Forum Thread

Elizabeth Warren vs Kamala Harris on Progressive Tax Changes

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 4 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    Both Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Kamala Harris want to change the tax code in a progressive way. But its interesting to note the strategy differences between the two.

    Simply put, Warren wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest individuals, businesses and corporations. And Harris wants to cut tax rates for low to moderate income earners.

    Both have the same goal in mind, to help out the middle and lower class by decreasing their tax burden. But the fundamentally different approach they are offering I think highlights the difference in overall economic ideology between the two. And really for the Democratic party in general.

    Its my take that Harris' approach is far more centrist. Seems she takes the view the system just needs tweaking, to introduce some tax relief for those that don't make a lot as is, and in that way you will see some positive boost to the economy and help those already struggling while not really disrupting the status quo.

    But that strategy is less progressive, as it doesn't get to the heart of the issue, as Warren sees it. She thinks that between tax loopholes and current tax rates on the top earners, the wealthy get away without paying anywhere close to their fair share, and the country as a whole would benefit greatly from the wealthy paying even more.

    Its likely both candidates would support crossover legislation that includes both strategies. But that's not what they themselves propose, as Presidential candidates, to change the tax code.

    Which approach do you find better, if either? Both are what you can label 'progressive' as they both involve cuts for the non-wealthy and/or raises on the wealthy.. either way a further shift of the tax burden to those that earn the most. Think Warren or Harris has the best idea? And which do you think has the best chance of implementing their vision, working with the GOP once elected across the aisle?

    I would say Harris' ideas are more of the same and Warren's would create more change. But I am weary of creating more tax revenue when perhaps the biggest issue with this country is how we allocate and spend it once it's collected.

    A good read on all this that inspired this thread - Inside The Warren Vs. Harris Battle Over Tax Progressivity

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    I am a fan of Andrew Yang's idea of giving everyone a baseline of $1000/month that's 18 or older, minus any money they are already receiving from the govt. The Freedom Dividend. I think he has a fairly sound idea of coming up with the funds in order to make it happen (VAT tax, could be a better idea but its sound enough).

    And I also buy into the idea of a 'trickle up' situation if we were to do that.

    But Yang didn't impress in his first showing to the public and I unfortunately think that will result in his campaign being over.

    Interestingly though, Kamala Harris' idea of a tax break on the middle class is something like a universal basic income, though not, as Vox points out. Here's the gist:

    The latest volley in the competition is the LIFT the Middle Class Act from Harris. As the Atlantic’s Annie Lowrey explains, the bill would offer a sizable cash payment to most middle-class households. Single people would get $250 per month or $3,000 a year, married couples would get $500 per month or $6,000 a year, and it would phase out for singles without kids making $50,000 or more, and for married couples or single people with kids making $100,000 or more. It costs about $200 billion in the first year or $2 trillion over 10, roughly in the range of the price tag for the 2017 tax cuts.

    Vox points out, I think correctly, the issue with it not being a perfect plan is who it excludes - the poorest and children.

    Also I am unclear on how it will be funded. Anyone know?

    Contrast that with Elizabeth Warren's idea - Accountable Capitalism Act. This would redistribute the wealth generated from the biggest corporations, funneling a good amount back into the workers hands. I am not super familiar but on the face of it, I like the idea.

    So they both have legislation proposed. Broad strokes I think Warren is getting to the root of the issue far better. Yet to be seen how realistic either of their proposals are though.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    bryce28 Wrote:

    I would say Harris' ideas are more of the same and Warren's would create more change. But I am weary of creating more tax revenue when perhaps the biggest issue with this country is how we allocate and spend it once it's collected.

    I can't agree more. I think it's more about about how we allocate tax revenue, which brings me to my main point. I have a feeling that if either plan were implemented, the government and the military industrial complex would just find other ways to keep or increase their budget. The amount of money that we spend on warfare is ridiculous, and it's been proven since WWII that the government has been doing everything they can to keep that money flowing into the respective coffers.

    It's the age old argument against Democrats. It's definitely polarizing. For the most part, progressive tax plans such as these create the opposition. Which is why many of us draw conclusions such as: Wealthy = Republican, and working class = Democrat. I find Harris's plan to be the best, and less invasive. I myself would rather just get a tax break. Yet, I wonder. How would taxing the wealthy more affect the middle class? If anything, I only see it benefiting the lower class through government programs. So I find Harris's plan to be more encompassing.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    I'm always hesitant to put too much weight on any one candidates tax "promises" considering those promises are almost certainly never going to become law.

    With that said, as a pragmatist, I think that Senator Harris's plan is a solid starting point. The current system is way too skewed towards benefiting the wealthy at the expense of the working poor, but Harris's proposal is at least a step in the right direction.