SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Trump-Vance tax agenda of cuts and tariffs stands in stark contrast to the reforms that Walz has shepherded.
As Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Sen. JD Vance prepare to debate this week, it’s worth looking at their approaches to tax policy, a critical throughline that helps determine not only the quality of public services in communities across the country, but also the overall fairness of our economy.
Recent reforms signed by Walz have helped create a moderately progressive tax system in Minnesota, making the state stand apart from most that charge the rich lower tax rates than everyone else.
Our analysis shows that taxes on working-class families declined markedly over the last few years in Minnesota while taxes on high-income people went up slightly.
The most notable changes were signed into law by Walz in 2023 as part of a sweeping tax reform package. Some changes were temporary, like taxpayer rebate checks and expanded property tax credits. But the bill also included important permanent reforms.
In Minnesota, Walz has helped institute a tax system that asks wealthy households and profitable corporations to chip in more to help create a stronger, healthier, more equitable society.
Chief among those was a new Child Tax Credit that is expected to slash child poverty in Minnesota by one-third, according to Columbia University’s Center on Poverty and Social Policy. The link between Child Tax Credits and child well-being is well established, as the financial security afforded by these credits is associated with improved child and maternal health, better educational achievement, and stronger future economic outcomes.
Other tax cuts signed by Walz include expanded exemptions for Social Security income and for student loan forgiveness, plus an extension of the Child Care Tax Credit to newborn children.
To help pay for all this, the 2023 bill included tax increases on high-income people and profitable corporations. Certain tax deductions claimed by high-income filers have been scaled back. Capital gains, dividends, and other investment income over $1 million per year is now subject to a modest 1% surtax. And multinational corporations reporting income overseas now face higher taxes as well, as the state opted to piggyback on a law written by congressional Republicans targeting companies’ “low-taxed income.”
Vance has not been a lawmaker for long and doesn’t have a robust track record on tax policy. The roughly dozen tax-related bills he sponsored or co-sponsored in Congress run the gamut. He has introduced bills that would use the tax code to fight the culture war against colleges, universities, and campus protesters. He’s signed onto several bills that would further enrich the richest, like eliminating the estate tax (which is paid almost exclusively by those inheriting more than $20 million) and making the 2017 Trump tax law’s subsidy for pass-through businesses permanent (which goes mostly to millionaires, who often game the system to extract the largest possible windfalls from this law).
Vance has also introduced legislation to repeal tax incentives for electric vehicles and replace them with tax breaks for buying American-manufactured vehicles, and signed onto a bill to eliminate rebates for upgrading to more efficient appliances. He’s also a co-sponsor of a bill to erode K-12 public schools with private school voucher tax credits.
In August, Vance floated increasing the Child Tax Credit to $5,000 per child for “all American families,” yet details remain scarce. His comments suggest he would make the credit available for many–but not all–the low-income families who currently earn too little to receive it as well as the wealthy families who earn too much (over $400,000). It’s unclear if Vance’s plan would help all low-income families currently left out by the credit’s lack of refundability–he’s never addressed that. While it’s promising that Vance talked about the Child Tax Credit, it’s hard to take his vague proposal seriously–especially after he sat out a vote in the Senate for a bipartisan bill that would have expanded this credit.
On the trail, Vance is hyping up many of his running mate’s tax proposals, including Trump’s tariff tax. This proposal–which would create a 60% tariff on Chinese imports and a 20% one on all other imports–would cost an average middle-class American family nearly $4,000 a year.
The tariff plan is a critical part of the Trump-Vance tax agenda because it’s one of a very small number of revenue raisers in a basket of special interest tax cuts. So, yes, it would help pay for some of those tax cuts (though at an estimated $2.8 trillion raised over the next decade it pales in comparison to the over $9 trillion in revenue loss from proposed cuts). But it would do it in a way that falls hardest on regular families, making our system fundamentally less fair in the process.
That stands in stark contrast to the reforms that Walz has shepherded. In Minnesota, Walz has helped institute a tax system that asks wealthy households and profitable corporations to chip in more to help create a stronger, healthier, more equitable society.
This is the type of tax system that most Americans say they want. It’s also exactly the kind that America desperately needs.
Expanding the credit is a proven solution for lifting millions of children above the poverty line and helping to ensure that all children have the resources they need to thrive.
During the 2025 tax debate, policymakers have the opportunity to remake the tax code so that it is fairer, works for low- and moderate-income people and families, and advances racial equity.
A key priority should be expanding the Child Tax Credit to benefit the roughly 19 million children shut out from receiving the full credit simply because their families have low incomes. Lawmakers should, at a minimum, reinstate the successful 2021 American Rescue Plan expansion of the Child Tax Credit, including making the full credit available to children in families with low incomes and increasing the maximum amount of the credit to $3,600 for children aged five and younger and $3,000 for children aged 6 to 17, among other changes.
When the expanded credit expired, the number of children experiencing poverty rose substantially, demonstrating that child poverty is created—and can be alleviated —through policy choices.
There has been intensive congressional interest in the Child Tax Credit this year, including the House-passed bipartisan Wyden-Smith expansion, and proposals from congressional Child Tax Credit champions that build on the Rescue Plan.
Under current law, three major design flaws in the Child Tax Credit deny its full benefit to millions of children in low-income families:
The credit is also unavailable to 17-year-olds, who typically are still in high school.
An estimated 1 in 4 children—or roughly 19 million children—got less than the full $2,000-per-child credit or no credit in 2022 because their families’ incomes were too low. (See chart for examples of families at different income levels.) This includes nearly half of Black children, 4 in 10 Native American children, more than 1 in 3 Latino children, and about 1 in 3 children living in rural areas. Their families are overrepresented in low-paying work due to past and present hiring discrimination, inequities in educational and housing opportunities, and other sources of inequality. About 1 in 6 white children, more than 1 in 7 Asian children, and all children in Puerto Rico are also left out of the full credit.
When Congress temporarily expanded the Child Tax Credit in 2021, child poverty plummeted; the credit expansion reduced the number of children living below the poverty line by more than a third. While all racial and ethnic groups saw large reductions in poverty, the percentage point reduction in child poverty was largest for Black, Latino, and Native American children. In passing the American Rescue Plan, Congress extended the Child Tax Credit to all children living in families with low or no income for the first time, and increased the $2,000-per-child credit to $3,600 per child aged 5 and younger, and $3,000 per child aged 6 to 17 (making 17-year-olds eligible for the first time), among other changes.
When the expanded credit expired, the number of children experiencing poverty rose substantially, demonstrating that child poverty is created—and can be alleviated —through policy choices. A 2019 National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report on reducing child poverty found that “income poverty itself causes negative child outcomes.” A large number of studies have found evidence that additional income can improve children’s outcomes in the short and long term.
If the Rescue Plan version of the Child Tax Credit were in place for 2024, roughly 2.6 million fewer children would live in families with incomes below the poverty line. (See Table 1 at this link for estimates by state.) This includes 959,000 Latino children, 755,000 white children, 654,000 Black children, 79,000 Native American children, and 71,000 Asian children.
Congress should, at a minimum, reinstate the Rescue Plan expansion of the Child Tax Credit.
We’ve seen strong interest in the Child Tax Credit over the last year. Bipartisan tax legislation, which was negotiated by House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), included a modest, but still important, expansion and passed the House with a large majority in January 2024. That proposal would have increased the Child Tax Credit for an estimated 16 million children in the first year, and lifted some 500,000 children above the poverty line when fully in effect.
Separately, two congressional proposals, Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Michael Bennet’s (D-Colo.) Working Families Tax Relief Act and Rep. Rosa DeLauro’s (D-Conn.) American Family Act, build on the success of the Rescue Plan’s expanded Child Tax Credit. They make the full credit available to children in families with low incomes, propose larger maximum credit amounts than the Rescue Plan (by adjusting the Rescue Plan maximum credit amounts for inflation), and make additional changes to the credit. Though details differ, both proposals would lift more children above the poverty line over time than reinstating the 2021 Rescue Plan credit due to their larger maximum credit values and other changes. For example, according to a Columbia University analysis, had the American Family Act been in place for 2023 the credit expansion would have lifted an additional 3.6 million children out of poverty compared to current law.
Policymakers in both parties should make expanding the Child Tax Credit a priority in the 2025 tax debate. At minimum they should reinstate the Rescue Plan changes, which would provide an income boost to more than 60 million children in total, including the 19 million children in families with the lowest incomes. (See Table 2 at this link for estimates by state.) Expanding the Child Tax Credit is a proven solution for lifting millions of children above the poverty line and helping to ensure that all children have the resources they need to thrive.
The Harris campaign seems eager to tax the rich and corporations while Trump vows to preserve and expand tax cuts for the wealthiest and says little about how to pay for that.
As U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump get ready to debate for the first time this week, what can we expect from their campaigns in terms of taxes?
Harris endorses multiple proposals to generate revenue from the richest people and the biggest corporations and deliver a middle-class tax cut—with the former paying for the latter. Trump would cut some middle-class taxes but promotes a new tariff tax on imports that would hike the price of nearly everything Americans purchase and, doubling down on past practice, he’d slash taxes for millionaires and corporations. He hasn’t identified a single business or billionaire that should pay more.
When Trump and congressional Republicans passed the 2017 tax law, they made massive tax cuts for corporations permanent but set the individual cuts, which were heavily skewed to the extremely wealthy, to expire at the end of 2025. This means taxes are on next year’s policy agenda in a way that rarely comes along. The approaches articulated by the campaigns would pull the nation in profoundly different directions.
Trump says he would again slash corporate tax rates, keep all corporate cuts from the 2017 tax law, extend 2017’s expiring cuts for everyone including the uber-wealthy, and impose large tariffs that fall on everyone who spends money on anything.
Trump’s tariff tax proposals—60% tariff taxes on imports from China and 20% on all other imports—would cost the typical American household over $2,600 a year according to economist Kim Clausing. Earlier analysis of a previously-discussed 10 percent worldwide tariff tax shows an increase in inflation resulting from the plan, which would also generate $2.8 trillion in revenue over the next decade, raised from consumers.
Much of that revenue would go to corporations. When lawmakers cut the corporate rate from 35% to 21% in 2017, corporate tax payments plummeted, and huge, profitable corporations continued to pay far below the statutory rate. We’d see this on steroids if Trump slashed the corporate rate to 15%. Such cuts increase income and racial inequality and send a massive windfall—40 cents of every dollar—to foreign investors.
The law that the Trump administration passed in 2017 delivered enormous tax cuts to those in the top 1%, a narrow sliver of well-off people with income over $800,000 a year. These individual cuts for the rich expire in 2025, but the Trump campaign wants to make them permanent, sending almost two-thirds of that money to the richest fifth of Americans. This would cost more than $280 billion in 2026 alone, slashing revenue that could otherwise provide tax cuts for middle-income Americans, reduce the national debt, or fund childcare, healthcare, or infrastructure.
Republican Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance has mentioned more than doubling the Child Tax Credit but has provided few details and Trump has not signed on.
Harris backs most of the revenue raisers and middle class tax cuts laid out in President Joe Biden’s 2025 budget. The revenue components raise nearly $5 trillion over a decade, entirely from wealthy people and corporations, reducing inequality, both economic and racial, and generating funds for things the American people need.
Harris plans to boost revenue from corporations by raising the corporate rate, increasing the corporate minimum tax, increasing the stock buyback tax, and reining in corporate offshore tax avoidance. She’d better tax the wealthy by allowing expiration of the parts of the 2017 tax law that exclusively help those making more than $400,000. For those who make over $1 million a year, Harris would eliminate tax breaks on capital gains and dividends. For incomes exceeding $100 million a year, she’d tax currently exempt investment income that many billionaire CEOs receive. These provisions would do much to reform a tax code that most Americans say raises too little from corporations and the wealthy.
Harris would fully extend temporary tax cuts from the 2017 tax law for people earning less than $400,000 and try a new down-payment assistance program for some first-time homebuyers. She’d also expand the Child Tax Credit to $6,000 for newborns, $3,600 for children up to age five, and $3,000 for older children. This is one of the best and most well-proven ways to cut poverty, reduce inequality, and help middle-class families.
Both campaigns support eliminating taxes on tips. This could encourage wealthy professionals to reclassify fees as tips and there are better ways to help workers—raising the minimum wage, eliminating the paltry $2.13 sub-minimum wage, and increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit. Harris would limit her exemption to workers earning less than $75,000—an improvement Trump leaves out—but this doesn’t redeem a fundamentally flawed proposal.
Campaign proposals reveal two very different paths. The Harris campaign seems eager to tax the rich and corporations, cut taxes for middle-income taxpayers, reduce poverty, reduce inequality, and raise revenue for public spending. Trump vows to preserve and expand tax cuts for the wealthiest people and corporations and says little about how to pay for that beyond a tariff that raises much less than Harris’ plans and falls on consumers. His proposals would inevitably force cuts to important public programs or run up the national debt.
The entire tax code is up for debate in 2025. Our system asks far too little of wealthy people and corporations. Americans should listen closely to both campaigns and push for policies that raise more from those most able to pay, give tax cuts to those who most need them, and generate resources to invest in public priorities.