apparatchiks in their place
install even more scotus members
NealB
They'll need control of Congress to get any of it; Congress will provide the details.
Jasper_in_Boston
On the spending side, you left out cutting aid to Ukraine.
kenalovell
I might have missed one, but it seemed to me that every item in both columns would require legislation to be implemented. I firmly believe it is irresponsible to encourage the superstition that presidents can enact and implement "economic policies".
That is really is sanewashing.
Taking Trump's propaganda and call it "policies" is frankly idiotic, and helps him because for people that don't follow closely it gives the impression that Trump really has policies.
Marlowe
+1000.
And really, it is too much to ask to put a like button on this crappy commenting software?
JohnH
What are you missing? Undecided voters, while said to be uninterested and uninformed, are really dying for policy briefings in excrutiating detail, and they're waiting for Harris on this before they can vote for or against her. Meanwhile, they're swayed by Trump's presidency, when the economy was booming, inflation was low, and something about Covid, I forget.
How do I know all this? The geeks at the NYT at Washington Post insist on it, and surely they're never wrong, just properly balanced. No one else mentions it, but what do they know?
coynedj
There are an awful lot of people who know nothing about policy. Some of them followed it in the 1980s, but things have gotten too complicated for them.
Trump says he'll cut everyone's taxes? Sounds good! Trump says he'll kick out all the migrant criminals, so everyone will be safe and will get those high-paying jobs? Sounds good! Trump says he'll make it tough to import Chinese junk and companies will eagerly make stuff in the USA? Sounds good!
And that's as deeply as they'll think about it. After all, it's almost time for Dancing With the Stars. Or maybe Hannity.
JRF
A major difference between the column on the left and the column on the right is that if given a governing majority in both houses, Harris would actually do the stuff in the column on the right, whereas large parts of the column on the left—all the stuff that panders to working-class voters—are just kayfabe.
name99
Both these lists are not especially interesting because both of them have limited relevance to what will actually happen.
Far more important is a discussion of which of these proposals has some sort of chance of passage by Congress. And that sort of discussion I have seen nowhere.
Honestly this election is really showing the vapidity of US political discourse. SO much discussion about the popular vote, as though people have no idea how the president is actually elected. So much discussion of issues that ares imply outside the control of the president. And likewise so little discussion of the matters that ARE under the control of the president.
erick
Pick any year and people who say they won’t vote for the Democrat because they haven’t published enough about their policies are lying to justify not voting for them because either they want tax cuts or racism, but they don’t want people to think they are selfish or racist, it’s as simple as that.
trump wants to defund law enforcement at the IRS
Noting that reducing "environmental spending" also includes defunding NOAA, presumably because they utter Forbidden Words about global warming / climate change.
But exactly NONE of this will matter to even a tiny, tiny fraction of voters. It's all about tribes and vibes, and nobody trusts a politician's promises anyway.
Personally, I would expect a continuing stumble from crisis to crisis under the Felon, with the very real possibility of a trip into economic disaster (which would duly be blamed on non-Whites and Democrats), and the only constant being policies that benefit the wealthy, either because he knows it will benefit him personally or because it's put under his nose to sign. But that's just my expectation based on years and years of evidence with Republicans and him, and what is that compared to their platforms?
Defund NOAA, but don't save any money on it since they plan to fund private weather collection.
Glad you noted this. "Reduce environmental spending" sounds kind of ordinary until you elaborate. I would also point out something that drives me nuts: "climate change" is not about "the environment" in the same way that protecting some endangered fish. Climate change is a dire economic threat and should be divorced from "the environment" in the media discourse. I'm disappointed that even Kevin, the most astute of observers, hasn't seen this yet.
Rhetorically, I would argue that we should return to "global warming." It is more powerful because more descriptive and less abstract than "climate change."
If Trump and Republicans get control we know what they will do - cut taxes for the rich and corporations, try to cut as many social programs as they can and deregulate big business and finance.
Why would you suppose that Trump would do anything like what he promises? Did he fulfill his promises last time? His stated plans are largely crazy but probably have little relation to what he would do in office.
When people say they don't have enough detail about Harris's plans they are just indicating that they belong to the White Christian tribe, but don't want to admit it explicitly. They have to find some supposedly objective reasons for their preference. Anybody who really wants details could have got them by now.
Harris wants to raise or eliminate the social security tax cap.
You forgot pardons for income and protection from witnesses.
Oh, sorry, that goes into the Presidential Personal Budget.
"Am I missing anything big?"
Trump doesn't have opinions.
yeah, he hated the 'green economy' until musky dumped a bunch of money into his campaign
and he's about as pro-life as a monitor lizard but he stayed pretty quiet when ohio tried to force a ten year old into giving birth to a rapists child
Mass deportation isn't primarily couched as economic policy, but rounding up several million people and removing a significant chunk of the workforce of several major industries (notably but not exclusively ag) *probably* won't have a great impact on the economy.
Mass deportation has just as much place in this discussion as “iron dome”. The costs of the Stephen Miller scheme would be enormous. How will the concentration camps and massive air lifts necessary be paid for? Who will pay for the massive use of military and police necessary to round up “illegals” and other “undesirables?” The plan is to deport 20 million people and Trump’s fans are all in on this. Impossible to believe this won’t have a very negative effect on the economy for various reasons.
But most importantly the plan is monstrous.
Of course, it would never actually happen. But if it did, it would cost lots and lots of billions and would also devastate the economy by removing a huge tranche of workers that do stuff no one else wants to do.
There will not be mass deportation. They will create a militia "to do deportation", but once it is up it will be used for general population suppression, rather than deportation.
No matter who wins the Presidency, it seems likely the GOP will take a small advantage in the Senate: maybe 51 to 49 GOP. The House is unclear.
My point, mostly either Trump or Biden would really just appointment people (Judges, Cabinet Sec etc) and do Executive Orders, at least for the first two years...
Someone needs to update the algorithm for their trollbot...Biden has been out of the race for a while now.
Trump policy says isn't a reflection of his principles, it's a grab bag of ideas meant to divide and conquer different demographics.
Harris' policy is an expression of principles and values, even if most of them won't ever reach the Resolute Desk.
Sure it is - his sole and unique principle is "whatever wins for me is good".
For the rest of the humanity this is unprincipled, but rest of humanity for Trump only exists for Trump servicing.
How the heck do you make overtime non taxable?
Simple enough, a tax regulation.
It is an entirely stupid and distortive idea, but not as such difficult - it woudl certainly create significant perverse incentives of course.
Hm, how can we categorize everything our executive committee (or partners) do as "overtime." How about we institute a 16-hour workweek? Can we get away with that?
No worries, regular salary will be at minimum wage, OT at $1000+ an hour.
By 2026 all of America's investment bankers will also put out a tip jar to supplement their massive overtime pay.
How the heck do you make overtime non taxable?
It's been many years since I've held an hourly job, but IIRC one's paycheck separates out OT (or indeed holiday time) from regular pay. Doesn't seem much of a heavy life to exempt these wages from the income tax, from an administrative standpoint.
Is there some reason to believe that there is even the slightest possibility of this happening? Or any of Trump’s pandering to the working class promises?
The key will be to work in new rules that make it easier for companies to avoid overtime pay or pay a reduced rate, preferrably equal to the amount of the tax subsidy.
Less tax revenue, better for the ownership class, no net benefit for most Americans. Win, win, win.
It will take an extraordinary amount of tax "police" away from investigating the wealthy. That is the point.
almost forgot the non-policy stuff...
use the justice department to prosecute political enemies on bullshit charges
make 'beautiful' phone calls to allies to arrange political fuckery and kickbacks in return for military support
toss out all of his criminal cases
pardon all the j6 criminals
fire a few thousand civil servants and install maga apparatchiks in their place
install even more scotus members
They'll need control of Congress to get any of it; Congress will provide the details.
On the spending side, you left out cutting aid to Ukraine.
I might have missed one, but it seemed to me that every item in both columns would require legislation to be implemented. I firmly believe it is irresponsible to encourage the superstition that presidents can enact and implement "economic policies".
That is really is sanewashing.
Taking Trump's propaganda and call it "policies" is frankly idiotic, and helps him because for people that don't follow closely it gives the impression that Trump really has policies.
+1000.
And really, it is too much to ask to put a like button on this crappy commenting software?
What are you missing? Undecided voters, while said to be uninterested and uninformed, are really dying for policy briefings in excrutiating detail, and they're waiting for Harris on this before they can vote for or against her. Meanwhile, they're swayed by Trump's presidency, when the economy was booming, inflation was low, and something about Covid, I forget.
How do I know all this? The geeks at the NYT at Washington Post insist on it, and surely they're never wrong, just properly balanced. No one else mentions it, but what do they know?
There are an awful lot of people who know nothing about policy. Some of them followed it in the 1980s, but things have gotten too complicated for them.
Trump says he'll cut everyone's taxes? Sounds good! Trump says he'll kick out all the migrant criminals, so everyone will be safe and will get those high-paying jobs? Sounds good! Trump says he'll make it tough to import Chinese junk and companies will eagerly make stuff in the USA? Sounds good!
And that's as deeply as they'll think about it. After all, it's almost time for Dancing With the Stars. Or maybe Hannity.
A major difference between the column on the left and the column on the right is that if given a governing majority in both houses, Harris would actually do the stuff in the column on the right, whereas large parts of the column on the left—all the stuff that panders to working-class voters—are just kayfabe.
Both these lists are not especially interesting because both of them have limited relevance to what will actually happen.
Far more important is a discussion of which of these proposals has some sort of chance of passage by Congress. And that sort of discussion I have seen nowhere.
Honestly this election is really showing the vapidity of US political discourse. SO much discussion about the popular vote, as though people have no idea how the president is actually elected. So much discussion of issues that ares imply outside the control of the president. And likewise so little discussion of the matters that ARE under the control of the president.
Pick any year and people who say they won’t vote for the Democrat because they haven’t published enough about their policies are lying to justify not voting for them because either they want tax cuts or racism, but they don’t want people to think they are selfish or racist, it’s as simple as that.