Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris (R) shakes hands with former president and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump during the presidential debate in September.

Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

With less than a month left until Election Day, both the Harris and Trump campaigns have presented their economic visions to the American people — including proposed tax cuts, border security spending, and affordable housing policies. But it’s still unclear how much these plans will cost, and how they will be paid for.

A new report from the nonpartisan nonprofit Committee for Responsible Federal Budget finds that both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Harris will deepen the national debt to pay for their initiatives. Trump’s estimated economic plan would sink the nation $7.5 trillion further into to debt over the next decade, while Harris’ estimated proposals would cost the government half that — around $3.5 trillion.

“Whoever wins the 2024 presidential election will face an unprecedented fiscal situation upon taking office,” according to the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget’s report. “Both the Republican and Democratic candidates for President have put forward campaign plans that would, at best, maintain the status quo and, at worst, add tremendously to our debt and deficits.”

The report said their estimates come with “a high degree of uncertainty” because of lack of specifics from both campaigns; the estimates for Harris’ plans range from adding $0 to $8.1 trillion to the debt, while the forecasts for Trump range from $1.5 trillion to $15.2 trillion.

The committee warned of “an eventual fiscal crisis” if politicians don’t address the national debt more forcefully. The nonprofit also provided an overview of the candidates‘ competing economic visions — pulled from campaign websites, emails, speeches, social media posts and discussions with campaign staff.

Extending Trump’s Tax Code

Both Harris and Trump plan to extend portions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) — a law passed in 2017 that made major changes to the tax code. The law is set to expire in 2025.

Extending the TCJA is the most expensive portion of both campaigns’ economic plans, totaling $3 trillion for Harris and $5.4 trillion for Trump, according to the report.

The difference between the two costs comes from Harris’ promise that “no one earning less than $400,000 a year will pay more in taxes,” meaning Americans earning less than that will continue to benefit from the TCJA tax cuts while those making more than that will not.

Meanwhile, Trump has promised to “make the Trump tax cuts permanent” for all those who benefited from the law initially. Notably, Trump has promised to end the $10,000 cap on deductions for state and local taxes, known as SALT, which has become a contentious political issue.

Taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security

Both the Harris and Trump campaigns have promised to eliminate taxes on tips — despite the shaking heads of economists.

Trump proposed the policy first after a visit to Las Vegas. But the Harris campaign told NPR their plan is distinct as their policy would have caps on salary, meant to prevent high-earners from marking all their salary as tipped wages and taking “advantage of the policy.” The Harris campaign said it also plans to increase the minimum wage in tandem with not taxing tips.

The Committee for Responsible Federal Budget estimated Harris’ no-tax-on tips policy would cost $200 billion over 10 years, while Trump’s would cost $300 billion.

The former president has also proposed a blanket tax exemption for overtime pay. The committee listed this as the second-most expensive portion of his economic vision, costing the U.S. government some $2 trillion over 10 years in lost taxes.

Trump’s call for an end to taxes on Social Security benefits is the third-most costly part of his plan. Between 50% to 85% of Social Security benefits are taxed, the committee said. Cutting those funds would increase the deficit by $1.3 trillion, it found.

Harris has no plans to cut taxes on overtime pay or on Social Security benefits, according to the report.

Child Tax Credit

The second-most expensive portion of Harris’ economic plan is her proposed expansion of the Child Tax Credit, which currently gives most parents a $2,000 per-child tax credit.

As president, Harris “would make the CTC fully refundable; expand eligibility to 17-year-olds; and increase the size of the CTC to $6,000 for newborns, $3,600 for other children under six, and $3,000 for children six and over,” the report said.

This expansion of the CTC would cost $1.4 trillion over ten years.

While Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, said he supports a child tax credit increase, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget didn’t include it in its analysis.

Border spending

Both Harris and Trump promise to increase border security.

The Democratic presidential candidate said she would sign the bipartisan border security bill if passed — which would hire more border patrol agents, asylum officers, immigration judges, and others. The bill failed to pass in a divided Congress earlier this year, and would have cost $100 billion over a decade.

On border security, Trump said he would implement the “largest deportation program in American history,” while also finishing the border wall and strengthening the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

The committee estimated Trump’s immigration plan would cost $350 billion over 10 years, but it also noted significant uncertainty, given few details on Trump’s mass deportation plans.

Affordable housing programs

Both Harris and Trump plan to address the high cost of housing, but their methods differ.

Harris plans to give first-time home buyers a tax credit and would seek to boost housing construction through tax incentives for new homes, while also expanding the low-income housing tax credit.

These plans have a $250 billion price tag, according to the committee.

Meanwhile, Trump plans to lean solely on tax incentives to help homeowners. The campaign hasn’t released any details of exactly how.

“While the Trump campaign has not provided specifics on these tax credits, one option would be to revive the $8,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit that was in effect in 2009 and 2010,” the committee’s report said.

With this assumption, the committee forecasted Trump’s housing plan would cost $150 billion over the next decade.

Health care proposals

Harris’ planned expansion of Affordable Care Act subsidies is estimated to cost $550 billion over 10 years. The ACA allows Americans without employer-provided or government-sponsored health insurance to get covered with income-based tax credit subsidies, lowering the overall cost of getting coverage.

Harris plans to make recent increases in these subsidies permanent, according to the deficit analysis.

Meanwhile, Trump promised his administration will have the government or insurers pay for in vitro fertilization treatments and “we will also allow new parents to deduct major newborn expenses from their taxes,” Trump said this summer.

The group said it did not receive specifics from the Trump campaign; based on public statements, it estimated this plan would cost $150 billion over a decade.

Revenue: taxes versus tariffs

Both Harris and Trump intend to offset the massive costs of their plans by making the government money elsewhere.

Harris intended to generate revenue through taxes on corporations and high-earners: those making more that $400,000 per year. These actions would bring in $4.3 trillion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The Harris White House would bring in another $250 billion in reduced spending on prescription drugs, it estimated.

Trump, on the other hand, intends to raise revenue with heavy tariffs on foreign imports and with a reduction of policies to protect the environment, which is expected to allow oil companies to drill on protected lands and generate tax revenue. The committee said these plans would generate $3.7 trillion over 10 years.

Neither Harris or Trump’s revenue plans would fully cover their projected costs, the group found.