I have a lot of respect for the folks who run the Penn Wharton Budget Model. That said, long-term economic forecasts are often inaccurate, especially when analysts try to flesh out the details of proposals before final legislation is or isn't completed.
Caveats noted, Trump's plan seems to be worse for the deficit over the next 10 years, but better than the Harris plan for overall economic growth based upon the "Key Points" sections of both assessments. Trump's plan creates shared prosperity across all income groups. The Harris plan provides more of an income boost for the bottom income quintile, but is a net negative for the top 5-10%. (See Table 3 of both assessments).
The Harris plan has drawn a lot of criticism from center-left newspapers, including the Washington Post Editorial Board:
They said it was full of gimmicks and called it a "disappointment" at the close of their post.
It's not clear whether the Harris plan could pass Congress.
Harris' goal of building three million new homes within four years is unrealistic even if Congress adopted her plan. Single family housing starts were at an 851,000 annual rate as of July, according to the US Census Bureau:
Harris seems to be suggesting that she can boost that by an extra 750,000 units per year (3 million new homes over four years), if I understand her plan. A look at how slowly Team Biden has built out new EV charging stations (seven new stations in the two years since Congress approved $7.5 billion to build out up to 500,000) helps set expectations:
Charging stations are much easier to build than single family homes, so suffice it to say that many analysts are skeptical that an additional 750,000 single family homes per year could be built. The Harris proposal to give $25,000 to first time home buyers would mostly benefit home sellers, not buyers, unless the supply of homes grew a lot faster than seems likely.
Presidential campaigns often make promises that don't come to fruition after elections. Voters should take the economic plans from both campaigns with a big grain of salt. .
I have a lot of respect for the folks who run the Penn Wharton Budget Model. That said, long-term economic forecasts are often inaccurate, especially when analysts try to flesh out the details of proposals before final legislation is or isn't completed.
Caveats noted, Trump's plan seems to be worse for the deficit over the next 10 years, but better than the Harris plan for overall economic growth based upon the "Key Points" sections of both assessments. Trump's plan creates shared prosperity across all income groups. The Harris plan provides more of an income boost for the bottom income quintile, but is a net negative for the top 5-10%. (See Table 3 of both assessments).
The Harris plan has drawn a lot of criticism from center-left newspapers, including the Washington Post Editorial Board:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/16/harris-economy-plan-gimmicks/
They said it was full of gimmicks and called it a "disappointment" at the close of their post.
It's not clear whether the Harris plan could pass Congress.
Harris' goal of building three million new homes within four years is unrealistic even if Congress adopted her plan. Single family housing starts were at an 851,000 annual rate as of July, according to the US Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/current/index.html
Harris seems to be suggesting that she can boost that by an extra 750,000 units per year (3 million new homes over four years), if I understand her plan. A look at how slowly Team Biden has built out new EV charging stations (seven new stations in the two years since Congress approved $7.5 billion to build out up to 500,000) helps set expectations:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/03/28/ev-charging-stations-slow-rollout/
Charging stations are much easier to build than single family homes, so suffice it to say that many analysts are skeptical that an additional 750,000 single family homes per year could be built. The Harris proposal to give $25,000 to first time home buyers would mostly benefit home sellers, not buyers, unless the supply of homes grew a lot faster than seems likely.
Presidential campaigns often make promises that don't come to fruition after elections. Voters should take the economic plans from both campaigns with a big grain of salt. .
Thanks again
My pleasure