“It may be tempting to simply write this off as “Trump being Trump” and move on. But the Republican presidential nominee’s consistent inattention to the details of policymaking does matter—even if it has no bearing on the election—and the child care issue is a perfect example of why.
This sort of issue is a liability for Trump because he can’t just bluster or pander his way through it. Trump excels when he can turn complex policies into simple, partisan us-vs.-them arguments that allow him to avoid any attention on the specifics. On issues like taxes and immigration, this technique works because one party broadly wants the policy to shift in one direction, so Trump can simply promise to do the opposite—never mind the details.
But no one wants higher child care costs. Both sides want to reduce them. The argument, then, must turn on which side can offer the better plan for accomplishing that goal. As Thursday’s answer makes obvious, Trump has no such plan.”
“The Tax Foundation estimates that a 10 percent general tariff “would raise taxes on American consumers by more than $300 billion a year,” “reduce the size of the U.S. economy by 0.7 percent,” and “eliminate 505,000 full-time equivalent jobs.” Retaliation could “further reduce U.S. GDP by 0.4 percent and eliminate another 322,000 full-time equivalent jobs.”
Trump’s proposed tariffs, including a 60 percent levy on Chinese goods, “would reduce after-tax incomes by about 3.5 percent for those in the bottom half of the income distribution,” the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates. They “would cost a typical household in the middle of the income distribution at least $1,700 in increased taxes each year.”
Just as Trump ignores those costs, Harris wants voters to believe that raising the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent is simply a matter of “ensur[ing] the wealthiest Americans and the largest corporations pay their fair share.” But that is true only if you overlook the broader economic impact of that change, which would hurt non-wealthy Americans as employees, consumers, and investors.
“Studies have shown that the corporate income tax is the most harmful tax for economic growth,” the Tax Foundation warns. On the flip side, recent research indicates that the Trump-backed 2017 reduction in this tax rate, which moved the U.S. from the high end among industrialized countries to the middle of the pack, “significantly boosted domestic investment.”
By raising the cost of doing business in the United States, a higher corporate tax rate inhibits investment, drives down wage and benefit growth, encourages offshoring of jobs, and reduces the return on retirement savings. “Under a 28 percent corporate rate,” the Tax Foundation estimates, “GDP would fall by $1.84” for “every $1 of higher revenue.””
“””Trump also recently proposed cutting taxes on Social Security payments. That might sound good because people will net more money when they receive their benefits. But the reality is more complicated. The poorest households wouldn’t see any change under that plan because Social Security benefits for those making below $32,000 are already untaxed, while the richest recipients would be more likely to see a tax cut.”
…
“There’s no way around it: Lawmakers have to raise taxes on many families, including those who aren’t millionaires. Right now, any income that someone makes above $168,000 is not taxed for Social Security. That means that higher earners pay a smaller share of their income toward funding Social Security than lower- and middle-income earners.”
“On the merits, there is little question that liberals should prioritize making housing cheaper. There is nothing progressive about putting property owners’ return-on-investment above less privileged Americans’ access to shelter. Further, promoting homeownership as a wealth building strategy also fails many homeowners. Concentrating one’s savings in a single asset is a perilous investment strategy, especially for America’s least privileged groups.”
…
“although tanking home prices isn’t politically tenable, slowing their growth in the name of affordability probably is. And for people looking to buy or rent a home, it makes a big difference whether home values rise faster or slower than wages. If paychecks grow more rapidly than home values, then housing becomes more affordable for workers, even if the nominal price of a house goes up. In that scenario, fewer renters would struggle to keep roofs over their heads, while homeowner backlash to increasing affordability would be limited, since, on paper, houses would appear more valuable than when they were purchased.
Pursuing that outcome, however, means making housing a worse investment for new buyers, especially relative to putting their savings into diversified index funds. Democrats therefore should not go out of their way to encourage middle-class Americans to invest in housing. And they certainly should not adopt policies that privilege homeowners over renters.”
“exempting tips from income taxes would increase the deficit, create some weird economic incentives, and unfairly cut taxes for a small subset of workers while not doing much to help the majority of Americans or grow the economy.”
…
“Alex Muresianu, a senior policy analyst at The Tax Foundation, spells out in detail why that’s the case. He compares two hypothetical low-income service sector workers: a cashier and a waitress, both of whom earn $34,000 annually. Under the current tax code, both have the same baseline tax liability (roughly $2,000) even though about half of the waitress’s earnings are via tips.
If those tips are exempted from income taxes, the cashier still owes that $2,000. The waitress, meanwhile, owes just $600.
Harris should have to explain why she thinks it’s fair to ask some low-income workers to pay tax bills that will be two or three times higher than other workers who earn the same amount—because that’s what she is proposing here.”
“Those laws create a black market in which the composition and potency of drugs is uncertain and highly variable. They also push traffickers toward highly potent drugs such as fentanyl, which are easier to conceal and smuggle. As a result, drug users like Gentili typically don’t know exactly what they are consuming, which magnifies the risk of a fatal mistake. The “poisoning” that Peace and Caban decried therefore is a consequence of the policies they were proudly enforcing in this very case.”
“trade policy. Trump’s protectionist stance is well-known, with his administration imposing tariffs on a wide range of goods, particularly from China. He has since announced that he would like to impose an across-the-board 10 percent and then 20 percent tariff on imports to the U.S., on top of the those already in place.
But Harris’ stance is hardly better. She has embraced a “worker-centered” trade policy that looks suspiciously similar to Trump’s “America First” approach. Both emphasize protecting existing American jobs and industries, even at the cost of higher prices for beleaguered consumers, fewer resources to start new firms that will lead to more opportunity for the next generation of workers, and reduced economic efficiency. And let’s not forget that during the last four years, the Biden-Harris administration has imposed its fair share of tariffs while keeping many of Trump’s.”
…
“Both sides want to subsidize homeownership. The Republican platform advocates for the government to “promote homeownership through Tax Incentives.” The Harris campaign has announced a $25,000 subsidy for first-time homebuyers. Both plans would subsidize housing demand, thus putting upward pressure on housing prices. Great for people who already own homes; not so great for the new homebuyers themselves.”
…
“Both Harris and Trump represent variations on a theme of big, fiscally irresponsible, hyper-interventionist government.”
“Donald Trump called for rolling back part of his signature tax law Tuesday, suggesting he would seek to reinstate the state and local tax deduction, commonly known as SALT, that he controversially capped in the 2017 legislation.
In a Truth Social post ahead of his trip to New York’s Long Island, the former president wrote that he would “get SALT back” and “lower your Taxes” if he returns to the White House in January.
Trump didn’t elaborate or get specific. But the statement appears to be the first time that Trump has called for rolling back a piece of his biggest legislative achievement, a law that he has also called for extending next year when major portions of it are set to expire.
The 2017 law capped the previously unlimited federal deduction for state and local taxes at $10,000 per filer. The policy hit hardest for Americans in high-tax blue states — especially New York, New Jersey and California — who itemize their deductions. Democrats, who represent most of those areas, fiercely objected at the time, accusing the GOP of using tax policy to wage a culture war. Some Republicans in those states also say the $10,000 cap should be lifted.
Trump’s comment marked the latest in a series of seemingly impulsive policy comments that have turned heads within his party. Most Republicans oppose an expansion of the “SALT” deduction and have criticized Democrats for pushing to lift the $10,000 cap.”
…
“Despite Trump’s comments, it’s far from clear a Republican-led Congress would lift the SALT cap. Earlier this year, a group of House Republicans blocked their party from allowing a vote pushed by New York GOP members to expand the SALT deduction.”
“GOP state attorneys general, as well as many of their Democratic counterparts, have moved to stop companies from charging what they view as exorbitant increases in the cost of some goods in certain circumstances.
In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, sued a large egg supplier for raising prices by about 300 percent at the height of the pandemic lockdowns in 2020.
Kris Kobach, the Republican attorney general of Kansas, is suing a large natural gas supplier over allegations that it gouged consumers in the aftermath of a 2021 winter storm. And in storm-prone Florida, state officials widely publicize a law that prohibits sharp price increases in essential items during emergencies.
“Nobody likes to be gouged when they’ve lost their roof,” said Trish Conners, a former chief deputy attorney general of Florida now in private practice at the firm Stearns Weaver Miller. The state laws address the “fundamental public safety role that state AGs have, and it’s largely bipartisan. You don’t see too much difference between AGs in that regard.”
The state laws underscore some of the benefits and challenges that Harris may face in selling her plan. It is broadly popular for politicians to shield consumers from excessive prices — even if many economists disagree with the approach. But at the same time, most states have limited their intervention in the market to a far narrower set of circumstances, and Harris’ plan for a national approach would likely represent a major expansion of the role of government in prices.
Some 37 states have laws to address price gouging, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most of the laws have specific triggers — such as a state of emergency or disaster — and prohibit sellers of certain essential goods from jacking up prices beyond a certain threshold. Some states have a numerical threshold of, say, 15 or 25 percent, while others have vaguer prohibitions on “excessive” or “unconscionable” increases.
Florida Republican Attorney General Ashley Moody vowed to vigorously enforce the price gouging law as hurricane season began earlier this year. Her office has a dedicated hotline, app and website for consumers to report instances of gouging during emergencies.”
“Trump’s first-term record on reproductive rights is clear: His three Supreme Court picks led directly to the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. But as that record has become a political liability, the former president has been evasive about how far he’d go to curtail abortion access in a post-Roe United States.”