By Avery Crawford
Whether you’re a first-time voter or someone who has voted many times before, it can be hard to know which presidential candidate is the best fit without doing the proper research. By reading this article, you will gain more knowledge on the policies promised by each candidate, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Right now, one of the issues at the top of every voter’s mind is the economy. So, let’s look at the differences between Harris’ and Trump’s economic policies. The Penn Wharton Budge Model (PWBM) is a nonpartisan research group that provides transparent information about economics in public policy. This model is a great way to understand the impact both candidates could have on the economy from a non-partisan standpoint.
Trump Campaign Policy Proposals:
According to PWBM, the Trump Campaign tax and spending proposals would increase primary deficits by $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years. However, households across all income groups would likely benefit day-to-day.
It is project that, under a Trump presidency, tax revenue would fall by $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years. This means that GDP would initially rise, but then decrease 2.1 percent over the course of 30 years. Capital investment and working hours would follow a similar pattern—initially increase but then falling by 1.7 percent in 2054.
Low, middle, and high-income households all fare better under these campaign proposals. These conventional gains and losses do not include the additional burden on future generations who will have to finance nearly the entirety of the tax cuts.
Harris Campaign Policy Proposals:
On the other hand, PWBM estimates that the Harris Campaign’s tax and spending proposals would increase primary deficits by $1.2 trillion (four trillion less than the former president’s campaign proposals) over the next 10 years, which could include a reduction in economic activity. With this economic plan, lower- and middle-income households would likely benefit, however, high-income households would be worse off.
If Harris were to win the election, it is projected that conventional tax revenue would increase by $1.1 trillion, which would benefit the economy. However, PWBM says that GDP would fall by 1.3 percent by 2034. It is likely that capital investment and working hours would also decline.
When we look at how the Harris Campaign policy proposals would impact everyday voters, it seems that low- and middle-income households would fare better while households in the top 5 percent of the income distribution would have to pay more. However, these gains and loses do not take into account the negative impact of additional debt that could be seen.
While the economy is incredibly important, it is only one of many policy issues that will be decided in the upcoming election. Research is an essential part of voting—make sure that you understand not only the person but also the policies that you are voting for. Most importantly, get out and vote on November 5!
