The Parallel Handouts from Trump and Harris Campaigns
Aug 27, 2024
auto_awesome
Vanessa Brown Calder, an insightful analyst of campaign pledges, dives into the curious overlap between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump's family policies, specifically their proposals for a large child tax credit. She discusses the surprising similarities and motives behind these pledges while questioning their effectiveness. The conversation also explores how financial incentives might affect fertility rates and critiques housing policies aimed at first-time home buyers, emphasizing the need for comprehensive reforms to tackle affordability issues.
Both Trump and Harris propose substantial increases to child tax credits to provide financial relief for families, yet skeptics question their effectiveness in boosting birth rates.
Harris's cash benefit for first-time homebuyers underscores the challenges of addressing housing affordability without considering underlying supply constraints and potential market distortions.
Deep dives
Similarities in Family Policies
The candidates Trump and Harris share notable similarities in their approaches to family policies, particularly regarding child-related financial assistance. While Trump's camp focuses on incentivizing higher birth rates through increased child tax credits, Harris emphasizes financial relief for families with children. Both propose enhancements to the child tax credit—with Harris suggesting an increase to $6,000 for parents of infants and Trump backing a $5,000 increase from the current $2,000. Despite their differing motivations, both campaigns exhibit a parallel structure to their proposals that may not significantly impact family financial dynamics.
Effectiveness of Financial Incentives on Birth Rates
There is a prevailing skepticism on whether financial incentives, such as boosted child tax credits, can effectively influence long-term birth rates. Research indicates that while short-term financial benefits may lead to timing shifts in having children, they do not result in an overall increase in births. This lack of substantial evidence suggests that policies aimed at increasing financial assistance are often costly and may not achieve their stated objectives. The initiatives from both campaigns may ultimately mirror each other in their effectiveness, providing financial relief without necessarily increasing fertility.
Housing Market Challenges and Proposed Solutions
Harris's proposal for aiding first-time homebuyers, including a $25,000 cash benefit, raises concerns about its impact on the housing market without addressing underlying supply issues. Offering financial subsidies in a constrained housing supply environment risks inflating home prices, potentially making homeownership less accessible rather than more. The discussion highlights the complexity of managing housing affordability and emphasizes that demand-side solutions alone—without significant supply-side reforms—may exacerbate existing issues. Experts suggest that federal efforts to enhance housing supply should focus on addressing state and local regulations rather than imposing broad subsidies that could distort market dynamics.
A large child tax credit is among a handful of remarkably similar campaign pledges from the campaigns of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Vanessa Brown Calder offers some analysis.