Details and Analysis of President Joe Biden’s Campaign Tax Plan
What has President Joe Biden proposed in terms of tax policy changes? Our experts provide the details and analyze the potential economic, revenue, and distributional impacts.
Wealth taxes on ultra-wealthy households have been proposed by Democratic presidential candidates to fight against inequality and raise extra revenue but there is substantial uncertainty about how much revenue can be raised.
Comparing wealth taxes to income taxes shows how seemingly low rates on wealth equate to high income tax rates. Wealth taxes in European countries have had disappointing results and many have been phased out. A wealth tax would face serious administrative and compliance challenges due to valuation difficulties and tax evasion and avoidance issues.
A wealth tax would also induce foreign inflows of hundreds of billions of dollars a year to replace reductions in U.S. savings, which would cause international investors to replace home-grown billionaires as owners of capital.
Sen. Sanders (I-VT) | Sen. Warren (D-MA) | |
Conventional Revenue, 2020-2029 (Billions) | $3,261 | $2,636 |
Dynamic Revenue, 2020-2029 (Billions) | $2,555 | $2,193 |
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) | -0.43% | -0.37% |
Gross National Product (GNP) | -1.65% | -1.15% |
Capital Stock | -0.81% | -0.69% |
Wealth | -10.21% | -7.19% |
Source: Tax Foundation General Equilibrium Model |
2020 Democratic presidential candidates have proposed various changes to the corporate income tax to raise revenue for their policy proposals.
This includes increasing the corporate income tax rate, ranging from 25 percent to 35 percent, imposing a corporate surtax or a minimum tax, and lengthening depreciation schedules.
The effect of each of these proposals will be to increase the cost of capital in the United States, making it more expensive for businesses to make productivity-enhancing investments, and by doing so, reduce economic output, wages, and employment.
See Full Corporate tax estimate
Fmr. Vice President Biden (D) | Fmr. Mayor Bloomberg (D) | Fmr. Mayor Buttigieg (D) | Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN) | Sen. Sanders (I-VT) | Sen. Warren (D-MA) | |
Plan Details | 28% corporate income tax rate and 15% minimum tax on book income | 28% corporate income tax rate | 35% corporate income tax rate | 25% corporate income tax rate* | 35% corporate income tax rate and economic depreciation for all investments | 35% corporate income tax rate and 7% surtax on book income |
Static Revenue, 2020-2029 (Billions) | $1,553 | $1,253 | $2,507 | $716 | $3,871 | $3,379 |
Dynamic Revenue, 2020-2029 (Billions) | 1,351 | 1,093 | 2,149 | 629 | 2,689 | 2,683 |
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) | -1.20% | -1.00% | -2.10% | -0.50% | -3.80% | -3.70% |
Capital Stock | -2.90% | -2.30% | -5.10% | -1.30% | -9.10% | -8.70% |
Wage Rate | -1.00% | -0.80% | -1.80% | -0.40% | -3.20% | -3.10% |
Full-time Equivalent Jobs | -236,000 | -187,000 | -413,000 | -103,000 | -755,000 | -722,000 |
*Sen. Klobuchar has proposed a variety of corporate tax rate increases, ranging from 25 percent to fund infrastructure improvements, 27 percent to fund deficit reduction, and 28 percent to fund child care and paid family leave, and has mentioned in debates that she would repeal the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act corporate tax rate. | ||||||
Source: Tax Foundation General Equilibrium Model, November 2019. |
2020 Democratic presidential candidates have proposed various payroll tax changes to raise revenue and maintain solvency for major federal programs.
This includes levying Social Security payroll taxes on taxpayers with high wages, raising the Social Security payroll tax rate, and enacting new payroll taxes to fund new federal programs.
Each proposed change to payroll taxes levied on wages would make the tax code more progressive but would also reduce after-tax incomes for most wage earners. This is because employees fully bear the economic burden of payroll taxes, lowering the incentive to work and reducing economic output.
Fmr. Vice President Biden (D) | Fmr. Mayor Buttigieg (D) | Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN) | Sen. Sanders (I-VT) | Sen. Warren (D-MA) | |
Plan Details | 12.4% Social Security payroll tax on wages above $400,000 | 12.4% Social Security payroll tax on wages above $250,000 | 12.4% Social Security payroll tax on wages above $250,000 | 7.5% payroll tax on employers with a $2 million payroll exemption and 12.4% Social Security payroll tax on wages above $250,000 | 14.8%Social Security payroll tax on wages above $250,000 |
Conventional Revenue, 2021-2030 (Billions) | $808 | $1,556 | $1,556 | $5,505 | $1,890 |
Dynamic Revenue, 2021-2030 (Billions) | $657 | $1,302 | $1,302 | $4,677 | $1,573 |
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) | -0.28% | -0.36% | -0.36% | -1.17% | -0.41% |
Capital Stock | -0.33% | -0.42% | -0.42% | -1.33% | -0.48% |
Full-time Equivalent Jobs | -350,400 | -462,500 | -462,500 | -1,570,000 | -532,500 |
Source: Tax Foundation General Equilibrium Model, November 2019. |
The major 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have each proposed changes to the individual income tax, one of the largest sources of federal revenue.
These proposals range from raising the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6 percent, imposing surtaxes on labor and investment income, and repealing provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).
See Full Individual Income tax estimate
Biden | Sanders | |
Plan Details | Raise 37% tax bracket rate to 39.6% | Impose a 52% tax rate on incomes over $10 million, impose a 4% income-based premium on all income, repeal the Section 199A pass-through deduction |
Conventional Revenue, 2020-2029 (Billions of Dollars) | $109.00 | $3,168.40 |
Dynamic Revenue, 2020-2029 (Billions of Dollars) | $84.00 | $2,169.50 |
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) | 0% | -2.04% |
Capital Stock | 0% | -2.54% |
Full-time Equivalent Jobs | 0 | -1,532,000 |
Source: Tax Foundation General Equilibrium Model, November 2019. |
See Full Capital Gains tax estimate
Biden | Sanders | |
Plan Details | Repeal step-up in basis. Raise capital gains taxes to ordinary income rates for those with >$ 1 million | Raise capital gains taxes to ordinary income rates for those with >$250,000. Institute a 4 percent income premium on capital gains |
Conventional Revenue, 2020-2029 (Billions of Dollars | $451 | $28 |
Dynamic Revenue, 2020-2029 (Billions of Dollars) | $418 | ($10) |
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) | -0.03% | -0.07% |
Gross National Product (GNP) | -0.21% | -0.20% |
Capital Stock | -0.02% | -0.08% |
Full-time Equivalent jobs | -400 | -41,000 |
Source: Tax Foundation General Equilibrium Model, November 2019. |
What has President Joe Biden proposed in terms of tax policy changes? Our experts provide the details and analyze the potential economic, revenue, and distributional impacts.
The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades. The Biden administration has so far kept most of the Trump administration tariffs in place.
If we consider Biden’s tax plan over the entire budget window (2021 to 2030) as a percentage of GDP—1.30 percent—it would rank as the 6th largest tax increase since the 1940s and and one of the largest tax increases not associated with wartime funding.
Broad themes of the president’s agenda include providing tax relief to individuals and tax credits to businesses that engage in desired activities, while the status of expiring TCJA provisions and tariffs seems uncertain.
While the Biden campaign is certainly focused on increasing taxes on U.S. businesses and high-income earners, it is important that policymakers also understand what that reversal might do to U.S. competitiveness, and the competitive global environment in which U.S. companies and U.S. workers operate.
Depending on the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, we could be looking at a very different tax code in the years to come. What tax changes has former Vice President Joe Biden proposed and what would they mean for U.S. taxpayers, businesses, and the overall economy?
President Joe Biden’s tax plan would yield combined top marginal state and local rates in excess of 60 percent in three states: California, Hawaii, and New Jersey (also New York City).
As part of President Biden’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2023, the White House has once again endorsed a major tax increase on accumulated wealth, adding up to a 61 percent tax on wealth of high-earning taxpayers.
As increased political attention focuses on the state of the American worker, expect to see a resurgence of the argument that the labor share of income is in decline.
One prominent feature of President Biden’s agenda on the environment is to target U.S. fossil fuel producers and production with nearly $97 billion in tax increases over the next decade.
Now is the time for lawmakers to focus on long-term fiscal sustainability, as further delay will only make an eventual fiscal reckoning that much harder and more painful. Congressional leaders should follow through on convening a fiscal commission to deal with the long-term budgetary challenges facing the country.
Congress should reconsider key elements of the IRA, including the book minimum tax and the green energy credits, with an eye towards simplification and fiscal responsibility.
As the TCJA expiration nears, lawmakers face difficult choices in reforming the CTC. While revenue, distributional and economic effects are important, lawmakers should also focus on simplifying the rules and reducing the administrative challenges.
Starting on September 1st, federal student loan payments will resume after a three-and-a-half-year pause on payments and accrued interest following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is hard to imagine the IRS Direct e-File Program operating seamlessly with the complexity of the current U.S. tax system. Instead, lawmakers should first address the more fundamental problem that causes taxpayer frustration: our highly complicated tax code.
The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades. The Biden administration has so far kept most of the Trump administration tariffs in place.
Lawmakers should focus on simplifying the federal tax code, creating stability, and broadly improving economic incentives. There are incremental steps that can be made on the path to fundamental tax reform.
The agreement represents a major change for tax competition, and many countries will be rethinking their tax policies for multinationals in light of it. However, with both the U.S. and EU hitting roadblocks in their respective legislative processes, it is unclear when or even if the agreement will be implemented. If implementation fails, a return to a world of distortive European digital services taxes and retaliatory American tariffs could be on the horizon.
The price tag of the Inflation Reduction Act’s green energy tax credits is much higher than originally thought. Among other things, the updated analysis indicates the Inflation Reduction Act does not reduce deficits after all.
As the UTPR is a new concept, it is worth explaining what it is and why Rep. Smith cares about it. In a sentence, the Undertaxed Profits Rule (UTPR) is a looming extraterritorial enforcement mechanism for a tax base the U.S. has not adopted.
To address the more challenging parts of the budget, especially the unsustainable growth in mandatory spending, lawmakers should follow up on this debt ceiling agreement with a focus on long-term fiscal sustainability.
Any serious proposal to tackle the emerging debt and deficit crisis must also address our largest mandatory spending programs: Social Security and Medicare. Together, these two programs will be responsible for nearly 80 percent of the deficit’s rise between 2023 and 2032, according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections.
Although the U.S. has a progressive tax system and a relatively low tax burden compared to the OECD average, average-wage workers still pay more than 30 percent of their wages in taxes.
A better-designed tax system should be a goal of any fiscal consolidation package. That said, our simulations suggest that even substantially higher tax increases are insufficient to curtail long-run debt-to-GDP growth.
Rather than continue down the path of growing debt, lawmakers should craft a comprehensive solution. International experience cautions against tax-based fiscal consolidations, but modest tax increases may be part of a successful debt reduction package.
According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the U.S. federal government is among the most indebted governments in the world.
As policymakers look to tackle America’s debt and deficit crisis, they should consider international experiences on successful fiscal consolidations.
In our latest report, we consider several theoretical arguments for carbon taxes and the evidence from carbon taxes implemented around the world related to emissions, economic growth, distribution and revenue recycling options, other environmental taxes, green subsidies, and environmental regulations.