Kamala Harris' economic plan (1 Viewer)

[zztop]

I tried to note some key points, pulled from a few sources, but not sure if I missed some

Harris offers proposals to cut food and housing costs, trying to blunt Trump's economic attacks

Vice President Kamala Harris has announced a sweeping set of economic proposals meant to cut taxes and lower the cost of groceries, housing and other essentials for many Americans.

apnews.com

• proposed for a federal ban on price gouging by food producers and grocers.
• proposed $25,000 in down payment assistance for certain first-time homebuyers and tax incentives for builders of starter homes.
• unveiled her goal of adding three million new housing units during her first term. Additionally, she said, she would "fight for a law that cracks down" on "corporate landlords" that artificially inflate the price of their real estate holdings
• proposed tax breaks for families, as well as middle- and lower-income people, promising to expand the child tax credit to up to $3,600 — and $6,000 for children in their first year of life.
• proposed to enlarge the earned income tax credit to cover people in lower-income jobs without children — which the campaign estimates would cut their effective tax rate by $1,500 — and lower health insurance premiums through the Affordable Care Act
• voiced support for ending taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers last week

 

[Lapaz]

I don't think Harris would be able to get a 25k down payment subsidy passed by Congress, but if she could it wouldn't directly increase the price of the house by 25k. And even if it did, it wouldn't negate the beneficial help of a 25k subsidy for the down payment.

Most people put down anywhere from 3% - 20% down on a conventional home loan. Let's say it's on the lower end of 5% down payment. A 25k subsidy for the 5% down payment would equal out to a $500,000 home. Let's assume that 25k gets added to the price of the home because of "market adjustments", whatever that it. That same home price would then be $525,000. With a 5% down payment, the down payment would be $26,250. Which means that the home buyer would need to come up with a $1,250 out of pocket to add to the $25,000 down payment subsidy to meet the cost of the down payment. That is much more manageable for any prospective home buyers as opposed to $25,000 with no subsidy.

I do think there are 2 main problems with this proposal. One is the amount of money the government would have to fund to make this possible. That would be a lot of money and add a lot to the debt. The second would be that you are making it much easier for people that may have credit problems to qualify for a home loan. Any time you do that, you run the risk of a default crisis down the road if applicants aren't pay their mortgage. So you still need to really consider credit worthiness.

I agree with your post. I think it wouldn’t lead to an automatic $25k increase, but I think it will be inflationary. It will increase home prices, but market forces may eventually mitigate that, particularly if supply increases. You pointed out a couple of concerns, but I think there will be some unforeseen issues. I just don’t like the idea. I prefer stimulating the market by increasing the supply and eliminating market problems like mass corporate ownership.

 

[Heathen]

She was asked by the reporter how she plans on paying for the economic polices she's calling for. She ignored that question and went into word salad mode and repeated return on investment 4 times. I can't wait to see her 1st press conference.

This “how will we ever pay for it” nonsense is sad and tired. It’s exactly what the rich which increasingly run things in this country hope you keep saying.

We NEVER ask this when spending billions on funding wars around the world.

The idea that conservatives care about “balancing the budget” or are somehow so different and responsible in this area is 150% parroted propaganda.

 

[Lapaz]

This “how will we ever pay for it” nonsense is sad and tired. It’s exactly what the rich which increasingly run things in this country hope you keep saying.

We NEVER ask this when spending billions on funding wars around the world.

The idea that conservatives care about “balancing the budget” or are somehow so different and responsible in this area is 150% parroted propaganda.

We should always ask the question of how we will pay, whether it is for wars or tax cuts or benefits given of any kind. DoD, Medicare and social security are hard to fix because of a large constituency, but they should be challenged like all other expenses.

 

[bird]

And you still wouldn't even come close to paying for the far left policies Harris supported in the past.

And you still wouldn’t come even in the same solar system to pay for the Reagan, Bush2 and Trump tax cuts.

 

[Heathen]

We should always ask the question of how we will pay, whether it is for wars or tax cuts or benefits given of any kind. DoD, Medicare and social security are hard to fix because of a large constituency, but they should be challenged like all other expenses.

Yeah, that’s valid. I’m not discouraging asking that. It’s more challenging the narrative of that particular conservative line which they repeat if it’s something they don’t agree with (while essentially staying silent on blank checks for said war).

 

[wardorican]

I tried to note some key points, pulled from a few sources, but not sure if I missed some

Harris offers proposals to cut food and housing costs, trying to blunt Trump's economic attacks

Vice President Kamala Harris has announced a sweeping set of economic proposals meant to cut taxes and lower the cost of groceries, housing and other essentials for many Americans.

apnews.com

• proposed for a federal ban on price gouging by food producers and grocers.
• proposed $25,000 in down payment assistance for certain first-time homebuyers and tax incentives for builders of starter homes.
• unveiled her goal of adding three million new housing units during her first term. Additionally, she said, she would "fight for a law that cracks down" on "corporate landlords" that artificially inflate the price of their real estate holdings
• proposed tax breaks for families, as well as middle- and lower-income people, promising to expand the child tax credit to up to $3,600 — and $6,000 for children in their first year of life.
• proposed to enlarge the earned income tax credit to cover people in lower-income jobs without children — which the campaign estimates would cut their effective tax rate by $1,500 — and lower health insurance premiums through the Affordable Care Act
• voiced support for ending taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers last week

Not a fan of the down payment assistance. Only because time has shown it will further inflate costs. And it will likely help lower income folks, but squeeze out middle to upper middle folks in an expensive market.

I think incentivizing builders to build more starter homes. Either through tax breaks, or perhaps low interest loans has some merit to increase the low cost supply. Especially coupled with either eliminating or seriously reducing corporate ownership.

However, these are ideas to help with affordability. Looking at it like that, I'm all about it from the 30k ft view.

 

[Dragon]

This “how will we ever pay for it” nonsense is sad and tired. It’s exactly what the rich which increasingly run things in this country hope you keep saying.

We NEVER ask this when spending billions on funding wars around the world.

The idea that conservatives care about “balancing the budget” or are somehow so different and responsible in this area is 150% parroted propaganda.

Another question to consider regarding several suggestions in her economic plan is how they would increase tax revenue. Investing in job creation and job training could move people from low-paying jobs to higher-paying ones or even transition individuals from welfare to becoming taxpayers. Her economic plan isn't solely about spending; it's also focused on increasing tax revenue by targeting high-tech companies and their employees.

 

[Lapaz]

I was initially in favor of eliminating the tax on tips, since I think tips are often either under or not reported, but I've realized that the unintended consequence is that many more people will want their pay to be based on tips, and there are some people that can make great money just from tips. I've heard of people at high end restaurants making 6 figure income, and it wouldn't make sense to exclude that from income taxes. I've come around to the idea that all income should be taxed progressively.

 

[Taurus]

Another question to consider regarding several suggestions in her economic plan is how they would increase tax revenue. Investing in job creation and job training could move people from low-paying jobs to higher-paying ones or even transition individuals from welfare to becoming taxpayers. Her economic plan isn't solely about spending; it's also focused on increasing tax revenue by targeting high-tech companies and their employees.

It's interesting to me that investment based fiscal policy is seen as this wild-eyed far left idea.
It highlights how much the GOP has lurched rightward that Eisenhower policies are rejected out of hand as next to communism.

 

[B4YOU]

She should just end stepped up basis instead of taxing unrealized gains. Inherited wealth with no taxes is not a good for society.

 

[MT15]

Some more economic proposals. This article is from Bloomberg, Harris is set to outline these proposals to stimulate small business formations tomorrow in NH.

Harris to Expand Small Business Tax Relief to Boost Startups

Kamala Harris is proposing a ten-fold increase in the small business tax deduction for startup costs, a new weapon in her arsenal as she vies with Donald Trump to show voters who can best assuage their anxieties about the economy.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[Lapaz]

She should just end stepped up basis instead of taxing unrealized gains. Inherited wealth with no taxes is not a good for society.

The inverse is also not necessarily good for society. I know part of the motivation to work is to provide a better life for your family. Many of us want to leave money and assets to our kids to give them a head start. I like the current estate tax starting at a high level. I didn’t inherit anything from my parents, but my kids will inherit from me, and I hope their kids will inherit even more.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The inverse is also not necessarily good for society. I know part of the motivation to work is to provide a better life for your family.

And if there is a 20% to 30% tax on what you pass on to your family are you going to just say "screw it" and not bother trying to build up any assets to pass on to your family?

Or would you be motivated to earn even more assets to compensate for the percentage of your assets that will get taxed?

The vast majority of people would be motivated to do the last one instead of the first one.

 

[Lapaz]

And if there is a 20% to 30% tax on what you pass on to your family are you going to just say "screw it" and not bother trying to build up any assets to pass on to your family?

Or would you be motivated to earn even more assets to compensate for the percentage of your assets that will get taxed?

The vast majority of people would be motivated to do the last one instead of the first one.

I was addressing the point about the impact on society from a family perspective, not on the individual perspective. At 30%, I think there is still motivation to build up assets to pass on. There probably would still be adequate motivation at even higher estate tax rates, but it starts to diminish as the rate rises, and the more it diminishes, the worse that motivation gets which would be bad for society, so it is a balance. The main point is that most of us are motivated at least in part to build wealth to help our families, so that has to be taken into account as well.

 

[LA - L.A.]

There probably would still be adequate motivation at even higher estate tax rates, but it starts to diminish as the rate rises, and the more it diminishes, the worse that motivation gets which would be bad for society, so it is a balance.

If it's a progressive rate that goes up as asset value goes up it does not have a negative impact on society. The worst case scenario is there would be at most a small decrease in the number of millionaires and billionaires. That is a positive thing for society as a whole.

I think that people who are motivated to help their families at the expense of society as a whole are actually bad for society as a whole. It's literal tribalism and tribalism is bad for society.

 

[UriUT]

I don’t care how she does it as long as they figure out a way to do it. Whether it’s a tax on unrealized capital gains, or a tax on borrowing against unrealized capital gains, doesn’t matter. As long as they start paying more than they are right now.

I knew it was the daily show that addressed this issue before, but i couldn't remember who was making the point. A miracle...it was in my threads feed this am.



Someone may have posted on mad of an alternative plan to address this issue. It was to tax the loans based on these assets. Sounds fair to me.

 

[Lapaz]

If it's a progressive rate that goes up as asset value goes up it does not have a negative impact on society. The worst case scenario is there would be at most a small decrease in the number of millionaires and billionaires. That is a positive thing for society as a whole.

I think that people who are motivated to help their families at the expense of society as a whole are actually bad for society as a whole. It's literal tribalism and tribalism is bad for society.

It's not bad for society to have more millionaires, but I'll grant that billionaires aren't helpful in today's dollar. If we try to reduce millionaires, we'll be inching towards communism, and that leads to misery. A socialist democracy that uses the drive of capitalism to build wealth is what benefits society the most, and that doesn't require decreasing millionaires. Building wealth to help your family is not generally at the expense of society, and it is far better for society than people who are not motivated to work for their families, so I want to maintain the incentives for the former. If the incentive of a law is to reduce millionaires, then I oppose it.

Regarding tribalism, we are by nature tribal, and our families are our most basic tribe, so we have to work within our human nature to help society as a whole. That may not work for everyone if their families are dysfunctional, but the hope for most people is to have a functional family to which they want to belong and help. It doesn't always have to be blood family, but a family nonetheless that you want to belong to and work for. We first and foremost want to belong and help that tribe, and secondly help society. It is naive to expect people to be motivated first for society and to put their family second, and I certainly won't strive for that society. Even when we fight wars, we do it for our tribe, even if our tribe isn't treated great by our society. It's when we reach the breaking point of mistreatment of our tribe that we break from our society, so our actions are always motivated by the treatment of our tribe. There are countries where people purport to be motivated first by society, rather than their own self-interests, but I don't believe them. People may bow to peer pressure or fear of expressing their desire to help their family first, but that's our nature, and I don't want to live in fear of expressing that nature.

 

[LA - L.A.]

It's not bad for society to have more millionaires,...

In a capitalistic society, the more millionaires there are the more people there are who are in poverty or barely getting by. That is bad for society. It's great for the millionaires, but it's bad for society.

If we try to reduce millionaires, we'll be inching towards communism...

Hook, line and sinker.

Building wealth to help your family is not generally at the expense of society...

It generally is in a capitalistic society, because capitalism creates a virtual zero-sum game.

...it is far better for society than people who are not motivated to work for their families, so I want to maintain the incentives for the former.

Your opinion on that is clear.

Regarding tribalism, we are by nature tribal,...

That's more myth than truth. It's the old "everyone's doing it" rationalization of bad behavior.

...and our families are our most basic tribe,

That may be true for you, but it's not true for everyone. Not all people are the same and neither are all families.

...so we have to work within our human nature to help society as a whole.

How do private toilets and laws against public bodily functions fit into this opinion of yours?

That may not work for everyone if their families are dysfunctional,...

No family is free of dysfunction. Every family is somewhere on the dysfunction spectrum.

It doesn't always have to be blood family,

When people say they want to "leave something for their family" they are talking about blood, marriage or adopted family. Taxing inheritance is a way of making sure everyone also leaves something for the community and society too. That's very important to having a more healthy functioning society, which is important to everyone having a more healthy functioning family.

...but a family nonetheless that you want to belong to and work for.

Most multimillionaires and billionaires are self-serving narcissists and/or people with a hoarding disorder. They work for and serve only themselves. Even their so called "philanthropy" is a self-serving facade.

We first and foremost want to belong and help that tribe, and secondly help society. It is naive to expect people to be motivated first for society and to put their family second...

What's naive is to think that everyone is the same and everyone has the same motivations and personalities. They are not and do not.

...and I certainly won't strive for that society.

Then that's true for you, but it's not true for everyone.

There are countries where people purport to be motivated first by society, rather than their own self-interests, but I don't believe them.

That's because you're tribal. You can only see the world and others from the limited perspective of your "tribe." It's one of the inherent problems with tribalism.

People may bow to peer pressure or fear of expressing their desire to help their family first, but that's our nature, and I don't want to live in fear of expressing that nature.

If having to pay taxes makes you afraid to earn money to help your family, then you've got bigger challenges than having to pay taxes on what you earn for your family.