Shocking Findings: Trump and Harris Economic Plans Clash on Debt Impact!

As the Presidential election looms closer, the economic policies of Vice President Harris and former President Trump have taken center stage. Their visions focus on tax cuts, border security spending, and affordable housing. However, what remains unclear is the cost of these plans and how they will be financed.

A recent report by the nonpartisan nonprofit Committee for Responsible Federal Budget sheds light on the economic directions presented by both candidates. The findings indicate that both Harris and Trump are poised to increase the national debt to implement their proposed initiatives. Trump’s economic plan carries an estimated cost of $7.5 trillion over the next decade, while Harris’ proposals would amount to around $3.5 trillion.

The impending fiscal challenges facing the next President are unprecedented, according to the committee’s report. Both Republican and Democratic candidates have unveiled plans that could either maintain the current financial landscape or exponentially increase the debt and deficits. The estimates provided by the report hold a high level of uncertainty due to the vague specifics outlined by both campaigns.

The committee also raises a red flag about the potential of an impending fiscal crisis if policymakers fail to tackle the national debt more aggressively. The report delves into the economic visions of the candidates, sourced from various platforms, including campaign websites, discussions, and public statements.

Extending Trump’s Tax Code

• Both Harris and Trump intend to prolong the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) beyond its expiration in 2025.
• The costliest component of their economic plans revolves around extending the TCJA, with Harris’s estimation at $3 trillion and Trump’s at $5.4 trillion.
• A key disparity in their approaches is Harris’s commitment to ensuring that individuals earning less than $400,000 will not face increased taxes, while Trump aims to make the initial tax cuts permanent for all beneficiaries, including the removal of the $10,000 cap on state and local tax deductions (SALT).

Taxes on Tips, Overtime, and Social Security

• Irrespective of the skepticisms from economists, both campaigns propose eliminating taxes on tips.
• Trump advocates for tax exemptions on overtime pay, a policy that would have a significant tax impact of $2 trillion over a decade.
• Trump’s proposal to end taxes on Social Security benefits ranks as the third-costliest part of his plan, presenting a projected deficit increase of $1.3 trillion.
• Contrary to Trump, Harris has not included provisions to eliminate taxes on overtime pay or Social Security benefits.

Child Tax Credit

• Harris proposes a substantial expansion of the Child Tax Credit, foreseeing costs of $1.4 trillion over the next decade.
• Trump’s stance on augmenting this tax credit remains unspecified, as per the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget’s report.

Border Spending

• Both candidates pledge to boost border security, albeit through differing strategies.
• Harris plans to support a bipartisan border security bill that failed to pass in Congress previously and would account for a $100 billion expense over ten years.
• Trump leans towards instating a massive deportation effort and fortifying existing border security measures, projected to cost $350 billion over a decade, though clouded by ambiguity regarding his deportation plans.

Affordable Housing Programs

• Harris’s plan to address housing costs involves first-time homebuyer tax credits and tax incentives for new homes, amounting to $250 billion.
• In contrast, Trump’s strategy leans primarily on tax incentives, with a potential resurrecting of the $8,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit from 2009-2010, estimated to cost $150 billion over ten years.

Health Care Proposals

• Harris pledges to expand Affordable Care Act subsidies permanently, estimated to cost $550 billion over 10 years.
• Trump’s health care plan lacks specifics but hints at government or insurer coverage for in vitro fertilization treatments and tax deductions for newborn expenses, likely incurring a $150 billion expense over a decade, according to Committee estimates.

Revenue: Taxes versus Tariffs

• Both campaigns aim to balance their expenses with revenue generation mechanisms.
• Harris intends to derive revenue through corporate and high-earner taxes, estimated at $4.3 trillion, coupled with decreased expenditure on prescription drugs.
• Trump leans towards heavy tariffs on imported goods and environmental policy rollbacks to allow drilling on protected lands, amounting to an anticipated $3.7 trillion revenue influx over a decade.

In light of the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget’s report, it is evident that both Harris and Trump present ambitious economic visions that carry substantial costs. However, without concrete details on financing their proposals, a looming fiscal crisis remains a resonating concern for the future governance of the country. Addressing the national debt issue requires more than just campaign promises and mandates a comprehensive and sustainable fiscal plan.