Donald Trump and Kamala Harris Keep Making Economically Illiterate Promises
These policies may sound good on paper—but they would be disastrous in reality.

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris keep making new promises.
Trump fans applauded when he said he'll eliminate taxes on tips. Then Harris proposed that, too. Her audience applauded. Trump then proposed not taxing overtime. More applause.
But narrow tax exemptions are bad policy.
In my new video, economist Allison Schrager explains how they create nasty, unintended consequences.
"No one likes tipping," says Schrager, "but all of a sudden, you'll have to pay tips for everything.…More people will be paid in tips."
I want lower taxes, but awarding specific exemptions to certain people doesn't just let some of us keep more of our money, it tells workers and employers to change their behavior.
"If you're a restaurant owner, you need chefs, hostesses, managers," says Schrager. "All of a sudden, one group of your employees isn't paying taxes, and the rest are. Suddenly, it would be very hard to hire anyone who's not a server."
Likewise, Trump's proposal to eliminate tax on overtime would reduce hiring.
"Employers may hire fewer people so they can give more overtime to employees they have already," says Schrager.
"Do you know any economists who support these ideas?" I ask.
"No," she says. "It's actually nice that economists on both the left and right are coming together with a sort of mutual disgust."
Disgust is the proper response to many of Trump's and Harris' proposals.
Harris promises more rent control. She says she will "take on landlords that unfairly raise rent on working families." Just "working families"? Will she allow landlords to raise rents on nonworking families? I hate the poll-tested jargon.
Her supporters praise her promise, but rent control is destructive. "Sounds really good," says Schrager. "But all it means is that people are less inclined to rent to you."
"Why would you enter a market where it seems like the government is actively trying to hurt you?" Adds Mercatus Center economist Salim Furth. "You're providing an essential service, something human beings need to live, and the government views you as a hostile outsider. I wouldn't want to bring any service into a market like that."
Argentina's new libertarian president just scrapped rent controls. The supply of rental apartments doubled, and prices declined by 40 percent! That's good policy.
But Harris proposes the opposite!
Likewise, Trump's (and Joe Biden's) tariffs don't just punish China, they reduce choice and raise prices in America.
"Free trade is good!" says Schrager. "It brings lower prices, making our own industries more dynamic, raising our income."
"But trade does take away some Americans' jobs," I point out.
"But it creates a lot of other new jobs," she replies.
It sure does. More and better jobs than those lost through trade.
Yet Trump brags about his tariffs, and Harris seems eager to outdo him with bad ideas.
She proposes giving "first-time homebuyers" $25,000. Again, her fans applaud.
Schrager explains, "free" money from government doesn't increase the supply of homes. When every buyer has $25,000 more, "they just bid up prices even higher!"
Why such economic ignorance?
"Look at Kamala's team," says Schrager. "Most of her core advisers are lawyers, not economists."
"What would be a good promise?" I ask.
"Addressing our growing debt," she responds.
That would be good. Thanks to Biden's reckless spending (and Trump's, and most every president's since Bill Clinton, and Congress adding pet projects), our debt now increases by $8 billion per day! That's money government cannot spend on protecting us or helping the truly needy.
Soon, Social Security and Medicare will run out of money.
But instead of addressing these problems, Trump and Harris pander.
"I won't raise retirement age by one day!" shouts Trump.
But if we don't reform these handouts, America will go broke.
Real reform frightens voters. So Trump and Harris make deceitful promises.
As Schrager concludes, "There's a lot to hate on both sides."
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Gosh, I miss Joe already!
I miss Joe Biden like a I miss a good dose of the clap.
Maybe they can write for Reason.
Why would a company hire fewer people because of the overtime taxes? Overtime is basically time and a half. Companies don't want to pay that. I don't see how taxes factor into that either way.
I haven't worked in a restaurant or bar, but I would imagine that many tips are cash and thus not reported either way. And at least one restaurant I frequent has a tip sharing scheme among all the employees.
I haven’t worked in a restaurant or bar, but I would imagine that many tips are cash and thus not reported either way.
The IRS gets suspicious if reported tips are less than 8% of sales. So the rule of thumb is to report a minimum of 10% of sales. Taxes on tips get taken from the server’s hourly wage, which is typically 1/2 of minimum wage. Most of the places where I worked, I didn’t actually claim any tips. The employer did it for me. They would report enough such that the taxes on them would equal my wages. As a result my paychecks were typically $0.0. But that was ok since I was talking home a couple hundred in cash ever shift. Better than reporting too much and owing money at the end of the year.
So it was basically a federal sales tax. I like it. Let's do it for all industries and phase out the corrupt graduated income tax scheme.
most tips are split amongst the staff and any waiter who doesn't share soon gets bad service from the staff as well.
this was in the 70s though when I was a dishwasher buss boy the sooner you took care of the ladies the more they shared. note tips are not shared with the owner even if he is the cook
The LP candidate might want to be compensated in mostly tips.
Just the tip?
He might push for that.
Under the table.
All of these articles are retarded, we have 4 years of trump and 4 years of Marxists. Whwn was America better off?
"[WE] the people" don't want to pay for the BILL of Socialism.
[OUR] Guns make sh*t don't ya know. /s
Step Two: "Conquer and Consume" the world with [OUR] Guns because people don't make things 'Guns' do!
You reap what you sew.
Hmm, do I want the wheeler-dealer with mercantilist tendencies who thinks aloud and sometimes says foolish things, or the authoritarian Marxist who sees government as the solution to everything and might be a true idiot?
Might be?????
I was trying to be nice.
"..."No one likes tipping," says Schrager,..."
Not true at all. It's my chance to award really good service and have that $1 tip indicate 'you need to change jobs'.
Wait, irl you don't tell the waiter to FOAD for poor service? huh
There's no such thing as a neutral tax. Tax income and you discourage people from working for pay. Tariffs discourage international trade. Tax sales and you discourage buying and selling. Tax land and you discourage ownership of it.
What do you discourage when you lower all taxes across the board?
That is true in some ways, but most people still work for wages. If we're assuming there is going to be some kind of tax, it's better if it creates the same incentives broadly, rather than incentivizing certain very specific things. Income tax sucks for lots of reasons. But it is closer to neutral than a lot of taxes because most people do actually need to make money somehow.
Nobody would vote for a candidate with sound economic policies. Everybody wants something for nothing, and will vote for the candidate who promises them the most.
Not everyone ...
THIS. Some would just like to be able to keep a good 80% (more the better) of what they EARNED without a majority [WE] mob using-voting as a means to STEAL it all with gov Guns; pretending their purpose in life is to centrally manage the labors & lives of everyone else like a dictator.
I'm going to say 5-10% would vote for sound economic policies. And as Argentina has shown, if things really go to shit that number can increase.
Or they elect a Hitler to pick winners and losers while they "conquer and consume" other nations and pack the losers into labor camps.
Neither one addresses THE most important issue, the debt.
Both need to address how they're going to stop the unbridled spending and how to end the debt.
Yup. But there appears to be no electoral advantage to presidential candidates in coming up with reasonable policies to fix the debt crisis, and Democrats and Republicans disagree on where spending goes but neither party actually wants to cut spending.
Trump addresses the deficit - or rather, fails to.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/watch-trump-responds-to-question-about-deficit-by-rambling-about-air-force-one/ar-AA1sk2UG?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=4a3eda2e9f02466f892e303de83dd57c&ei=49
One obvious lie in the middle, but not worth caring about.
As for rent control. It is a term with no real meaning. Rent control flows form the Declaration of Independence "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Without governments to provide a context to commerce, inalienable rights disappear. why? "Because power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Writing is 1776, Adam Smith agreed. Only the government can provide the structure for free markets.
The issue for rent control is whether it is wise or foolish, which holds for each and every law the government passes. One has to look at the specifics and THINK. Americans prefer to emote and then emote some more and never think.