Stay updated on Hawaii and national elections coverage
2024 Hawaii & National Election Coverage

WASHINGTON >> Former President Donald Trump’s economic proposals could inflame the nation’s debt burden while ultimately raising costs for a vast majority of Americans, according to a pair of new economic analyses that are among the most in-depth studies to date of the Republican nominee’s plans.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that seeks lower deficits, found that Trump’s various plans could add as much as $15 trillion to the nation’s debt over a decade. That is nearly twice as much as the economic plans being proposed by Vice President Kamala Harris.

An analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a liberal think tank, found that Trump’s tax and tariff plans would, on average, amount to a tax increase for every income group except the top 5% of highest-earning Americans.

The two new studies differ in some respects. The budget group looked at the cost of both candidates’ tax and spending plans over 10 years, while the tax institute focused on what the impacts of Trump’s tax and tariff plans would be in 2026. But together they show that Trump’s agenda could be both costly and regressive by placing a greater burden on those making the least amount of money.

Over the course of his campaign, Trump has floated a flurry of potentially far-reaching policies, including exempting certain forms of pay from taxes and levying broad tariffs on nearly all imports to the United States. He also wants to extend elements of the tax law he enacted in 2017 that are set to expire after next year.

“It’s almost difficult to come up with a tax plan that would raise taxes on most Americans, but still increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars a year — and that’s what this does,” said Steve Wamhoff, the federal policy director at ITEP.

The CRFB cautioned that its estimates remain subject to considerable uncertainty as many of the proposals that Trump and Harris have been pitching are thin on details. It presented three cost scenarios for each campaign’s nascent economic agenda.

On the high end, Trump’s plans would cost $15 trillion over 10 years, while Harris’ would cost $8 trillion. In a midrange scenario, the former president’s second-term agenda would cost $7.5 trillion and Harris’ plans would cost $3.5 trillion. At the low end, Trump’s plan would add $1.45 trillion to the debt by 2035 while Harris’s plan would add nothing, making it “deficit neutral.”

“Both the Republican and Democratic candidates for president have put forward campaign plans that would, at best, maintain the status quo and, at worst, add tremendously to our debt and deficits,” the CRFB report said. “Even in the best-case scenario, neither candidate’s plan would be sufficient to put debt on a downward path and point America toward a more secure and sustainable fiscal future.”

The Harris campaign noted that she has said publicly that her policies would be paid for and that the Biden administration has proposed budgets that would reduce the deficit by $3 trillion.

The Trump campaign suggested that the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget was misjudging the effect that the former president’s proposals would have on the economy.

“President Trump’s plan will rein in wasteful spending, defeat inflation, reduce the burden of interest costs and ignite economic growth that fuels federal revenue so we can make our economy great again,” said Brian Hughes, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign.

A persistent difficulty for budget forecasters in Washington has been estimating the impact of Trump’s plans to exempt overtime pay and tips from taxation. Many experts have cautioned that the proposals would encourage more people to classify their earnings as tips or overtime. Whether that happens could vastly change the cost of the plans — and potentially reward high-income Americans with the resources to exploit the tax breaks.

The team of researchers from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy assumed that Americans would not significantly change their behavior because of those exemptions, noting the uncertainty around that factor. They analyzed all of Trump’s tax proposals — extending his 2017 tax cuts, restoring the full state and local tax deduction, cutting corporate taxes and exempting tips, overtime and Social Security benefits from taxes. They found that those plans would cut taxes across the income spectrum, with the highest-income Americans benefiting the most.

But the savings many Americans would see under those cuts are more than offset by Trump’s plans to impose widespread tariffs on imports, according to the think tank’s estimates. Trump has thrown out several different ideas for raising tariffs, and the researchers base their analysis on a 20% tariff on all imports and a 60% tariff on goods from China. Another tax increase included in their estimate is repealing the green-energy tax credits passed under President Joe Biden.

Overall, Trump’s plans would provide a tax cut worth, on average, 1.2% of overall income for the richest 1% of Americans, while the rest of the top 5% would see a 1.3% boost. Every other income group would lose money because of the higher costs created by the tariffs, with the bottom 20% experiencing a loss worth 4.8% of their income on average.

That’s the equivalent of the richest 1% paying $36,320 less in taxes, while the bottom 20% pay $790 more, ITEP estimated. The middle 20% of Americans would pay $1,530 more, on average, equivalent to 2.1% of their income.

Because tariffs increase the cost of goods, they fall disproportionately on poorer Americans who spend much of their money on groceries, clothing and other consumer items. Rich Americans would also pay more because of the tariffs, but the extra costs amount to a far smaller share of their overall income. Low-income Americans pay less in taxes, meaning tax cuts do not benefit them as much as they do high earners.

Trump and his campaign have argued that his tariffs will only affect companies operating abroad, but economic studies have repeatedly found that the costs of import taxes are ultimately passed on to American consumers and businesses.

At the Economic Club of New York last month, Trump said that his tariffs “will be bringing in billions and billions of dollars, which will directly reduce our deficits.” He also said he would save money by creating a “government efficiency commission.”

While Harris has repeatedly attacked Trump’s plans, neither candidate has made deficit reduction a priority in their campaigns. Instead, both have been one-upping each other with new tax cuts and spending initiatives. The cost estimates come as the United States is already saddled with nearly $36 trillion in debt, with interest costs eclipsing spending on the military and social safety net programs.

For Harris, the biggest question in her plans is how much of Trump’s 2017 tax law she would allow to expire at the end of next year. The vice president has said that she will not allow taxes to go up for those earning under $400,000. But it is not clear how she would handle certain deductions that benefit small businesses or tax benefits that businesses get for equipment purchases and research.

Another wild card is how she would approach the state and local tax deduction, known as SALT. Trump’s tax bill capped the SALT deduction at $10,000 in order to hold down the overall cost of the legislation. That limit is set to expire in 2025, and many Democrats from high-tax blue states, including the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, have pushed for restoring the full deduction. That would add more than $1 trillion to the deficit over 10 years and overwhelmingly benefit rich households.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2024 The New York Times Company