Donald Trump

Apache is functioning normally

Economic topics took center stage in the vice presidential debate Tuesday night between Ohio Sen. JD Vance and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. The candidates defended their tickets while debating intensely on inflation, housing, child care and health care.

The debate, held in New York City and hosted by CBS, gave Walz and Vance the opportunity to more clearly define themselves to voters, as both were thrust quickly into the national stage this summer. In contrast to the presidential debate three weeks ago between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the vice presidential debate was strongly focused on policy.

Also unlike the first debate between Trump and Harris, the Walz-Vance debate remained civil and sometimes agreeable. The pair even found common ground in the fact that both have made public misstatements in the past — Vance in his prior condemnation of Trump and Walz incorrectly stating that he had been in Hong Kong during the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

But it was still a debate between candidates with stark conflicting views on most issues, especially abortion and immigration. They used their time to attack the others’ rivals at the top of the ticket. The biggest moment of tension between the two men came when Walz confronted Vance about whether he believed that Trump lost the 2020 election — Vance bypassed the question and instead pivoted to a claim about pandemic-related censorship on Facebook.

As Walz and Vance supported their respective running mates, here’s what they had to say on some key economic issues:

The economy

  • Vance said Harris has already had the time to enact her policy plans, some of which he said “even sounds pretty good”: “If Kamala Harris has such great plans for how to address middle-class problems, then she ought to do them now.” 

  • Walz attacked Trump for his contributions to the state of the economy the Biden-Harris administration inherited. He said: “We were already, before Covid, in a manufacturing recession — about 10 million people out of work, largest percentage since the Great Depression.” 

  • Walz also gave his appeal to voters when it comes to Trump’s tax policies: “How is it fair that you’re paying your taxes every year and Donald Trump hasn’t paid any federal tax in the last 15 years?” 

Housing affordability

  • Harris wants to increase housing production and encourage first-time home buying through downpayment support. Walz supported Harris’ plans and attacked Trump’s plan to seize federal lands 

  • Trump wants to make housing more affordable by seizing federal lands, providing tax incentives and deporting immigrants. Trump has stated many times that migrants have driven up competition and increased housing prices — this claim is false, but Vance said he would share evidence after the debate via social media. Vance said that one of the strategies for lowering housing costs (in addition to Trump’s plan to deport migrants) would be lowering energy prices.  

  • The VP candidates did agree on one thing, sort of. Walz said “The problem we’ve had is that we’ve got a lot of folks that see housing as another commodity.” Vance also said “We should get out of this idea of housing as a commodity,” before returning to more rhetoric related to immigration. 

Health care

  • Vance promised to cover preexisting conditions if Trump is elected. 

  • Walz spoke about Trump’s opposition to the Affordable Care Act and his attempts to repeal it during his time in office. 

  • On abortion, Vance rebuffed the conjecture that he supported a national ban on abortion, although he did support a bill that would have done just that in 2022. He added that he wants the Republican Party to be pro-family: “I want us to support fertility treatments. I want us to make it easier for moms to afford to have babies.” 

  • Meanwhile, Walz fiercely denied Trump’s accusation that he supports abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy. 

Child care

  • Vance claimed that Trump’s plan to levy a 10% tariff on all foreign imports (with up to 60% for Chinese imports and 100% for vehicle imports from Mexico) would bring in money that would help bring down child care costs. Walz disagreed and said the tariffs would raise prices, which has been backed up by economists from all over the spectrum, including the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. 

  • Walz said Harris would make a paid family leave a priority. “A federal program of paid family medical leave and help with this will enhance our workforce, enhance our families and make it easier to have the children that you want.” Vance said there is a bipartisan solution to child care. 

There are no additional debates scheduled for either the presidential or vice presidential candidates.

By midnight on the East Coast, the Polymarket, a prediction market platform, projected a 65% chance that upcoming polls will show Vance won the debate.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Source: nerdwallet.com

Apache is functioning normally

You’ve heard a lot of campaign promises this election cycle, but the ones most directly impact your finances are tax cuts and credits.

  • Expand the Child Tax Credit.

  • Tax the wealthiest Americans and corporations.

  • Expand the tax deduction for new small businesses.

  • Expand the earned income tax credit.

  • Expand and make permanent the tax credit enhancements for Affordable Care Act plans.

  • Tax cuts that incentivize home builders to build affordable homes.

  • Extend the soon-to-expire 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

  • End taxes on overtime and Social Security.

  • Applying across-the-board tariffs on all foreign imports; 60% on China; and 100% tariffs on cars made in Mexico.

  • Lower the corporate tax rate by one point to 20%. In his first term, he cut corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%.

  • Implement R&D tax credits for businesses in their first year — a reversal of his policy in the 2017 tax cuts.

  • Replace income taxes with his new import tariffs. 

The undercurrent during the election is the looming expiration of 2017 tax cuts at the end of 2025. Garrett Watson, senior policy analyst with the Tax Foundation (a nonpartisan think tank), says the uncertainty of the future of those cuts is a big problem for both candidates.

“It would be a win to get some stability and certainty back into the tax code there, to get the permanence, even if it’s not necessarily what everyone wants, that would be a win,” says Watson. “The fact that we are seeing interest on the Hill for both candidates to do that would be a win. But I mean, that does really require more detail on how that might work.”

As far as how the candidates are tackling all aspects of tax code, Amy Hanauer, executive director of the left-leaning think tank Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, says, “The big picture is the Harris approach raises more revenue; it raises it primarily from the wealthiest and corporations. The Trump approach puts us deeper in debt and gives a lot more away to wealthy people and corporations. Both of them, I think, have some proposals that would help middle class families on the tax side. But the Harris approach gives us more revenue to pay for things that middle class families might want.”

Most, if not all, of the candidates’ proposals would have to go through Congress before being enacted. The executive branch technically has the “power to tax,” but presidents rarely exercise that authority. Typically, the president will ask Congress to create and pass tax policies. With a divided Congress, it’s unclear what might have bipartisan appeal.

How would Trump and Harris’ tax plans affect the economy?

It’s highly unlikely that every tax proposal a candidate makes on the campaign trail will see the light of day. Nevertheless, available projections show what the anticipated outcome would be if all of the candidates’ proposals were adopted.

An analysis of both candidates’ tax plans by the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School projects that Harris’ tax proposals would increase primary budget deficits by more than $1.2 trillion on net from 2025 to 2034. Trump’s tax proposals would increase deficits by $5.8 trillion over the same 10-year period.

Nerd out on investing news

A NerdWallet account is the smartest way to see the latest financial news and what it means for your wallet.

On the whole, an analysis by the Tax Foundation says Harris’ plans would raise nearly $1.7 trillion in revenue over 10 years. During that time period GDP is projected to decline by 2%; wages would decline by 1.2%; and the equivalent of 786,000 full-time jobs would be lost.

The Tax Foundation says that Trump’s tax plans would lose revenue by $1.325 trillion over 10 years; GDP would decline by 0.2%; wages would increase 0.6%; and the equivalent of 387,000 full-time jobs would be lost.

Watson says it’s still unclear how Harris raises enough revenue to offset her tax cut plans, especially if she extends the 2017 tax cuts (her stance is not yet known). “Something that is easy to say is, ‘We’ll just cut all this money from high earners. Most Americans don’t pay a dime and we’ll get this all covered.’ That might be true on some margin, depending on how that works out.”

He adds, “It would be good to know what those offsets might look like so that we can figure out what their total fiscal costs would be, and what the actual tradeoffs are for Americans.”

As for Trump, Hanauer says, “He’s kind of looking to just intensify his previous approach, which is expensive tax cuts that definitely add to the deficit and the debt. And then tax cuts that go primarily to wealthy people and corporations,” she says. “He’s floated some other things and his vice presidential candidate has floated some other things. But in terms of concrete things, on paper, it’s a little bit more of the same.”

Tax plans: Harris vs. Trump

Here are some of the major tax changes that the candidates promise to deliver.

Individual income taxes and credits

Harris has pledged several taxes that would fall on the wealthiest Americans including increasing the net investment income tax up to 5% on those with incomes above $400,000 and increasing the highest tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28% on taxable income above $1 million. The Committee for a Responsible Budget, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates that the revenue from Harris’ taxes on the wealthy would be $900 billion over the period between fiscal year 2026 to fiscal year 2035.

For families, she also promises to expand the child tax credit: $6,000 for children under the age of 1; $3,600 for children ages 2-5; and $3,000 for older children. Hanuer says child tax credits are a big win for all families, especially for children being raised in poverty. “We know that that’s just a crucial time of life when kids will be better off for the rest of their lives if they’re raised in lower poverty,” she adds.

Additional policies include:

  • Permanently extend expanded premium tax credits.

  • No tax on tips.

  • Make expiring individual income tax cuts permanent. 

  • Restore the cap on the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction that allows taxpayers to reduce their federally taxable income by itemizing certain local and state taxes. It would be a reversal of Trump’s past position, since he was responsible for capping the deduction at $10,000.  

  • No tax on overtime work. The Tax Foundation says the proposal is missing key details, but would reduce revenue. It would also likely change decisions that both employers and employees make about overtime. 

  • No tax on tips.

  • Consider replacing the personal income tax with increased tariffs. Trump has proposed 10% to 20% tariffs applied across-the-board and 60% for China. See more on the potential impacts of his tariffs below.  

  • Trump’s vice presidential pick JD Vance said he supports increasing the child tax credit to $5,000. On the campaign trail, Trump said parents of newborns would be able to deduct “major” expenses, but did not elaborate on what that entailed. 

How Harris and Trump want to battle inflation and lower prices

Both presidential candidates are promising to give people what they want: to pay less money for most everything.

But whether Trump or Harris are capable of lowering prices is debatable. Experts say presidents aren’t usually the primary drivers of inflation in the economy; monetary policy has a much greater impact, as do fluctuations in the supply chain and good old-fashioned consumer demand. Read more about the candidates’ plans to lower prices.

Medicare and Social Security taxes

Harris has said she supports a Biden-proposed measure that would increase the Medicare tax from 3.8% to 5% on those with incomes above $400,000. This additional Medicare tax is only paid by high-income earners. Revenue is used to fund Medicare. The Tax Foundation estimates it would lead to a slight reduction in GDP, wages and full-time jobs. Watson says that adopting the 5% surtax for Medicare would help the Medicare trust fund’s solvency, at least “a bit,” but doesn’t address the Social Security side.

Trump, meanwhile, has floated eliminating the income tax on Social Security benefits altogether. Hanauer says Trump’s proposal would lower taxes by $550 on average, per household, but at the expense of the Social Security fund.

Social Security is taxed differently than other income. Currently, those who withdraw Social Security benefits must pay taxes on 50%-80% of their benefits, depending on income. Any income tax revenue from taxed income above a threshold amount ($25,000 for an individual or $32,000 for a married couple filing jointly) goes into the Social Security trust fund, which keeps the program running. But the Tax Foundation says that if Social Security is no longer taxed, it would reduce revenue going to Medicare and Social Security trust funds, which could speed up the funds’ insolvency.

The Social Security Administration projects that the combined trust funds are expected to run out as of 2035. Watson says, “Trump trying to exempt security income from tax puts us in exactly the wrong direction.” He adds that Harris’ lack of a detailed plan for Social Security presents a challenge as the U.S. inches closer to the trust funds being exhausted.

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a major revamp of the individual income and estate tax codes made under the Trump administration, is set to expire after 2025. The deadline means that whoever is elected will need to make a decision on what to do with the existing provisions. Trump has endorsed extending expiring provisions, while Harris has not been clear about what she would do.

During the campaign, Trump has said he would:

  • Make expiring individual income tax cuts permanent.

  • Consider replacing personal income taxes with tariffs. 

The expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act delivered large tax cuts to those in the top 1% of earners — those earning above $800,000 a year. Hanauer says making the cuts permanent would “cut into revenue that could otherwise maybe be providing those larger child tax credits for middle income Americans and poor Americans, or that could be being used to reduce the national debt or to fund something new like child care or health care or infrastructure.”

The Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the think tanks Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, projected in 2017 that Trump tax cuts would most benefit the most wealthy. The Tax Policy Center’s models in 2017 showed that households with income in the top 1% are projected to receive a more than $60,000 tax cut in 2025 while households in the bottom 60% are expected to receive less than $500.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) said in a June 13 analysis, that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did not deliver the economic benefits that Trump promised. Among those promises was a claim that the corporate tax rate cut would boost household income by $4,000. The CBPP points to research showing that workers who earned less than $114,000 on average in 2016 didn’t see changes to their earnings, while high salaried workers saw increases.

Business taxes

  • Increase the corporate income tax rate from the current rate of 21% to 28%. The 21% rate was put in place by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Higher corporate income taxes would mean a decline in economic growth, according to the Tax Foundation. It also means higher revenue for tax-funded programs. The Tax Foundation says corporate taxes lead to more GDP loss than gain in revenue. Wharton’s analysis projects that Harris’ corporate tax rate would bring in $1.1 trillion in new revenue, which would offset just under half of her tax cut proposals.  

  • Increase the stock buyback tax from 1% to 4%. 

  • Create a minimum tax of 25% on both realized and unrealized income — also known as capital gains — for those earning above $100 million. Capital gains would also be taxed at death.

Hanauer says increasing taxes on wealthy people and corporations is something most Americans want. “We have a lot of needs in this country,” she says. “A lot of corporations just pay far, far too little in taxes. There are corporations out there, large, profitable corporations that pay a tax rate of zero because of the deductions and things that they’re able to get away with and then support very wealthy individuals, too.”

For small businesses, Harris would increase the deduction for business startup costs from $5,000 to $50,000. Hanauer says it’s unlikely to be as effective as it sounds because many new businesses don’t earn enough to pay taxes so it would take time for businesses to become profitable before they can even claim the deduction. “We just don’t think that that makes as much sense as some other approaches,” she says.

  • Lower the corporate income tax rate from 21% to 20%.

  • Lower the corporate income tax rate to 15% for companies that manufacture products in the U.S. 

  • Tax large private university endowments. 

Hanauer says the corporate income tax proposals aren’t well-targeted; would increase income and racial inequality; and would send a “massive windfall” of $0.40 of every dollar to foreign investors because those investors own 40% of corporate stocks.

“It would really cost us a lot in revenue, which could reduce the ability of either party to execute on their spending priorities,” she says.

Trump and Harris embrace no-tax-on-tips, experts say it’s bad policy

Both presidential candidates are embracing the promise to exempt workers from paying taxes on their tips. But the problem with no-tax-on-tips proposals, experts say, is that they’re clearly a bid for votes rather than a substantive solution to address the fundamental needs of tipped workers.

Housing-related taxes

Harris plans to expand housing tax credits including a low-income housing tax credit; a credit for the construction of new homes; and a 25,000 credit for first-time homebuyers plus an even bigger amount for first-generation homebuyers. Trump hasn’t spoken to housing taxes.

Harris has pledged to cut red tape to increase construction of new housing, but it’s unclear how that would work from a federal level when most housing red tape is at the local level. Hanauer says new housing is going to be key to her tax credits being an effective policy. “If you just give a tax credit to new homebuyers, it could end up driving up the cost of housing,” she says.

A Wharton’s analysis of Harris’ tax proposals projects that 1.4 million homebuyers annually would benefit from down payment assistance. It would cost the U.S. $140 billion over 10 years.

Tariffs

One of Trump’s most controversial economic proposals is his plan to enact 10% or 20% across-the-board tariffs on foreign imports with a 60% tariff on China. Harris has not taken a position on tariffs, but the Biden-Harris administration did maintain the tariffs instituted by the Trump administration.

The Tax Foundation estimates that Trump’s tariff proposals could fail to offset tax revenue losses from his tax cuts. The foundation also says the tariffs could offset the potential economic benefits of those proposals resulting in a reduction in GDP growth. The tariffs could also lead to a rise in the deficit over time and, as a result, a reduction in American income. The foundation also says the tariffs could potentially spark or deepen foreign trade wars.

Hanauer says the Center for Tax Policy finds that Trump’s tariffs would cost the typical household $2,600 per year in price increases. “So it’s a substantial hit to families and it manifests itself much in the way that inflation does,” she says. “Basically every product that every household buys would end up costing more, with the net result at the end of the year being that families would end up paying about $2,600 more in household goods.”

Photos by Spencer Platt and Win McNamee/Getty Images News via Getty Images.

Source: nerdwallet.com

Apache is functioning normally

As the Nov. 5 election looms, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump offer starkly different visions for student loan policy at a time when the topic is top of mind for voters.

More than one in five student loan borrowers (22%) say that student loan forgiveness is one of the most important issues when choosing a presidential candidate, according to a recent NerdWallet survey conducted online by The Harris Poll. Both parties are thinking about the issue: 43% of Democrats and 30% of Republicans say student loan repayment will impact their vote, per the recent 2024 EdAssist by Bright Horizons Education Index.

The official Democratic and Republican platforms, along with past statements, actions and related policy documents, indicate how each candidate may approach student loans if elected to the White House.

Harris and her running mate, Minnesota governor Tim Walz, would likely continue to champion the student loan efforts started under President Biden, who has erased $168.5 billion in student loan debt for 4.76 million borrowers while in office. His administration did so largely by improving existing student loan forgiveness programs.

If Trump and his vice president pick, Ohio senator JD Vance, win the White House, borrowers can expect a reigning in of relief and forgiveness programs.

“On the Trump side, this is someone who, as president, consistently proposed big cuts to all federal education funding, but especially to programs that would help students and student loan borrowers,” says Michelle Dimino, director of education at the center-left think tank Third Way. “On the Harris side, we have a history of supporting increases for Federal Student Aid and consumer protections for borrowers.”

(Neither campaign responded to multiple NerdWallet requests to comment on their student loan positions.)

Project 2025, a 900-page playbook for the next Republican president overseen by the conservative Heritage Foundation, also offers clues about what a Trump presidency could mean for student loan borrowers, even though Trump’s campaign has tried to distance itself from the document.

“It’s still very much put forward as a Republican Party conservative viewpoint on education, and so I think it includes a lot of policy proposals that there would be a lot of lobbying to get a potential Trump administration to implement,” says Katharine Meyer, a fellow in the Governance Studies program for the Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings, a nonpartisan think tank.

From repayment plans and loan forgiveness to affordable degrees and community college, here’s where Harris and Trump stand on issues impacting student loan borrowers.

Broad student loan forgiveness

However, an incoming presidential administration still has power to sway the effort in their desired direction and to drive the appeals process, Dimino says.

“I think certainly a Harris administration would be working to continue to defend that effort for as long as they can, continuing the appeals process and being as aggressive as they can be to safeguard that,” she says.

Trump would most likely not support the forgiveness plan, echoing the Republican party’s opposition to student loan forgiveness. Republican-led states filed lawsuits that took down Biden’s original student loan forgiveness plan of up to $20,000 per borrower in 2023, along with lawsuits currently circling the SAVE repayment plan and Biden’s forgiveness “plan B.”

“In the past, [Trump] has been supportive of student loan cancellation. It was in his campaign eight years ago, which was really inconsistent with the Republican Party’s platform at that time,” says Beth Akers, senior fellow focused on the economics of higher education at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank. “Things have changed a lot since then, and I would anticipate that a Trump presidency would not be pushing on continuing to use any existing authorities to cancel student debt, instead maybe a reining in of the programs, working potentially with lawmakers on Capitol Hill to create some of the reforms that conservatives now think are necessary in order to get the student loan program back into a functional state.”

SAVE and other income-driven repayment plans

Like Biden’s forgiveness plan B, the SAVE repayment plan faces lawsuits, with its future largely dependent on the courts. However, if elected, Harris would likely vigorously defend the plan in court, Dimino says.

Meanwhile, Trump is likely to support the dissolution of SAVE. “Certainly in a Trump administration, there would be every effort to enact regulations striking down SAVE, even if it were ruled constitutionally appropriate,” Meyer says. “This sort of regulatory whiplash happens with every presidential transition in nearly every area of policy where the parties disagree.”

Instead of SAVE and other existing income-driven repayment (IDR) plans, Project 2025 calls for a single IDR option that would generally increase monthly payments for borrowers relative to SAVE and other current options. It would also aim to remove the loan forgiveness option; under current IDR plans, borrowers can get forgiveness after 20 or 25 years of payments.

“While income-driven repayment (IDR) of student loans is a superior approach relative to fixed payment plans, the number of IDR plans has proliferated beyond reason,” the document says. “And recent IDR plans are so generous that they require no or only token repayment from many students.”

A family of four that earns $50,000 a year would have a $0 monthly payment under SAVE. But under the Project 2025 IDR plan, that family’s payment would be about $156 per month, Meyer says.

Public Service Loan Forgiveness

Teachers, doctors, firefighters, police officers, military members, government employees and and other nonprofit workers benefit from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, which erases your remaining federal student debt after 10 years of public service and 120 monthly student loan payments.

“Under the Biden-Harris administration, we’ve seen some of the biggest Public Service Loan Forgiveness loan discharges ever. They’ve tried to make the process easier. They streamlined the application, making it easier to recertify with your employers, so taking down some of those administrative barriers to accessing PSLF relief,” Dimino says.

In June, the Education Department also began an effort to expand PSLF eligibility to early childhood educators who don’t necessarily work for nonprofits. Under a Harris presidency, borrowers can expect the government to continue prioritizing PSLF access, Dimino says.

As president and on the campaign trail, Trump has called for restricting loan forgiveness overall and making PSLF harder to access, Dimino says. “It makes a less certain future for folks who have been working toward forgiveness,” she adds. At one point in 2019, the Education Department rejected 99% of PSLF applications, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office.

Project 2025 goes even further, calling for the program first introduced by Republican President George W. Bush in 2007 to shutter: “The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which prioritizes government and public sector work over private sector employment, should be terminated.”

Community college, trade school and free tuition

“Both Democrats and Republicans are having to return to this idea that college should deliver something to students,” Akers says. “It used to be, ‘college is just this golden ticket, it’ll take me somewhere magical, and that’s good enough.’ But now I think Americans are like, ‘wait a minute, what’s the ROI on this investment? What am I getting, and what’s the opportunity?’”

The Harris campaign platform pledges to “make trade school and community college free for every American” and says it’s working to subsidize tuition at Minority Serving Institutions (such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities) for students whose families earn less than $125,000 per year. Harris’s vice president pick, Governor Walz, signed a bill into law in 2023 that made Minnesota public higher education free for families in the state earning less than $80,000 per year.

The Trump platform says it “will support the creation of additional, drastically more affordable alternatives to a traditional four-year College degree.” That could mean investing in trade schools, vocational programs, community colleges and other career pathways, Akers says.

Borrower defense to repayment

When she was California’s attorney general a decade ago, Harris prosecuted Corinthian Colleges, alleging that the for-profit institution intentionally misled students about job placement rates. In 2022, the Education Department approved $5.8 billion in student loan discharges for more than half a million former Corinthian students, under the borrower defense to repayment program.

As president, Harris would likely continue supporting borrower defense, Akers says. The program began in 1995 to protect borrowers who are defrauded or misled by their colleges.

Trump’s record indicates that he may be opposed to strengthening borrower defense. For example, in 2020, then-President Trump vetoed a bipartisan resolution that would have overturned a 2019 borrower defense rule that made it tougher for students who say they were defrauded by colleges to get federal student loan discharge.

Project 2025 calls for Congress to end the Education Department’s broad ability to forgive loans through the borrower defense program. Instead, the Department should only be allowed to discharge loans in limited, case-by-case situations where “convincing evidence exists to demonstrate that an educational institution engaged in fraud toward a borrower in connection with his or her enrollment in the institution and the student’s educational program or activity at the institution.”

Pell Grants

The federal Pell Grant program, which gives undergraduates from low-income backgrounds up to $7,395 per year to help pay for college, has been around since the 1970s. Biden increased the maximum Pell award by $900 during his term — the largest expansion in over a decade.

In her platform, Harris emphasizes Biden’s Pell record and promises to expand the program further: “For young people just heading to college now, we’ve already secured the largest increase in Pell Grants in a decade, and we’ll further expand these grants to 7 million more students, and double the maximum award by 2029.”

Though Trump is unlikely to strike down the Pell, further increases to the maximum award are less certain if he wins the White House. “I don’t think [Trump] is against Pell, but he has proposed cuts to it as president in the past,” says Dimino. “I think we would expect that the Pell Grant will be in greater jeopardy under [that] administration than under a Harris administration,”

Project 2025 supports maintaining Pell grants in their current “voucher-like” form.

Congressional elections matter, too

While the presidential election is extremely consequential, the upcoming congressional elections will also impact future student loan policies.

The U.S. Congress (composed of the Senate and the House) must align with the president to push legislation forward, though some policy work can be done without formal legislation, Akers explains. The president can veto bills passed by Congress, while Congress can refuse to pass bills that the president might support.

“A lot of what ultimately gets done will rely on the makeup of Congress and what the majorities look like in Congress for that president, along with the pending court cases,” says Dimino.

To register to vote in national, state and local elections — and to check your registration status — go to vote.gov. You must update your voter registration each time you move to a new address. Depending on your state, voter registration deadlines may be as early as 30 days before the Nov. 5 election.

Source: nerdwallet.com

Apache is functioning normally

At one point during the first and, possibly, only debate between the two presidential hopefuls, Vice President Kamala Harris said to former President Donald Trump, “You’re not running against Joe Biden. You’re running against me.”

That statement was clear to anyone watching.

The energy of Tuesday night’s debate, which was hosted by ABC News in Philadelphia, starkly contrasted the June debate in which Trump faced off against President Joe Biden. The one that led to Biden stepping down and Harris stepping up to be the democratic candidate.

Harris and Trump clashed over a number of policy proposals including the economy, abortion, climate change, energy, immigration and foreign policy.

Unlike during the CNN-hosted debate in June, ABC News hosts David Muir and Linsey Davis fact checked statements live — including refuting Trump’s false claim that in some states, parents can elect to kill their baby after birth; a false conspiracy theory that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio are eating people’s pets; and another false claim that Democrats favor abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy. Muir and Davis weren’t actively fact checking Kamala Harris much, but they did question why she has changed her positions on fracking and health care — Harris denied that her views have substantially changed.

Speaking of policy positions, the candidates’ plans for the economy were first up, but didn’t get much consistent airtime thereafter. Trump attacked the Biden-Harris administration on inflation before repeatedly bringing the focus to his views on immigration. Meanwhile, Harris doubled down on much of what she’s said on the campaign trail about being raised “a middle class kid”; her Opportunity Economy; and the multiple economic assessments that project Trump’s plans would ignite inflation.

Here are some other takeaways from the debate:

  • Harris said Trump would impose a sales tax (that she’s calling a “Trump sales tax”) on everyday goods. Trump said it was an incorrect statement. What Harris is likely referring to is Trump’s proposal to impose across-the-board tariffs, which would likely increase the cost of imported goods to America. Trump defended his proposals. 

  • Harris didn’t respond when Trump pressed her on why the Biden Administration did not remove the tariffs he put in place during his presidency. 

  • Trump has long tried to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, but said he doesn’t have a health care plan to replace it. However, he does have “concepts of a plan.”  

  • Harris slammed Trump on his views on abortion and that Roe v. Wade was overturned while he was president. Trump said abortion was best left up to the states. Harris said, as president, she would sign a bill that Congress passes to restore abortion rights.  

It was the debate the Harris campaign needed after recent polling: The New York Times/Siena College that was released on Sunday showed Trump leads Harris 48% to 47% nationally (Sept. 3-6). In most swing states (Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina), the candidates are tied at 48% each. In Pennsylvania, Harris leads Trump 49% to 48%.

By midnight on the east coast, the Polymarket, a prediction market platform, projected a 96% chance that upcoming polls will show Harris won the debate.

Source: nerdwallet.com

Apache is functioning normally

When electioneering, the best pledges are catchy enough to get stuck in a voter’s head. During this election, “no tax on tips” seems to be the phrase fitting that bill.

Both presidential candidates are embracing the promise to exempt workers from paying taxes on their tips. But the problem with no-tax-on-tips proposals, experts say, is that they’re clearly a bid for votes rather than a substantive solution to address the fundamental needs of tipped workers.

“This wouldn’t help very many workers, and it could actually be very harmful to millions more, with the real benefits of this policy change going to employers and the wealthy at the expense of working people,” says David Cooper, researcher from EPI Action, a nonpartisan research and advocacy organization.

How a no-tax-on-tips promise entered the election

On June 9, former President Donald Trump made a promise to end taxes on tips in front of service workers in Las Vegas. Last weekend, in Las Vegas, Vice President Kamala Harris made a similar pledge. It’s no coincidence that both candidates made the announcement in Las Vegas — leisure and hospitality is the dominant industry in the metro area, Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows.

On Monday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that President Joe Biden also supports eliminating taxes on tips for service and hospital workers, as well as raising the minimum wage.

The policy is undeniably appealing for tipped workers and the unions that represent them. After all, who doesn’t want a tax break when they can get it? Experts say the message to voters may be effective, but the policy is less likely to be.

“I’d say, thumbs down to the policy proposal; it’s bad tax policy,” says Kyle Pomerleau, a senior fellow studying federal tax policy and reform at American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank.

How do tips factor into wages?

Tipped workers are some of the most visible workers: They’re taking your coffee order, cutting your hair, serving your meals in restaurants, delivering your groceries and ridesharing you around town. And yet, the Budget Lab at Yale University estimates there are only about 4 million workers in tipped positions in 2023 — about 2.5% of the entire U.S. workforce.

The most typical tipped work is in the service and hospitality industry. Tipped workers also tend to be younger than the rest of the working population — 20 to 34 years old, according to Yale Budget Lab.

In order to qualify as a tipped worker, you must earn more than $20 per month in tips. In tipped positions, workers must receive a subminimum wage, also known as a cash wage, of $2.13 per hour. A subminimum wage is combined with tips in order for workers to earn at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. If an employee earns a subminimum wage plus tips less than $7.25 per hour, an employer must make up the difference.

There’s also something called tip pooling that’s often done in restaurants; it’s where the front of the house (servers and bartenders) share their tips with each other, as well as with the back of the house (such as cooks and dishwashers). In this scenario, all employees who receive pooled tips — including the workers who earn the tips — must make at least the federal minimum wage, according to the Department of Labor.

It’s unclear how often restaurants properly adhere to wage rules because tipping is notoriously underreported. Although, that’s less of an issue now since most people pay electronically and don’t leave cash tips as often anymore, says Howard Gleckman, senior fellow in the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute.

How do taxes on tips work?

Median weekly wages, including tips, are $538 among tipped workers, compared to a median of $1,000 among non-tipped workers, according to 2023 estimates by Yale Budget Lab. Many tipped workers earn so little they already aren’t required to pay federal income taxes; Yale Budget Lab estimates this is the case for about 37% of tipped workers.

It’s likely only a small sliver of the tipped worker population would get the tax advantage that Trump and Harris propose — and that’s without knowing what specific income limits would be set by either candidate’s plan.

“Think about somebody who is a server at ‘Bob’s Diner’ — it has a $9.95 special and [the server] is going to get two bucks,” says Gleckman. “If you’re a server at some fancy downtown steakhouse where dinner is $200, you’re going to get 40 bucks, right? So for those higher income servers, this [policy] can make some difference. But for most people, it won’t really matter at all.”

There’s another important distinction about tips and taxes: Even when workers don’t have a federal income tax obligation, workers and their employers must pay federal payroll taxes, which fund Social Security and Medicare programs. That also means they must continue to report tips, even if federal taxes on tips are eliminated; also, the proposals would not affect state income tax requirements.

Neither Trump or Harris has specified whether their proposals would apply only to the federal income tax. But if the No Tax on Tips Act, introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), is any indication, the exemption would likely only apply to federal income taxes.

How much would no-tax-on-tips save a typical tipped worker?

Tip earnings are hard to characterize since the amount varies drastically based on the type of service that workers provide, as well as local minimum wage laws. But the Tax Foundation offers an example: Say a server earns $19,000 per year in wages plus $15,000 in tipped income. Their adjusted gross income is $34,000. They take a standard deduction of $14,600, which leaves them with $19,400 in taxable income. Under this example they owe $2,096 in federal income taxes.

With a no-tax-on-tips policy in effect, their adjusted gross income is $19,000 since the $15,000 income in tips isn’t considered taxable. They take a standard deduction of $14,600, which leaves them with $4,400 in taxable income. Under this example, their tax liability is $440. It’s the difference of $1,656 from the previous example.

As the Tax Foundation points out, a cashier who makes the same $34,000 — without tips — would have the same $2,096 federal tax liability in either scenario, and so would be paying vastly more in taxes than the server under a no-tax-on-tips policy.

Experts say no taxes on tips is bad policy

Suffice to say, tax and wage experts are unimpressed with the no-tax-on-tips proposal.

“This wouldn’t help very many workers, and it could actually be very harmful to millions more, with the real benefits of this policy change going to employers and the wealthy at the expense of working people,” says Cooper.

Here are some reasons why experts say exempting tips from taxes could have negative repercussions, depending on how the policy is structured.

Social programs and other tax benefits could be impacted

If a no-tax-on-tips proposal includes an exemption for the payroll tax in addition to the income tax, it could impact both worker eligibility for Social Security and Medicaid, as well as the solvency of the program itself, says Cooper.

This scenario isn’t necessarily likely. Even though Trump has not specified if his proposal would apply to both the federal income tax and the payroll tax, Cruz’s No Tax on Tips Act applies the exemption only to the federal income tax. It’s difficult to see Harris applying the exemption to the payroll tax.

But depending on how the law is written, no-tax-on-tips could make it more difficult for workers to get other tax benefits like the earned income tax credit or the child tax credit, experts say.

“If you’re a household with children, those credits phase-in with earned income, meaning that they are larger the more income you earn, up to a certain point,” says Pomerleau. “But if you were to structure this tax exemption as an exemption from adjusted gross income, it would directly interact with the earned income tax credit in the child tax credit and reduce those benefits for households.”

No matter what, says Pomerleau, no-tax-on-tips would add tax complexity for a population of tax filers that, generally, do not have access to accountants to help them through the process. That could result in more workers not filing taxes or not being able to access the benefits they are eligible for.

High earners could find a loophole

A tax exemption on tips leaves open the possibility of exploiting the system. Some in high-income positions like lawyers, for example, could restructure how their earnings are reported to avoid paying taxes on a portion of their income.

“You could envision a lot of scenarios where this would be really grossly abused by highly paid individuals,” says Cooper.

The Harris campaign told The Washington Post that, under her plan, the tax exemption would only apply to workers who earn below a certain threshold in select industries. This would prevent high earners in nontraditional tipping positions from gaming the system. There is currently no bill from Democrats in Congress that matches Harris’ plan.

Trump’s proposal and the No Tax on Tips Act from congressional Republicans doesn’t narrow industry eligibility or impose income limitations.

It could reduce employers’ need to raise wages

The tax benefit presents a double whammy benefit to owners: a tax benefit that appeals to workers and an opportunity to save money by shifting the pay burden from owners to consumers.

“It’s a win-win for restaurant owners, hotel owners, like, for example, Donald Trump,” says Gleckman. “But it’s much more ambiguous and much riskier for tip workers, particularly low-income workers.”

Cooper says this policy won’t incentivize employers to raise raises for workers because there’s a tax benefit inherent to the job. But it could incentivize businesses to reclassify certain positions as tipped occupations.

“The tipping system, as it currently exists, is rife with wage theft and discrimination,” says Cooper. “It opens up workers to abuse from customers and colleagues because they feel like they have to tolerate bad behavior, lest they put their kids at risk. So this [policy] would grow a system that is problematic in a lot of ways and spread it to more occupations. That’s not something that we should be incentivizing.”

The deficit would increase, although not substantially

Tax cuts lead to a decline in revenue, which could, over time, exacerbate the federal deficit; it’s currently about $1.52 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates the cost of exempting tips from federal income tax would be $100 to $200 billion over a decade. If tips are also exempted from payroll taxes, the total could run to $250 billion.

If the policy makes tips exempt from the payroll tax, it would have broader repercussions for Social Security and Medicaid programs, experts say.

“These programs are already facing a fiscal shortfall and will need to be dealt with, in as little as ten years,” says Pomerleau. “If they were to remove $38 billion, potentially from the face of Social Security and Medicare, I would accelerate this problem.”

It could exacerbate tipping backlash

As the CRFB notes, what’s not included in its calculations are changes in tipping behavior, which could result in consumers giving less than they do now if they perceive tipped workers as getting an unfair tax advantage.

A backlash to tipping culture has already resulted in 7% lower tipping among service-sector workers from November 2022 to November 2023, according to a payroll analysis by Gusto, a payroll provider.

It could fuel worker resentment

On the flip side, excluding certain tipped jobs by field or income could stir the pot among workers and the unions that represent them.

Cooper says, “Why would we be giving preferential income tax treatment to this very small subset of workers when there are lots of other hard working, low-paid workers — people providing daycare, childcare, eldercare — that this would do nothing for?”

Gleckman says the policy violates a “cardinal rule of good tax policy,” which is to tax people making the same income at the same level. “I’m not sure I quite understand why a low wage worker somehow should enjoy more benefits than a low wage worker of another kind who’s getting the same income,” says Gleckman. “If you really care for a bunch of low wage workers, there are plenty of other things you could do.”

Unions and businesses groups support no-tax-on-tips

Despite criticism of the no-tax-on-tips proposal, it would benefit workers who are eligible. Adding limitations by industry and income could prevent the exemption from being a regressive one.

Shortly after Harris’ announcement, Culinary Union Local 226 in Nevada endorsed Harris for president and lauded the proposal without acknowledging Trump’s. The union, along with the Bartenders Union Local 165, represents 60,000 workers in Las Vegas and Reno. The Culinary Union argues that the tax exemption could help millions of workers that earn a subminimum wage.

“The fact that many companies pay tipped workers across the country $2.13 an hour is outrageous and ending taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers would significantly help millions of workers provide for their families, including in Nevada,” the union wrote in its press release endorsing Harris.

Businesses that employ tipped workers also support the plan. At least, Cruz’s plan, which would not limit the exemption by industry and income. Two of the biggest associations for the top tipped industries — the National Restaurant Association and the Professional Beauty Association — both endorsed Cruz’s proposal.

“Tipped employees are a critical part of the restaurant industry, and anything that strengthens their economic condition is a positive for them,” said Sean Kennedy, executive vice president of public affairs for the National Restaurant Association in a press release announcing Cruz’s bill. “The ‘No Tax on Tips Act’ would provide immediate tax relief for more than 2.2 million restaurant employees and their families, putting more money in their pockets at a time when we’re all feeling the squeeze of higher prices.”

Ending the subminimum wage would pack a bigger punch

During the campaign rally in Las Vegas last weekend, when Harris made her promise to end tax on tips, she also said she would raise the minimum wage. What she didn’t promise to do is eliminate the subminimum wage, which would have a bigger impact on tipped workers.

“Why not do something like raise the minimum wage if you really want to improve outcomes for tipped workers in the United States?” says Cooper.

The federal minimum wage for all workers has been $7.25 per hour since 2009. However, 30 states plus the District of Columbia have set minimum wages above that amount. Again, the federal subminimum wage is $2.13 per hour. Right now, 36 states have set minimum wages for tipped workers below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

The tipped workers who earn the most, nationwide, are in Los Angeles ($16.78 per hour); Seattle ($17.25 per hour); and New York City, where tipped workers earn $15 per hour with the exception of delivery workers, who earn a minimum of $17.96 per hour.

Other places have eliminated the subminimum wage practice altogether. So far six states have banned subminimum wages for tipped workers, including Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon and Washington.

“It is outrageous that over a million workers in this country are not guaranteed a fair minimum wage in 2024,” the Culinary Union 226 wrote in a release endorsing Harris’ proposal. “Employers across the nation need to take responsibility for paying a real minimum wage and Congress must ensure it.”

Beyond raising the minimum wage, there are other levers that could be pulled to help low wage workers, experts say. That includes expanding income supports like the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit or Medicaid.

Source: nerdwallet.com

Apache is functioning normally

In the upscale waterfront and golf community of Admirals Cove in Jupiter, FL, the ultimate trophy home is looking for some deep-pocketed new owners.

Recently listed for a whopping $49 million, the massive waterfront home is by far the most expensive house for sale in Jupiter at the time of writing, with the runner-up asking a little over a third of its worth. That one — set in the same Admirals Cove community — is priced just under $17 million.

But this isn’t the house’s first rodeo; when it was listed in 2021 by its then-famous owner, former race car driver and racing team owner Johnny Gray, it became the first mainland home in Northern Palm Beach County to break the $30 million mark. Back then, it was asking $32.5 million.

Since then, the larger-than-life house — which comes with almost 20,000 square feet of ultra-luxurious living space, the finest amenities, a pool that cost more than $1.5 million to build, and enough water frontage to park a mega yacht — has been heavily remodeled and expanded.

It’s now listed with Rob Thomson of Waterfront Properties & Club Communities, the same agent that repped it the first time around.

Like Fancy Pants Homes’ content? Be sure to follow us on Google News for timely updates

The former home of race car driver Johnny Gray

Photo credit: Pelican Pix Photography / Waterfront Properties

Up until a few years ago, the sprawling Jupiter mansion was owned by Johnny Gray, a former professional race car driver who now co-owns the David Gilliland Racing team, based in Mooresville, North Carolina, alongside NASCAR driver David Gilliland.

Gray, a retired NHRA drag racer-turned-oil company executive, began drag racing in the early 1990s, climbing the ladder from the National Hot Rod Association’s Competition Eliminator division to Pro Stock and later, the Funny Car category with Don Schumacher Racing. He retired in 2013, with his family — son, Shane, and grandson, Tanner — now carrying on his legacy.

Johnny Gray sold the property in mid-2021 for $24,000,000, public records show. The buyers were identified by the industry press as Sarah Ann and George McMahon. George founded and served as CEO of Bryan, Texas-based Utility Fleet Sales.

With 365 feet of water frontage, it can accommodate a mega yacht

Photo credit: Pelican Pix Photography / Waterfront Properties

The property spans nearly 1.5 acres of prime, protected waterfront with 365 feet of Intracoastal water frontage, offering spectacular water views.

Its generous frontage means it can easily accommodate larger boats, including a mega yacht.

Building something similar would cost more than $85M

Per the listing, a trophy property like this could never be built again in Jupiter due to its size.

“Priced $5 million below 2024 appraised value and $35 million below replacement cost, which today would be in excess of $85 million,” the listing states, adding that “This offering provides a truly unique opportunity that literally can’t be recreated today at any cost.”

The $49 million offering: The specs

Photo credit: Pelican Pix Photography / Waterfront Properties

Now, what goes into a house to warrant a $49 million asking price? Quite a lot, as we’re about to see.

The Admirals Cove mansion features nearly 20,000 square feet of living space, a million-dollar movie theater crafted by an associate of film legend George Lucas, an air-conditioned 22+ car, state-of-the-art garage with indoor parking for a tour bus, a trophy room, a million-dollar winding pool with swim-up bar, two Jacuzzis, a waterfall, a dock for a 160ft. mega yacht, and other amenities.

Remodeled and expanded in 2023

Photo credit: Pelican Pix Photography / Waterfront Properties
Photo credit: Pelican Pix Photography / Waterfront Properties

The 2016-built house has just undergone a $12 million+ renovation meant to both remodel and expand the property, completed in 2023.

The renovation was carried out by the same award-winning team at Turtle Beach Construction that built the home, ensuring the same quality level and craftsmanship were maintained.

Grand, two-story living room

Photo credit: Pelican Pix Photography / Waterfront Properties

The interiors are nothing short of spectacular, reflecting the price point with lavish furnishings and finishes.

Standout spaces include the grand, two-story living room with a floor-to-ceiling fireplace, an opulent dual staircase with iron railings, and the apartment-sized primary suite.

Sports lounge room with 5 TVs

Photo credit: Pelican Pix Photography / Waterfront Properties

The house was clearly built with entertainment in mind, featuring entertainment areas galore.

Among them is a sports lounge room with 5 TVs for the ultimate game day experience, but there’s also a custom bar and movie theater built during Johnny Gray’s ownership by an associate of legendary director George Lucas.

Arcade room with golf simulator

Photo credit: Pelican Pix Photography / Waterfront Properties

The entertainment-ready space that caught our eye was the arcade and game room, fitted with everything one might need for a good time, including a shuffleboard and golf simulator.

The palatial primary suite overlooks the resort-style backyard

Photo credit: Pelican Pix Photography / Waterfront Properties

The massive primary suite is almost like a retreat in itself, with its generous proportions, adjacent rooms, two bathrooms, private terrace, and seating area overlooking the extensive backyard.

And has separate bathrooms & walk-in closets for the lady and gentleman of the house

Photo credit: Pelican Pix Photography / Waterfront Properties

Not only does the primary suite come with two closets, but it also comes with two large baths, each specifically tailored to meet specific needs.

See also: This record-breaking $40M house is the most expensive home ever sold on Miami Beach’s Palm Island

“Her” bathroom has a hair salon and boutique-style closet

Photo credit: Pelican Pix Photography / Waterfront Properties

The two bathrooms and adjacent closets have starkly different designs, with “her” amenities boasting a clean, crisp white design.

The bathroom has a water room with a large infinity-edge soaker bathtub with underwater LED lighting, a large steam shower, and a stylish hair salon with a wash station that opens up to a boutique-style closet with a hidden washer and dryer.

“His” bathroom opens up to “a closet fit for a king”

Photo credit: Pelican Pix Photography / Waterfront Properties

As for “his” bathroom, it has a sophisticated, wood-toned design with a custom glass tile and marble shower, opening to a closet fit for a king, as well as a hidden washer and dryer.

The pool alone cost more than $1.5M

Photo credit: Pelican Pix Photography / Waterfront Properties

The expansive waterfront pool, which cost more than $1.5 million to build, features not one but two hot tubs, a pedestrian bridge that crosses the pool with cascading waterfalls, fire bowls, a swim-up bar, and drop-down TV.

But the entire outdoor area is resort-level

Photo credit: Pelican Pix Photography / Waterfront Properties

All the outdoor areas enjoy 180-degree views of the Intracoastal and across to a park and beautiful white sandy beach preserve that will not be built on. Several loggia seating areas provide shade and comfort all year long.

And features two outdoor kitchens

Photo credit: Pelican Pix Photography / Waterfront Properties

In case future owners would like to take full advantage of the sprawling outdoor space and its enviable waterfront location, there are two outdoor kitchens to accommodate events of all sizes.

It even has a showroom garage

Photo credit: Pelican Pix Photography / Waterfront Properties

Paying tribute to its race car former owner, the house has a showroom-level garage that can fit a 45′ motorcoach and 22+ cars. The space has marble flooring, an air compressor system, three double-car lifts, storage and workspaces, a restroom, and even a laundry room for when things get messy.

Located in Jupiter’s ritzy Admiral’s Cove community

Photo credit: Pelican Pix Photography / Waterfront Properties

The potentially record-breaking property at 176 Spyglass Ln is part of the exclusive Admirals Cove, one of Jupiter’s premier communities featuring a luxury lifestyle centered around high-end boating, yachting, and 45 holes of pro-style golf.

Jupiter has been increasingly attracting star power in recent years. High-profile residents include golf legend Tiger Woods, retired NBA star Michael Jordan, and Donald Trump Jr. and girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle. So we’re looking forward to seeing who will move in next, especially with Jupiter’s finest mansion now on the market.

More stories

A Jupiter, FL house across the waterway from Tiger Woods’ place sells for $15.4M

26 Jaw-dropping Miami-area mansions that will make you want to move to Florida

Mar-a-Lago neighboring mansion undergoing a massive renovation eyes $40 million sale

Source: fancypantshomes.com

Apache is functioning normally

Vice President Kamala Harris is now the leading contender for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination to face off against former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee.

On July 21, President Joe Biden succumbed to Democratic Party pressure and bowed out of his reelection bid. He then swiftly endorsed Harris for the top of the ticket. However, the Democratic National Committee must formally nominate Harris — or another candidate. That could be done via virtual vote or in-person — open convention style — at the DNC’s gathering in Chicago from Aug. 19-22.

While technically it’s not guaranteed that Harris will be the nominee, the vice president has already received backing from many Democrats in Congress, Democratic Party chairs, state delegations and several Democratic governors. At this time, the more uncertain question is who Harris may choose for her running mate.

With the convention mere weeks away, the Harris campaign must scramble to organize and communicate her policy vision. From the debate last month between Biden and Trump, it was clear that a major focus of the election will be on the economy and how the candidates’ proposals could impact Americans’ personal finances.

What would a Harris economy look like?

Biden has a clear track record with his economic policies — the shorthand of which is “Bidenomics” — that Harris has supported over the past four years. That record is what Biden had been campaigning on before dropping out, and it’s likely that Harris will follow suit.

  • “Making smart public investments in America” that attract more private sector investment, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA); the CHIPS and Science Act; as well as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.  

  • “Empowering and educating workers to grow the middle class” through moves like forgiving student debt for qualifying borrowers; supporting unionization and collective bargaining and investing in registered apprenticeships. Under the Biden-Harris administration, the U.S. has seen some of the lowest unemployment in decades and strong wage gains that have outpaced inflation growth. 

  • “Promoting competition to lower costs and help entrepreneurs and small businesses to thrive.” This includes actions to lower costs by combatting junk fees, lowering prescription drug costs for seniors and enforcing antitrust law. 

However, Harris, like Biden will still have to contend with inflation as a messaging obstacle. Persistent elevated prices are still dragging down public perception of the administration’s handling of the economy.

In the spring, Harris launched a nationwide Economic Opportunity Tour that may serve as a blueprint for the vice president’s talking points in the campaign including:

  • Forgiving student loans.

  • Forgiving medical debt.

  • Investing in infrastructure.

  • Investing in small businesses.

  • Creating jobs. 

  • Increasing access to capital for underserved communities. 

  • Cutting costs for insulin and other prescription drugs. 

  • Expanding access to health care. 

  • Making housing and home buying more affordable. 

  • Lowering child care costs. 

  • Expanding access to government contracts for minority-owned small businesses.

During a tour stop on May 6 in Detroit, Harris said, “I believe every person in our country must have access to the opportunity to compete, to succeed, and to thrive; the ability to achieve what I call financial freedom, which means having enough not just to get by but to get ahead, to be able to build a business, to own a home, to start a family, and to create intergenerational wealth.”

As the first female vice president of the U.S., Harris has also been the administration’s face on issues that most impact women: abortion access and child care. Harris is a staunch supporter of reproductive rights and, in December, launched a nationwide “reproductive freedoms” tour. And in February, Harris announced rule changes designed to lower copayments for more than 100,000 families who receive federal child care assistance.

In Harris’ earlier roles as California attorney general and later as a U.S. senator, she proposed:

  • Refundable tax credits for renters with qualified earnings.

  • A $3,000 per person refundable tax credit for middle- and working-class people through the LIFT (Livable Incomes for Families Today) the Middle Class Act.

  • A “Medicare for All” health care plan that retains private insurance. 

  • A $20,000 student debt forgiveness plan for Pell Grant recipients who create and run small businesses in disadvantaged areas.

  • Increasing public school teacher pay, funded by estate taxes on the wealthy.

Before becoming vice president, Harris served as a U.S. senator from California, attorney general of California and as the district attorney for the city of San Francisco. In early campaign appearances, she has drawn a sharp distinction between her work as a prosecutor and Trump’s ongoing legal issues, including his recent conviction on 34 felony counts.

(Photo by Jim Vondruska/Getty Images News via Getty Images)

Source: nerdwallet.com

Apache is functioning normally

To its conservative authors and backers, Project 2025 is a detailed road map for a complete remaking of the federal government — a next step in a “second American revolution,” that will be bloodless “if the left allows it to be,” in the words of one of the project’s principal architects.

Those on the opposite end of the political spectrum have denounced the plan with words like “chilling,” “terrifying” and “extreme,” and are calling attention to its proposals as part of the Democratic Party’s campaign to defeat former President Donald Trump in his bid to retake the White House.

For those somewhere in the middle, Project 2025 may be simply too long to read — roughly 900 pages — so here’s the gist: The controversial document was created by the Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank. More than 400 like-minded contributors penned the project as a blueprint for the next Republican presidency and published it in April 2023. It’s hefty wish list and, like all proposals, isn’t guaranteed even if Republicans retake the White House in the upcoming election.

Among its many proposals, it calls for dismantling or reshaping numerous federal agencies, rolling back policies designed to mitigate climate change, investing more power in the presidency, replacing government employees with political appointees, outlawing the abortion pill and gutting LGBTQ+ protections.

What is Project 2025 about?

There are four pillars in Project 2025:

  • Policy: The hefty agenda, known as “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.”

  • Personnel: The creation of a database of vetted and trained personnel to be considered for positions in a presidential administration in order to implement the project’s policy recommendations.  

  • Training: An online training program known as the “Presidential administration academy” to prepare future political appointees to work on day one of the next Republican presidency. 

  • Playbook: A plan for the first 180 days of the next Republican presidency.

What economic proposals are in Project 2025?

Most of Project 2025 would have economic implications if implemented and many proposals would affect Americans on a personal finance level. While this is not an exhaustive list, here are some key proposals:

  • Broad tax cuts to corporate and income taxes. 

  • Eliminate or reshape the Federal Reserve. One proposal within Project 2025 suggests eliminating the Fed and replacing it with “free banking.” Other proposals seek to diminish the Federal Reserve’s powers in other ways. 

  • Increase energy production and energy security largely by expanding oil and natural gas production. 

  • Overhauls to Medicare and Medicaid. Converting the current funding for Medicaid into a block grant program in which each state receives a fixed amount as opposed to funding specific needs; instituting time limits or lifetime caps on benefits; and adding a work requirement. Medicare Advantage, administered by private insurers, would become the default choice for new Medicare enrollees. 

  • Weaken child labor protections. It would permit teens to work in “inherently dangerous jobs” as long as they have training and parental consent.

  • Change overtime laws. Allow employees to choose between receiving time-and-a-half pay or accumulating time-and-a-half paid time off. It also calls for requiring time-and-a-half payment for hours worked on “the Sabbath,” or Sunday.

  • Reform additional labor laws. Exempt small-business owners from “first-time, non-willful” violations of certain health and safety precautions that are enforced by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. It would also make cuts to retirement benefits for federal workers. And it would allow state and local governments to get waivers from federal labor laws.

  • Unionization limits. Consider banning public employee unions and more union transparency in the private sector.

  • Unemployment limits. Make it more difficult to receive unemployment benefits.

  • Get rid of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

  • Potentially eliminate the Federal Trade Commission and increase standards for antitrust violation suits. 

  • Child care. Incentivize on-site child care. 

  • Decrease government spending. 

  • Consider returning to a gold-backed currency. 

  • Abortion. Removing mifepristone, the abortion pill, from the market, including banning distribution by mail. It emphasizes that Congress must “enact the most robust protections for the unborn” and other pro-life policy measures. It also calls for more federal and state support for adoptions.

  • Big Pharma. Reform Food and Drug Administration rules to ban pharmaceutical companies from purposely preventing generic versions of their drugs from entering the market. 

  • Overhaul government employment. Fire certain government employees who are not “ideologically aligned” with the “majority of the American People”  and replace them with political appointees. 

  • Sweeping immigration changes. Increasing funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall; altering how agencies address immigration; restricting visa access; instituting additional immigrant worker limitations; and dismantling the Department of Homeland Security. 

  • Higher education. Promote trade schools, apprenticeship programs and alternatives to student loans “that fund students’ dreams instead of Marxist academics.”

  • Contradicting tariff proposals: Boosting free trade and fair trade.  

What else is in the Project 2025 playbook?

The Project 2025 playbook, again, is lengthy — too long to include every proposal here. But some other significant policy changes the document calls for include:

  • Expanding the power of the president to have complete control over the entire federal bureaucracy.  

  • Getting rid of many existing climate-related protection policies. 

  • Eliminating the Department of Education, as well as expanding both school choice and parental control in education. It would also end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs from governmental and public entities, including schools.

  • Changing terms used in schools and regulations. Eliminating “critical race theory” and “gender ideology” from school curriculum. It also would rid many terms from law and federal regulations such as “sexual orientation” and “reproductive rights”. 

  • Overhauling federal agencies including the FBI and the Department of Justice; dismantling the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; consolidating the Bureau of Economic Analysis with the Census Bureau and the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics; privatizing the Transportation Security Administration. 

  • A ban on pornography and closing telecommunications and tech firms that help to spread it. 

What has Trump said about Project 2025?

Trump, who is now running against Vice President Kamala Harris after President Joe Biden bowed out of the race, has tried to distance himself from the controversial policy plans. In a July 5 post on Truth Social, the conservative social media platform launched by Trump in 2022, the former president said, “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

Multiple outlets have pointed out that many former officials and advisors under the Trump administration are involved with Project 2025. The director of the project is Paul Dans and the associate director is Spencer Chretien, both of whom were officials under the Trump administration. CNN estimates about 140 people involved with the Trump Administration contributed to the playbook.

What has Harris said about Project 2025?

One of the first things Harris said after receiving Biden’s endorsement pointed to Project 2025. On July 21, she posted on X: “I will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic Party — and unite our nation— to defeat Donald Trump and his extreme Project 2025 agenda.”

Before Biden exited the race, he condemned Project 2025. During a rally in Detroit on July 12, Biden called it “the biggest attack on our system of government and our personal freedom that has ever been proposed in the history of this country.” He also accused Trump of lying about his relationship to the project saying, “It was a project built for Trump.”

Biden said, “We’ve never seen anything like this. And it’s not a joke. It’s time for us to stop treating politics like entertainment and reality TV.”

On June 11, a group of Democrats launched a Stop Project 2025 Task Force. In a press release, U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat from California, called Project 2025 “a radical, extreme, pro-authoritarianism plan pushed by conservatives who are desperate to take our country backwards.”

 (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images News via Getty Images.)

Source: nerdwallet.com

Apache is functioning normally

In a pair of rulings, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has rejected the National Association of Realtors petition for a rehearing in its case with the Justice Department.

The latest actions follow a 2-1 split decision that allowed the Biden Administration to reopen a case the trade group thought it had settled while Donald Trump was president.

But the Biden Administration never finalized the agreement and looked to reopen the investigation.

“This ruling stands in opposition to years of precedent on the interpretation of government contracts and the bedrock principle that the government must honor its word,” a NAR spokesperson said. “We are evaluating all remaining legal options and are committed to exploring all avenues to ensure the DOJ is held to the terms of our 2020 agreement.”

Some speculated that the April ruling could lead to more involvement by the Justice Department in cases involving real estate broker commissions and multiple listing services activities. Most recently, the Department filed an amicus brief, albeit in support of neither side, calling on Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reopen a case filed by Real Estate Exchange, also known as REX, against NAR and Zillow.

NAR has also entered into settlement agreements with some of the various plaintiffs in the buyer’s real estate broker fee commission cases, with a number of observers speculating that it wouldn’t have taken the action without the Justice Department’s blessing. But the DOJ’s actions since then have dispelled that conjecture.

After the April decision came out, NAR filed an appeal asking for both a rehearing among the three judge panel that initially decided the matter, as well as for an en banc hearing, where all members of the court would then rule on the case.

Both motions were rejected in single-page rulings without detailed explanation.

“Upon consideration of appellee’s petition for panel rehearing filed on May 20, 2024, it is ordered that the petition be denied,” wrote the unanimous three-judge panel consisting of Judge Karen Henderson, Judge Justin Walker and Judge Florence Pan.

The entire court, with the exception of Judge Bradley Garcia, participated in the unanimous ruling denying NAR’s request.

“Upon consideration of appellee’s petition for rehearing en banc, the response thereto, and the absence of a request by any member of the court for a vote, it is ordered that the petition be denied,” the unsigned ruling said.

Source: nationalmortgagenews.com