As 2025 approaches, the U.S. faces a pivotal moment regarding its tax system, often referred to as “Tax Armageddon.” The 2024 elections will significantly influence which tax policies will shape the country’s financial landscape for years to come. The expiration of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) looms large, with the potential to impact 62% of taxpayers. In this article, we explore the potential tax changes proposed by former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, focusing on their implications for individuals and corporations.
Trumps Plan
Former President Donald Trump’s tax plan centers on extending the TCJA, a defining policy of his administration. The TCJA, enacted in 2017, provided widespread tax cuts but also contributed to a substantial increase in the federal deficit. If these tax cuts are allowed to expire after 2025, a majority of Americans will face higher taxes.
Trump’s additional proposals include exempting tip income and Social Security benefits from taxes. However, these changes could accelerate the insolvency of key social programs like Medicare and Social Security. Trump’s belief that tax cuts pay for themselves by spurring economic growth is controversial, with many experts doubting its long-term effectiveness.
On the corporate side, Trump aims to lower corporate tax rates even further, potentially reducing them to 15%. While this could stimulate job creation and economic growth, it would also significantly decrease federal revenue. Additionally, Trump’s plan includes imposing tariffs on imported goods, which critics argue would act as a national sales tax, burdening American consumers.

Harris Plan
Vice President Kamala Harris presents a different approach, using the tax code to advance economic and social goals. Her plan would maintain the TCJA tax cuts for individuals earning under $400,000, benefiting about 98% of taxpayers. However, Harris proposes raising tax rates and creating new tax loopholes, which some fear could complicate the tax system and hinder economic growth.
Harris’s plan includes expanding the child tax credit and making it partially refundable, providing more support to lower-income families. Additionally, she proposes tax credits for households with newborns and first-time homebuyers. To offset these benefits, Harris plans to increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy, with a 25% minimum tax on individuals with over $100 million in wealth and a 28% tax on long-term capital gains for high-income earners.

Taxes on Corporations
Corporate taxes have always been a significant point of debate in U.S. fiscal policy, and they play a crucial role in shaping the economic landscape of the country. As the expiration of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) approaches in 2025, the future of corporate taxation is one of the most critical issues at stake. The tax plans proposed by former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris offer contrasting visions for how corporate taxes should be handled, each with its own set of implications for businesses, the economy, and government revenues.
The TCJA and Its Impact on Corporate Taxes
The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a signature achievement of the Trump administration, dramatically reduced the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. This reduction was designed to make the U.S. more competitive on the global stage by lowering the cost of doing business in the country. The rationale behind the TCJA’s corporate tax cuts was that lower taxes would incentivize companies to invest more in their operations, create jobs, and boost economic growth.
Proponents of the TCJA argue that these tax cuts helped to stimulate the economy by increasing corporate profits, which in turn led to higher wages and more jobs. The reduction in the corporate tax rate also made the U.S. a more attractive destination for foreign investment, further contributing to economic growth.
However, critics of the TCJA point out that the corporate tax cuts disproportionately benefited large corporations and wealthy shareholders, with less direct benefit for ordinary workers. Additionally, the reduction in corporate tax revenue has contributed to the growing federal deficit, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability of such a low tax rate.
Trump’s Vision for Corporate Taxes: Further Reductions
Building on the TCJA, former President Trump has proposed further reducing the corporate tax rate, potentially lowering it to as low as 15%. Trump’s plan is rooted in the belief that cutting corporate taxes even more will drive additional investment, job creation, and economic growth. By making the U.S. corporate tax rate one of the lowest among developed nations, Trump aims to solidify America’s position as a leading global business hub.

Supporters of this approach argue that lower corporate taxes will lead to increased capital investment by companies, which can fuel innovation, expand business operations, and ultimately result in higher wages and more employment opportunities. Trump’s plan also aligns with his broader strategy of reducing government intervention in the economy, promoting free-market principles as the best path to prosperity.
However, the proposed further reductions in the corporate tax rate have sparked significant debate. Opponents warn that lowering the rate to 15% would drastically reduce federal revenue, exacerbating the deficit and potentially leading to cuts in essential public services. There is also concern that the benefits of such a tax cut would largely accrue to wealthy shareholders, rather than being broadly shared across the economy.
Harris’s Approach to Corporate Taxes: A Return to Higher Rates
In stark contrast to Trump’s plan, Vice President Kamala Harris advocates for increasing the corporate tax rate. Her proposal involves raising the rate from the current 21% to 28%, a level that aligns with President Biden’s fiscal policy goals. This increase would partially reverse the corporate tax cuts implemented under the TCJA, aiming to ensure that corporations contribute a fairer share of the nation’s tax burden.

Harris’s plan is driven by the belief that corporations, especially large and profitable ones, should pay higher taxes to help fund critical public services and reduce income inequality. The revenue generated from higher corporate taxes would be used to support a range of social programs, including expanded tax credits for working families, affordable housing initiatives, and investments in infrastructure and education.
In addition to raising the corporate tax rate, Harris supports tightening the corporate tax base, which was broadened under the TCJA. By closing loopholes and ensuring that more corporate income is subject to taxation, her plan aims to increase the overall tax contribution of businesses. This approach is intended to address concerns that some corporations have been able to significantly reduce their tax liability through aggressive tax planning strategies.
Critics of Harris’s plan argue that raising corporate taxes could discourage investment and stifle economic growth. Higher taxes on businesses may lead to reduced capital spending, lower job creation, and potentially higher prices for consumers as companies pass on the increased tax burden. There is also concern that raising corporate taxes could make the U.S. less competitive internationally, driving businesses to relocate operations to countries with lower tax rates.
The Broader Debate: Economic Growth vs. Fiscal Responsibility
The debate over corporate taxes encapsulates a broader philosophical divide between Trump’s and Harris’s economic visions. Trump’s approach prioritizes economic growth through lower taxes and minimal government intervention, with the belief that a thriving private sector will lead to prosperity for all. Harris, on the other hand, emphasizes the need for fiscal responsibility and social equity, arguing that higher taxes on corporations are necessary to fund public services and reduce income inequality.
Both approaches carry significant risks and potential rewards. Trump’s plan could lead to short-term economic gains but may also exacerbate the federal deficit and income inequality. Harris’s plan, while potentially more equitable, risks slowing economic growth and reducing the U.S.’s attractiveness as a business destination.
The Future of Corporate Taxation in the U.S.
As the 2024 elections approach, the future of corporate taxation in the U.S. will be a central issue for voters. The decision between further reducing corporate taxes or raising them to fund social programs will have far-reaching implications for the economy, government revenues, and the distribution of wealth in the country. Voters will need to consider whether they prioritize economic growth and business competitiveness or fiscal responsibility and social equity as they weigh the merits of Trump’s and Harris’s tax plans. The outcome of this debate will play a crucial role in shaping the U.S. economy for years to come.

Conclusion
The potential changes to U.S. taxes after 2025 will largely depend on the outcome of the 2024 elections. While Trump and Harris have starkly different visions for the country’s tax future, both plans carry significant implications for individuals, corporations, and the overall economy. As voters weigh their options, the debate over tax policy will undoubtedly play a central role in shaping the nation’s financial future.