Income Inequality

Latest story

138 Shares175 Views

Working-Class Voters Are Pivotal. Both Candidates Are Vying for Their Support.

by

Kamala Harris’s plans offer a bigger boost for the working class, but Donald Trump seems to be convincing voters.Bernadette Daywalt had yet to decide whom to vote for in the presidential election. But the 69-year-old retiree said her decision would probably come down to economics.She and her 82-year-old sister have struggled to keep up with rising grocery prices over the past few years, and they now frequent a food pantry in the Philadelphia suburb where they live.“I think we’re headed downhill right now, with the cost of food, the cost of everything,” Ms. Daywalt said as she checked on her voter registration at an outreach van parked outside the Elmwood Park Zoo on a crisp October afternoon. She voted for Mr. Trump in 2016, and she felt better economically when he was president.Ms. Daywalt’s perceptions underscore a tough reality facing Democrats, who have been trying to recapture a working-class vote that has been slipping away from them.Many economists say Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic proposals would do more to help everyday Americans than the agenda put forward by former President Donald J. Trump. One model suggests that her package would boost post-tax income for the poorest Americans by 18 percent by 2026, much more than the 1.4 percent bump Mr. Trump’s ideas would offer.Income Effects of Trump vs. Harris Economic ProposalsAfter tax and transfers, estimates from the Penn Wharton Budget Model suggest that Kamala Harris’s proposals would boost low-income groups while costing rich ones.

.dw-chart-subhed {
line-height: 1;
margin-bottom: 6px;
font-family: nyt-franklin;
color: #121212;
font-size: 15px;
font-weight: 700;
}

Percent Change as of 2026
Notes: Percent changes are from the baseline expectation for income in 2026. Baseline income is about $20,000 for the bottom quintile, $81,400 for the middle quintile and $327,000 for the group in the 90-95 percent range.Source: Penn Wharton Budget ModelBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 125 Shares195 Views

    in Economy

    Global Economic Leaders Confront a New Era of Industrial Policy

    by

    Policymakers brace for more protectionism and the demise of “neoliberalism” if Donald J. Trump is re-elected in the U.S.At the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank this week, Kristalina Georgieva, the head of the I.M.F., expressed a mix of relief and trepidation about the state of the world economy.Policymakers had tamed rapid inflation without causing a global recession. Yet another big economic problem loomed. Rising protectionism and thousands of new industrial policy measures enacted by countries around the world over the last year are threatening future growth prospects.“Trade, for the first time, is not the engine of growth,” Ms. Georgieva said at an event sponsored by the Bretton Woods Committee.Economic policymakers who convened in Washington showed little indication that they might heed the warnings.Eighty years after the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were created to stabilize the global economy in the wake of World War II, the role of those organizations and the guiding principles behind their creation has largely fallen out of fashion. The I.M.F. and World Bank were designed to embrace a new system of economic order and international cooperation, one that would stitch the world economy together and allow rich nations to help poorer ones through trade and investment.But today, those who espouse such “neoliberal” notions of open markets are increasingly lonely voices.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    How Is the Economy for Black Voters? A Complex Question Takes Center Stage.

    by

    The 2024 election could be won or lost on the strength of the Black vote, which could in turn be won or lost based on the strength of the American economy. So it is no surprise that candidates are paying a lot of attention — and lip service — to which of the past two administrations did more to improve the lives of Black workers.Former President Donald J. Trump, the Republican candidate, makes big claims about the gains Black workers made under his watch, saying that he had the “lowest African American unemployment rate” and “the lowest African American poverty rate ever recorded.” But those measures improved even more under the Biden administration, with joblessness touching a record low and poverty falling even further.“Currently, Black workers are doing better than they were in 2019,” said Valerie Wilson, a labor economist whose work focuses on racial disparities at the liberal-leaning advocacy organization EPI Action.That may sound like an unambiguous victory for Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, especially when paired with a recent increase in homeownership rates for Black families and the fact that the Black unemployment rate dipped in September.But even with those notable wins, the economy has not been uniformly good for all Black Americans. Rapid inflation has been tough on many families, chipping away at solid wage growth. Although the labor market for Black workers was the strongest ever recorded for much of 2022 and 2023, the long shadow of big price increases may be keeping people from feeling like they are getting ahead.In fact, nearly three in four Black respondents rated the economy as fair or poor, a recent New York Times/Siena College poll of Black likely voters found. And that is notable, because Black voters do tend to prioritize economic issues — not just for themselves, but also for the overall welfare of Black people — when they are thinking about whether and how to vote.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    The Report Card on Guaranteed Income Is Still Incomplete

    by

    A three-year analysis of unconditional cash stipends concluded that the initiative has had some success, but not the transformational impact its proponents hoped for.Silicon Valley billionaires and anti-poverty activists don’t have a lot in common, but in recent years they’ve joined forces around a shared enthusiasm: programs that guarantee a basic income.Tech entrepreneurs like Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, have promoted direct cash transfers to low-income Americans as a way to cushion them from what the entrepreneurs anticipate could be widespread job losses caused by artificial intelligence. Some local politicians and community leaders, concerned about growing wealth inequality, have also put their faith in these stipends, known as unconditional cash or, in their most ambitious form, a universal basic income.Dozens of small pilot projects testing unconditional cash transfers have popped up in communities around the country, from Alaska to Stockton, Calif. Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur, put the idea of $1,000 monthly payments for all adults at the center of his 2020 presidential campaign. The idea of cash transfers gained broader popularity during the pandemic, as the federal government introduced stimulus checks and child tax credits, and child poverty declined.While some pilot projects have shown encouraging results, they have been small scale. That changed this summer, when a research project involving several thousand people, backed by Mr. Altman and called OpenResearch, released findings from what is so far the country’s largest experiment with unconditional cash transfers.If proponents of unconditional cash hoped the findings of the OpenResearch study would prove its benefits once and for all, their hopes were at least partly dashed. People gained flexibility to spend on basic needs, but the cash didn’t transform their net worth or their mental or physical health. Some researchers and guaranteed income proponents argue that the study shows that cash transfers are only a small piece of the larger puzzle of how to improve the financial well-being of low-income people.“Cash transfers probably do less to improve people’s lives than the proponents of them thought that they would,” said Sarah Miller, an author of the study and economist at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business. “The flip side is that they probably don’t have the harmful effects that detractors were concerned about.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Trump Dangles New Tax Cut Proposals With Real Political Appeal

    by

    The most recent and costliest of Mr. Trump’s ideas would end income taxes on Social Security benefits.First it was a tax cut for hotel and restaurant workers in Nevada, a swing state where Donald J. Trump proposed exempting tips from taxes. Then, in front of powerful chief executives gathered in Washington, Mr. Trump floated cutting the corporate tax rate, helping to ease concerns in the business community about his candidacy.Now Mr. Trump is calling for an end to taxing Social Security benefits, which could be a boon for retirees, one of the most politically important groups in the United States.Repeatedly during the campaign, Mr. Trump and Republicans have embraced new, sometimes novel tax cuts in an attempt to shore up support with major constituencies. In a series of social-media posts, at political rallies, and without formal policy proposals, Mr. Trump has casually suggested reducing federal revenue by trillions of dollars.While policy experts have taken issue with the ideas, Mr. Trump’s pronouncements have real political appeal, at times putting Democrats on their back foot. Nevada’s two Democratic senators and its powerful culinary union have endorsed ending taxes on tips. The AARP supports tax relief for seniors receiving Social Security benefits, though it has not taken a position on Mr. Trump’s proposal.“You do have to scratch your head a little bit when someone’s going around offering free lunches everywhere,” said Jesse Lee, a Democratic consultant and former Biden White House official. “We’re all for people having their lunch, but we have to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for it.”The most recent and most expensive of Mr. Trump’s plans is ending income taxes on Social Security benefits, which could cost the federal government as much as $1.8 trillion in revenue over a decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. That would burn through the program’s financial reserves more quickly and hasten the moment when the government is no longer able to pay out Social Security benefits in full under current law.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    A Harris Economy Could Prove More Progressive Than ‘Bidenomics’

    by

    At the first Democratic presidential debate in 2019, Kamala Harris, then a senator from California, unleashed a scathing critique of the Trump economy.The future vice president billed President Donald J. Trump’s tax cuts as a giveaway to the rich, argued that the booming stock market was leaving the middle class behind and warned that his reckless trade agenda was hurting farmers in the heartland.“Frankly, this economy is not working for working people,” Ms. Harris said. “For too long the rules have been written in the favor of the people who have the most and not in favor of the people who work the most.”As Ms. Harris prepares to potentially replace President Biden atop the Democratic ticket, she now faces the challenge of articulating her own vision for steering a U.S. economy that is still grappling with inflation while drawing sharp distinctions with Mr. Trump, who has promised more tax cuts and tariffs.Ms. Harris has been an ardent defender for the White House’s economic agenda during the Biden administration, promoting the benefits of legislation such as the American Rescue Plan of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. But as an attorney general and a senator, she was at times more progressive than the president, pushing for universal health care while calling for more generous tax benefits for working-class Americans and paying for them with bigger tax increases on companies.In recent weeks, Ms. Harris has embarked on an economic “opportunity tour,” making the case that wage increases have been outpacing inflation, that manufacturing jobs are growing and that Democrats have been fighting to forgive student loan debt. Those arguments now foreshadow the case she will be making to voters as she runs against Mr. Trump.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Proposed Tax Cuts and Increased Tariffs Could Hurt Poorer Households

    by

    Some Republicans want to use revenue collected from higher duties on foreign goods to finance tax cuts. Economists say such a shift could widen the gap between the rich and the poor.When former President Donald J. Trump met with House Republicans last month, he touched on a mix of policies core to his economic agenda: cutting income taxes while also significantly raising tariffs on foreign goods.Mr. Trump told Republicans he would “love to raise tariffs” and cut income taxes on Americans, potentially to zero, said Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia.“Everyone was clapping in the room,” Ms. Greene said. “He said, ‘If you guys are going to go vote on something today, vote to lower taxes on Americans.’”Tariffs and tax cuts were core to Mr. Trump’s economic thinking while he was in the White House. If he wins in November, he is promising a much more aggressive approach, including potentially a blanket 10 percent tariff on nearly all imports and a 60 percent tax on Chinese goods.Mr. Trump and his supporters say that mixing tariffs with tax cuts will revitalize American businesses and manufacturing, boosting jobs and benefiting working-class Americans. And they see tariffs on foreign products as a lucrative source of revenue, one that could be used to offset a drop in tax receipts.Some economists have a different view, saying that cutting taxes while raising tariffs could have harmful consequences by widening the gap between the rich and the poor. Companies often pass on the cost of tariffs to consumers in the form of higher prices. As a result, economists say, lower-income households would be hit hardest by tariffs since they spend a greater share of their income on goods. Income taxes tend to fall more heavily on wealthier Americans since many low-income workers do not make enough money to owe federal income taxes.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Is It Silicon Valley’s Job to Make Guaranteed Income a Reality?

    by

    For the last couple of years, the tech community has tested no-strings-attached payments of $500 or $1,000 a month to those in dire need. Some of these experiments have happened in the heart of Silicon Valley, where a one-bedroom apartment rents for $3,000 a month and a modest house is often an unaffordable luxury.Silicon Valley’s backing of these efforts has propelled the idea of a guaranteed income — also known as cash transfers, unconditional cash and, in its most utopian form, universal basic income — into the mainstream. But a bipartisan political consensus around the movement is fracturing even though the data seems to show that the programs are effective.In recent months, the Texas attorney general went to court to prevent public funds from being used in a basic income program in Houston. Republicans in Iowa, Idaho and South Dakota banned similar programs. A ban in Arizona was vetoed by the governor.The movement has scored a few victories, too. A proposal for a statewide basic income program is likely to be on the ballot in Oregon this fall. The measure would give $750 to each state resident annually, funded by a 3 percent tax on corporations with revenue over $25 million.It is a critical moment for guaranteed income, which has been touted by the OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman, the Tesla chief executive Elon Musk, the Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, the Salesforce chief executive Marc Benioff and others.On Monday, the results from the biggest direct income program to date, the Unconditional Income Study, will be released. The study was the idea of Mr. Altman, who has emerged as the chief cheerleader of a boom in artificial intelligence that, he says, will sweep away all that came before it. Anyone whose job can be done by A.I. software might need a guaranteed income by and by.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    America’s Divided Summer Economy Is Coming to an Airport or Hotel Near You

    by

    The gulf between higher- and lower-income consumers has been widening for years, but it is expected to show up especially clearly in travel this season.The travel industry is in the midst of another hot summer as Americans hit the road and make for the airport to take advantage of slightly cheaper flights and gas. But the 2024 vacation outlook isn’t all sunny: Like the rest of the American consumer experience this year, it is sharply divided.Many richer consumers — always the lifeblood of the travel industry — are feeling good this year as a strong stock market and rising home values boost their wealth. While they have felt the bite of rapid inflation over the last few years, they are likely to have more wiggle room in their budgets and more options to ease the pain by trading down from name brands to generic, or Whole Foods to Walmart.Poorer families have had less room to maneuver to avoid the brunt of high prices. Although the job market is strong, with low unemployment and wages that have risen especially rapidly at the bottom of the income scale in recent years, some signs of economic strain have been surfacing among lower-income Americans. Credit card delinquencies have risen, many lower earners report feeling less confident in their own household finances, and companies that serve lower-income groups report that they are under stress.The gulf between higher- and lower-income consumers has been widening for years, but it is expected to show up especially clearly in travel this summer. Surveys show that richer households are more optimistic about their ability to take trips, and services that they are more likely to use — like full-service hotels — are flourishing. Budget hotel chains, by contrast, are expected to report a pullback.“If you go to upscale, you’re actually seeing growth there,” said Adam Sacks, the president of tourism economics at Oxford Economics. “A lot of that has to do with the different financial situations of different income groups.”Bookings, survey responses and spending trends so far suggest that the travel industry will see muted but healthy growth this summer and in 2024 as a whole. That growth is expected even after several years of breakneck vacationing as people took “revenge” for the trips they missed during the pandemic.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More