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.
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.
The Trump administration’s disastrous tax law paved the way for corporate America’s “mink coats and Cadillacs” moment.
In one of the more memorable scenes from the Scorcese mob classic Goodfellas, Jimmy scolds his co-conspirators for flaunting the spoils of their infamous Lufthansa Heist—the 1978 theft of $6 million in cash and jewels from New York’s JFK Airport.
“Didn’t I tell you not to get anything?” Jimmy snaps at Johnny, who had arrived at the Christmas party in a new pink Cadillac. Moments later, Frank walks in alongside a date donning a new mink coat, and Jimmy is incensed. “In two days, one guy gets a Caddy and one guy gets a $20,000 mink!”
The mob logic portrayed here—that when you hit a major lick, it’s best to lay low and not attract attention—seems innocent by the standards of the Trump administration’s signature heist: the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). That law paved the way for corporate America’s “mink coats and Cadillacs” moment by slashing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%—robbing the public of roughly $1.3 trillion and further enriching billionaires and top executives. In Goodfellas terms, that’s equal to 46,428 inflation-adjusted Lufthansa heists. And like Johnny and Frank, the corporations who scored the biggest windfalls have since done the opposite of lay low. They have instead gone on a years-long profiteering binge, rolling out some of the most egregious tactics to cash in even further.
In typical trickle-down fashion, the corporate rate cut was sold as a boon to workers and ordinary families. The Trump administration said the TCJA’s most expensive provision would boost wages to the tune of $4,000 per year. That promise, it turns out, was a fraud. According to a recent study, 90% of American workers received zero dollars from the TCJA’s corporate rate cut. Meanwhile, executive pay soared, and stock buybacks hit a record high $1 trillion in the year after it passed.
So what did the typical American family get if not a major boost in income? Junk fees, deceptive scams at the grocery store, price gouging, and major collusion scandals in everything from meatpacking to rentals to oil and gas. It can be said that the TCJA unleashed a greatest hits of predatory tactics by rewarding otherwise too-risky pricing schemes that push consumer loyalty to the brink. Lower taxes and record profits also mean more money to buy lobbying power in Washington to push for more tax cuts. In that way, our dangerously low-tax environment exposes all of us to the worst and riskiest corporate behavior.
Higher corporate taxation means fewer opportunities to hoard profits and rip off consumers, and more opportunities to invest in healthcare, child care, education, and jobs—the things proven to improve quality of life and democratize economic opportunity.
According to a February study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), 342 profitable corporations paid an effective tax rate of 14.1% from 2018 to 2022, well below the 21% signed into law by the Trump administration. Layered onto decades of corporate tax cuts, the TCJA pushed the U.S. to the very bottom of the OECD in terms of revenue raised from corporations as a share of the economy. And Republicans are poised to go even further if former U.S. President Donald Trump retakes the White House.
A recent analysis from CAP Action found that Trump’s plan to cut the corporate tax rate even further to 15% would provide the top 100 U.S. companies with an additional $48 billion gift every year. This means even more breathing room to test out the next wave of ripoff schemes needed to satisfy investors. Whether it’s major credit card companies jacking up APRs even further, Amazon running more casino-style pricing experiments, or Tyson Foods deploying more algorithms to allegedly collude on meat prices, lower taxation offers a sweet incentive to profiteer at the expense of consumers.
Raising the corporate tax rate won’t fix everything that’s broken with corporate America or our economy. But it will fundamentally change the economic rules. Higher corporate taxation means fewer opportunities to hoard profits and rip off consumers, and more opportunities to invest in healthcare, child care, education, and jobs—the things proven to improve quality of life and democratize economic opportunity.
Since the Trump tax cuts, the largest corporations have flaunted their record profits like caddies and minks, bragging on earnings calls about the new tricks they’re using to raise prices on consumers. The era of tax heists must end if we are to stop them. The time to end it is now.
"Republicans would rather protect their billionaire friends at the expense of everyone else," said the chair of the Joint Economic Committee.
Budget proposals released by congressional Republicans in recent months lay bare the party's desire to slash taxes for wealthy Americans and large corporations at the expense of key government programs and services, including nutrition assistance, environmental protection, and Medicaid.
That's according to an analysis released Wednesday by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), which examined budget plans the GOP has released as Congress works to craft and pass government funding bills for the coming fiscal year.
The JEC specifically cites a Fiscal Year 2025 budget proposal published in March by the Republican Study Committee, a panel comprised of three-quarters of the House GOP caucus.
The plan, the JEC Democrats noted Wednesday, "claims to balance the budget by cutting Medicare spending, raising the retirement age for Social Security, capping funding for Medicaid and CHIP, and cutting the rest of non-defense discretionary spending by 31% across the board."
"This would drive up health costs for American families by increasing premiums for [Affordable Care Act] healthcare plans and getting rid of protections for people with pre-existing conditions," the new analysis says. "It would also prohibit Medicare from negotiating down prescription drug costs."
A separate proposal from Republicans on the House Budget Committee claims it would finance "large tax cuts for the wealthy by both slashing key services and assuming that their tax giveaways lead to unrealistic levels of economic growth," the Democratic report says.
"Analyzing this budget with more reasonable economic assumptions instead shows that budget would likely require the government to eliminate most federal services within a decade," the report adds.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), the chair of the JEC, said in a statement Wednesday that "Republicans' extreme proposals are dangerous for America."
"While Democrats are fighting to invest in families, Republicans would rather protect their billionaire friends at the expense of everyone else," said Heinrich. "Kicking 42 million kids off of health insurance, gutting federal investments in public safety, denying veterans hospital care, and getting rid of [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] benefits that help people afford groceries is unconscionable. Americans deserve better."
The analysis from JEC Democrats comes as Republican nominee Donald Trump attempts to posture as an ally of the working class despite his history of assailing labor protections and backing tax cuts for the rich.
Trump has called for an extension of the tax cuts he signed into law in 2017—changes that overwhelmingly benefited wealthy Americans. An extension of the tax cuts would add $4.6 trillion to the deficit of the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The former president's advisers have also reportedly discussed reducing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%, a change that would give the largest 100 U.S. companies a tax cut of $48 billion per year.
Trump has floated proposals that are ostensibly geared toward helping working-class Americans, including exempting tips from taxation—a proposal specifically aimed at hospitality workers—and eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits.
But earlier this week, UNITE HERE—a union that represents hospitality workers—endorsed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris over the Republican candidate, warning that "another Trump presidency would mean four chaotic years of defending against his attacks on unions, working people, immigrants, women, and others."
As for Trump's proposal to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, an analysis by the Tax Policy Center's Howard Gleckman found that the move would reduce "Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance (HI) revenues by $1.5 trillion over the next decade," harming the programs' finances while providing "little or no benefit" to lower-income households in 2025.
"Less than 1% of the lowest-income households (those making about $33,000 or less, would get any tax cut at all," Gleckman observed. "But about 28% of middle-income households would get a tax cut. Among the top 0.1 percent, about 20 percent of households would get a tax cut."
Gleckman found that "in dollar terms, the biggest winners would be those in the top 0.1% of income, who make nearly $5 million or more."