As tax cuts face expiration, the battle lines are drawn for a fiscal future.
- Trump and Harris have starkly different tax policies as the 2017 tax cuts are set to expire.
- Democrats may leverage the expiration to negotiate better tax terms for families earning under $400,000.
- A divided government could lead to unpredictable tax outcomes and potential hikes for many Americans.
- Trump aims to make the 2017 tax cuts permanent, costing an estimated $8.5 trillion over 10 years.
- Harris plans to raise taxes on high earners while extending cuts for lower earners, aiming for a net increase of $4.1 trillion.
- The bond market may react negatively to short-term tax gimmicks, especially if Trump wins the presidency.
As the November presidential election approaches, the next president will need to negotiate with Congress regarding the future of income tax rates, particularly as the 2017 Trump tax cuts are set to expire at the end of next year. The tax policies of Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris are significantly different, which raises concerns for Americans about the potential expiration of these tax cuts. nnSenator Elizabeth Warren represents the left wing of the Democratic Party, advocating for the expiration of the Trump tax cuts, arguing that it would prevent a wealth transfer to the rich at the expense of working families. She believes that this could provide leverage for Democrats to negotiate better tax terms for families earning less than $400,000, as Harris has promised to do. However, there is a risk that this strategy could backfire, resulting in higher tax rates for most Americans starting in 2026. nnEconomic-policy analyst Henrietta Treyz estimates that while the chances of a tax hike are low, the likelihood of a divided government is high, which could complicate tax negotiations. If Harris wins the presidency with a Democratic House and a Republican Senate, she predicts that tax discussions will dominate her presidency, especially as Senate Republicans may push for budget discipline. nnTrump’s tax plan includes making the 2017 tax law permanent, repealing the cap on state and local tax deductions, and reducing corporate tax rates, which could cost upwards of $8.5 trillion over the next decade. In contrast, Harris aims to raise taxes on corporations and high earners while extending cuts for families making less than $400,000, hoping to raise over $4.1 trillion in taxes while cutting elsewhere. nnThe challenge of reaching a consensus on tax legislation is heightened by the significant differences between the parties. If Democrats control the White House and Republicans the Senate, potential tax increases could target corporations and small business owners earning over $400,000. nnTreyz suggests that a likely outcome under a Harris administration could be a two-year extension of the current tax law, similar to what former President Obama did with the Bush tax cuts. However, this approach carries risks, especially with the federal budget deficit already at record levels. nnWall Street is becoming increasingly aware of the implications of short-term tax deals, and a potential revolt in the bond market could occur if Trump wins the presidency but Democrats regain the House. In such a scenario, a tax bill costing $3 trillion over ten years could be on the table, which would significantly impact the bond market. nnOverall, the upcoming election and its aftermath could lead to significant changes in tax policy, with potential consequences for taxpayers across the board.·
Factuality Level: 6
Factuality Justification: The article provides a detailed analysis of the potential tax policy outcomes depending on the results of the upcoming presidential election. It includes various perspectives from political figures and analysts, which adds depth. However, it contains some speculative elements and assumptions about future events that could mislead readers about the certainty of outcomes. Additionally, while it presents factual information, the complexity of the tax policy discussion may lead to confusion without clear context for all readers.·
Noise Level: 7
Noise Justification: The article provides a detailed analysis of the potential tax policy outcomes following the presidential election, discussing the positions of both major candidates and the implications of a divided government. It includes expert opinions and estimates, which adds depth and supports its claims with evidence. However, it could benefit from a more critical examination of the broader implications of these tax policies and their impact on different socioeconomic groups.·
Public Companies: MarketWatch (N/A), Tax Foundation (N/A), Beacon Policy Advisors (N/A)
Private Companies: Veda Partners,Miller & Chevalier
Key People: Donald Trump (Republican nominee), Kamala Harris (Vice President), Elizabeth Warren (Senator), Henrietta Treyz (Economic-policy analyst at Veda Partners), Jorge Castro (Former IRS official and tax-policy lawyer at Miller & Chevalier)
Financial Relevance: Yes
Financial Markets Impacted: Yes
Financial Rating Justification: This article discusses the potential impact of the upcoming presidential election on tax policy and income-tax rates, which directly relates to financial topics such as taxes and budget deficits. The outcome of the election could lead to different tax policies being implemented, affecting corporations, families, and small businesses. It also mentions the possibility of a bond market reaction if certain scenarios occur, indicating that financial markets may be impacted by the decisions made in response to the election results.
Presence Of Extreme Event: No
Nature Of Extreme Event: No
Impact Rating Of The Extreme Event: No
Extreme Rating Justification: The article discusses potential tax policy changes and political negotiations but does not report on any extreme event that has occurred in the last 48 hours.·
Move Size: No market move size mentioned.
Sector: All
Direction: Down
Magnitude: Large
Affected Instruments: Stocks, Bonds
www.marketwatch.com 
