What Trump and Harris Have in Store for Your Taxes

You’ve heard a lot of campaign promises this election cycle, but the ones most directly impact your finances are tax cuts and credits.

• Expand the Child Tax Credit.

• Tax the wealthiest Americans and corporations.

• Expand the tax deduction for new small businesses.

• Expand the earned income tax credit.

• Expand and make permanent the tax credit enhancements for Affordable Care Act plans.

• Tax cuts that incentivize home builders to build affordable homes.

• Extend the soon-to-expire 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

• End taxes on overtime and Social Security.

• Applying across-the-board tariffs on all foreign imports; 60% on China; and 100% tariffs on cars made in Mexico.

• Lower the corporate tax rate by one point to 20%. In his first term, he cut corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%.

• Implement R&D tax credits for businesses in their first year — a reversal of his policy in the 2017 tax cuts.

• Replace income taxes with his new import tariffs. 

The undercurrent during the election is the looming expiration of 2017 tax cuts at the end of 2025. Garrett Watson, senior policy analyst with the Tax Foundation (a nonpartisan think tank), says the uncertainty of the future of those cuts is a big problem for both candidates.

“It would be a win to get some stability and certainty back into the tax code there, to get the permanence, even if it’s not necessarily what everyone wants, that would be a win,” says Watson. “The fact that we are seeing interest on the Hill for both candidates to do that would be a win. But I mean, that does really require more detail on how that might work.”

As far as how the candidates are tackling all aspects of tax code, Amy Hanauer, executive director of the left-leaning think tank Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, says, “The big picture is the Harris approach raises more revenue; it raises it primarily from the wealthiest and corporations. The Trump approach puts us deeper in debt and gives a lot more away to wealthy people and corporations. Both of them, I think, have some proposals that would help middle class families on the tax side. But the Harris approach gives us more revenue to pay for things that middle class families might want.”

Most, if not all, of the candidates’ proposals would have to go through Congress before being enacted. The executive branch technically has the “power to tax,” but presidents rarely exercise that authority. Typically, the president will ask Congress to create and pass tax policies. With a divided Congress, it’s unclear what might have bipartisan appeal.

It’s highly unlikely that every tax proposal a candidate makes on the campaign trail will see the light of day. Nevertheless, available projections show what the anticipated outcome would be if all of the candidates’ proposals were adopted.

An analysis of both candidates’ tax plans by the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School projects that Harris’ tax proposals would increase primary budget deficits by more than $1.2 trillion on net from 2025 to 2034. Trump’s tax proposals would increase deficits by $5.8 trillion over the same 10-year period.

On the whole, an analysis by the Tax Foundation says Harris’ plans would raise nearly $1.7 trillion in revenue over 10 years. During that time period GDP is projected to decline by 2%; wages would decline by 1.2%; and the equivalent of 786,000 full-time jobs would be lost.

The Tax Foundation says that Trump’s tax plans would lose revenue by $1.325 trillion over 10 years; GDP would decline by 0.2%; wages would increase 0.6%; and the equivalent of 387,000 full-time jobs would be lost.

Watson says it’s still unclear how Harris raises enough revenue to offset her tax cut plans, especially if she extends the 2017 tax cuts (her stance is not yet known). “Something that is easy to say is, ‘We’ll just cut all this money from high earners. Most Americans don’t pay a dime and we’ll get this all covered.’ That might be true on some margin, depending on how that works out.”

He adds, “It would be good to know what those offsets might look like so that we can figure out what their total fiscal costs would be, and what the actual tradeoffs are for Americans.”

As for Trump, Hanauer says, “He’s kind of looking to just intensify his previous approach, which is expensive tax cuts that definitely add to the deficit and the debt. And then tax cuts that go primarily to wealthy people and corporations,” she says. “He’s floated some other things and his vice presidential candidate has floated some other things. But in terms of concrete things, on paper, it’s a little bit more of the same.”

Here are some of the major tax changes that the candidates promise to deliver.

Harris has pledged several taxes that would fall on the wealthiest Americans including increasing the net investment income tax up to 5% on those with incomes above $400,000 and increasing the highest tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28% on taxable income above $1 million. The Committee for a Responsible Budget, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates that the revenue from Harris’ taxes on the wealthy would be $900 billion over the period between fiscal year 2026 to fiscal year 2035.

For families, she also promises to expand the child tax credit: $6,000 for children under the age of 1; $3,600 for children ages 2-5; and $3,000 for older children. Hanuer says child tax credits are a big win for all families, especially for children being raised in poverty. “We know that that’s just a crucial time of life when kids will be better off for the rest of their lives if they’re raised in lower poverty,” she adds.

Additional policies include:

• Permanently extend expanded premium tax credits.

• Make expiring individual income tax cuts permanent. 

• Restore the cap on the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction that allows taxpayers to reduce their federally taxable income by itemizing certain local and state taxes. It would be a reversal of Trump’s past position, since he was responsible for capping the deduction at $10,000.  

• No tax on overtime work. The Tax Foundation says the proposal is missing key details, but would reduce revenue. It would also likely change decisions that both employers and employees make about overtime. 

• Consider replacing the personal income tax with increased tariffs. Trump has proposed 10% to 20% tariffs applied across-the-board and 60% for China. See more on the potential impacts of his tariffs below.  

• Trump’s vice presidential pick JD Vance said he supports increasing the child tax credit to $5,000. On the campaign trail, Trump said parents of newborns would be able to deduct “major” expenses, but did not elaborate on what that entailed. 

Harris has said she supports a Biden-proposed measure that would increase the Medicare tax from 3.8% to 5% on those with incomes above $400,000. This additional Medicare tax is only paid by high-income earners. Revenue is used to fund Medicare. The Tax Foundation estimates it would lead to a slight reduction in GDP, wages and full-time jobs. Watson says that adopting the 5% surtax for Medicare would help the Medicare trust fund’s solvency, at least “a bit,” but doesn’t address the Social Security side.

Trump, meanwhile, has floated eliminating the income tax on Social Security benefits altogether. Hanauer says Trump’s proposal would lower taxes by $550 on average, per household, but at the expense of the Social Security fund.

Social Security is taxed differently than other income. Currently, those who withdraw Social Security benefits must pay taxes on 50%-80% of their benefits, depending on income. Any income tax revenue from taxed income above a threshold amount ($25,000 for an individual or $32,000 for a married couple filing jointly) goes into the Social Security trust fund, which keeps the program running. But the Tax Foundation says that if Social Security is no longer taxed, it would reduce revenue going to Medicare and Social Security trust funds, which could speed up the funds’ insolvency.

The Social Security Administration projects that the combined trust funds are expected to run out as of 2035. Watson says, “Trump trying to exempt security income from tax puts us in exactly the wrong direction.” He adds that Harris’ lack of a detailed plan for Social Security presents a challenge as the U.S. inches closer to the trust funds being exhausted.

The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a major revamp of the individual income and estate tax codes made under the Trump administration, is set to expire after 2025. The deadline means that whoever is elected will need to make a decision on what to do with the existing provisions. Trump has endorsed extending expiring provisions, while Harris has not been clear about what she would do.

During the campaign, Trump has said he would:

• Make expiring individual income tax cuts permanent.

• Consider replacing personal income taxes with tariffs. 

The expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act delivered large tax cuts to those in the top 1% of earners — those earning above $800,000 a year. Hanauer says making the cuts permanent would “cut into revenue that could otherwise maybe be providing those larger child tax credits for middle income Americans and poor Americans, or that could be being used to reduce the national debt or to fund something new like child care or health care or infrastructure.”

The Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the think tanks Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, projected in 2017 that Trump tax cuts would most benefit the most wealthy. The Tax Policy Center’s models in 2017 showed that households with income in the top 1% are projected to receive a more than $60,000 tax cut in 2025 while households in the bottom 60% are expected to receive less than $500.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) said in a June 13 analysis, that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did not deliver the economic benefits that Trump promised. Among those promises was a claim that the corporate tax rate cut would boost household income by $4,000. The CBPP points to research showing that workers who earned less than $114,000 on average in 2016 didn’t see changes to their earnings, while high salaried workers saw increases.

• Increase the corporate income tax rate from the current rate of 21% to 28%. The 21% rate was put in place by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Higher corporate income taxes would mean a decline in economic growth, according to the Tax Foundation. It also means higher revenue for tax-funded programs. The Tax Foundation says corporate taxes lead to more GDP loss than gain in revenue. Wharton’s analysis projects that Harris’ corporate tax rate would bring in $1.1 trillion in new revenue, which would offset just under half of her tax cut proposals.  

• Increase the stock buyback tax from 1% to 4%. 

• Create a minimum tax of 25% on both realized and unrealized income — also known as capital gains — for those earning above $100 million. Capital gains would also be taxed at death.

Hanauer says increasing taxes on wealthy people and corporations is something most Americans want. “We have a lot of needs in this country,” she says. “A lot of corporations just pay far, far too little in taxes. There are corporations out there, large, profitable corporations that pay a tax rate of zero because of the deductions and things that they’re able to get away with and then support very wealthy individuals, too.”

For small businesses, Harris would increase the deduction for business startup costs from $5,000 to $50,000. Hanauer says it’s unlikely to be as effective as it sounds because many new businesses don’t earn enough to pay taxes so it would take time for businesses to become profitable before they can even claim the deduction. “We just don’t think that that makes as much sense as some other approaches,” she says.

• Lower the corporate income tax rate from 21% to 20%.

• Lower the corporate income tax rate to 15% for companies that manufacture products in the U.S. 

• Tax large private university endowments. 

Hanauer says the corporate income tax proposals aren’t well-targeted; would increase income and racial inequality; and would send a “massive windfall” of $0.40 of every dollar to foreign investors because those investors own 40% of corporate stocks.

“It would really cost us a lot in revenue, which could reduce the ability of either party to execute on their spending priorities,” she says.

Harris plans to expand housing tax credits including a low-income housing tax credit; a credit for the construction of new homes; and a 25,000 credit for first-time homebuyers plus an even bigger amount for first-generation homebuyers. Trump hasn’t spoken to housing taxes.

Harris has pledged to cut red tape to increase construction of new housing, but it’s unclear how that would work from a federal level when most housing red tape is at the local level. Hanauer says new housing is going to be key to her tax credits being an effective policy. “If you just give a tax credit to new homebuyers, it could end up driving up the cost of housing,” she says.

A Wharton’s analysis of Harris’ tax proposals projects that 1.4 million homebuyers annually would benefit from down payment assistance. It would cost the U.S. $140 billion over 10 years.

One of Trump’s most controversial economic proposals is his plan to enact 10% or 20% across-the-board tariffs on foreign imports with a 60% tariff on China. Harris has not taken a position on tariffs, but the Biden-Harris administration did maintain the tariffs instituted by the Trump administration.

The Tax Foundation estimates that Trump’s tariff proposals could fail to offset tax revenue losses from his tax cuts. The foundation also says the tariffs could offset the potential economic benefits of those proposals resulting in a reduction in GDP growth. The tariffs could also lead to a rise in the deficit over time and, as a result, a reduction in American income. The foundation also says the tariffs could potentially spark or deepen foreign trade wars.

Hanauer says the Center for Tax Policy finds that Trump’s tariffs would cost the typical household $2,600 per year in price increases. “So it’s a substantial hit to families and it manifests itself much in the way that inflation does,” she says. “Basically every product that every household buys would end up costing more, with the net result at the end of the year being that families would end up paying about $2,600 more in household goods.”

Photos by Spencer Platt and Win McNamee/Getty Images News via Getty Images.