New York
CNN
—

Polls show that Americans rank the economy as their top concern as they prepare to cast their votes in this election.

Dealing with high inflation for years will do that to you. While inflation has cooled significantly since peaking at a 40-year high in 2022, Americans are now paying about 20% more for goods and services compared to before the pandemic, according to Consumer Price Index data.

On the other hand, the labor market, which has been the biggest source of strength in the U.S. economy after the pandemic, has been sending warning signs of late. The unemployment rate is hovering near three-year highs and employers are cutting back on hiring, with the number of job openings in the economy recently falling to the lowest level since January 2021, the Labor Department said.

In response to Americans’ concerns about the economy, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have laid out starkly different policy proposals, which they will highlight during Tuesday night’s presidential debate. Their contrasting approaches could have far-reaching consequences for the economy — and for you.

Here’s a look at what could happen to inflation, jobs and the budget deficit if Trump or Harris wins in November.

Inflation and jobs

Trump’s tariff policy would be controversial, imposing dramatically higher tariffs on virtually everything that enters the country’s ports from abroad. That could generate revenue for the government, but it could also result in Americans having to pay higher prices for goods and services. Goldman Sachs economists estimate that every percentage point increase in the effective tariff rate could raise core inflation, as measured by the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index, by a tenth of a percentage point. And Trump is talking about tariffs of 10% to 20% on most things, except Chinese goods, which would see a 60% tariff.

Meanwhile, Trump is promising to drill much more oil, a major expense for many companies, to drive down prices — but it’s questionable whether he can deliver. The United States already pumps more oil than any other country in history.

Moreover, the unprecedented immigration curbs Trump has promised if he returns to the White House could also lead to higher inflation, economists say, despite Trump recently claiming that prices would “fall dramatically and rapidly” as a result.

If mass deportations occur, companies may struggle to fill vacancies, and they may have to raise wages and pass those costs on to consumers.

Even deporting 1.3 million workers, which is lower than the 10 to 20 million deportations Trump advocates, would be an “inflation shock” that would raise inflation by 1.3 percentage points after three years, according to research presented at the Peterson Institute for International Economics by Australian economist Warwick McKibbin. Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the U.S. economy, would be 2.1 percentage points lower — a dramatic drop.

If 7.5 million workers were deported, inflation would be as much as 7.4 percentage points higher and GDP would be 12 points lower after three years, the study found.

Harris has warned that the immigration system is “broken” and her campaign pledged on her website to restore the bipartisan border security bill. However, Harris has not promised mass deportations or a crackdown, as Trump has called for.

That’s why Goldman Sachs recently told clients it expected only “modest further reductions” in net immigration under a Harris presidency.

The supply of immigrant workers will be 10,000 a month lower if Trump wins with a divided government than if Harris becomes president, Goldman Sachs estimates. If the Republicans win in November, Goldman expects the supply of immigrant workers to America to be 30,000 lower than if Harris becomes president.

But Harris’s policy is not inflation-proof.

The tax credit for first-time homeowners and the tripling of the child tax credit for newborns that she proposed could give consumers more money to spend on goods and services. But the prices they pay for them could rise as a result.

Harris has also proposed a plan that her team says would result in 3 million housing units. The problem is timing: If the first-time homebuyer credit takes effect before more new units are available, it could send home prices soaring.

“The problem now is that too many people are chasing too few houses,” Justin Wolfers, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan, told CNN. “The solution to that is not to give people more money to buy houses. If you don’t fix the supply side, then everyone you’ve helped is hurting someone else.”

One potential wild card for inflation is the two candidates’ different approaches to the Federal Reserve, the independent central bank charged with controlling inflation. Harris has promised a hands-off approach, while Trump has suggested the president should have influence over decision-making — an argument he later walked back.

Regardless of who wins in November, expect the federal budget deficit to increase significantly.

A budget deficit occurs when the government spends more than it takes in. The U.S. government currently has a budget deficit of $1.5 trillion, according to data from the Treasury Department. The nonpartisan Penn-Wharton Budget Model predicts that this will increase to $2.1 trillion by 2034 if the status quo continues.

The size of the deficit has major implications for Americans. The higher the deficit, the riskier it becomes to hold U.S. debt, which tends to grow as the deficit grows. As a result, the government would have to pay higher interest rates to borrow money. That could reduce the amount of investment the government can make in other programs.

Higher interest rates on government debt, which is typically sold in bonds and Treasury bills, could also increase borrowing costs for Americans because interest rates are tied to the interest rates paid to invest in government debt.

Several of Trump’s proposed tax measures would significantly reduce the amount of money the government collects. Those measures include permanently extending individual and corporate provisions of his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which expires next year. Among other things, that would keep the top tax rate paid by individuals at 37%, compared with 39.6% before it took effect.

He has also proposed cutting corporate taxes from 21% to 15% for companies that produce products domestically, and eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits for seniors and tips for service providers.

Trump says he plans to pay for those initiatives with his tariffs. But the revenue the government would collect from the tariffs wouldn’t be enough to fully replace the lost tax revenue. The Penn-Wharton Budget Model, which excludes new proposals Trump unveiled last week and an end to tip taxes, estimates his proposals could increase the deficit by another $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years.

The model also fails to account for the savings that could result from Trump’s announcement of a commission led by Elon Musk to cut wasteful government spending.

Meanwhile, Harris’s tax proposals so far have largely involved imposing higher taxes, which would have a positive effect on the deficit. For example, she has expressed support for raising the top individual income tax rate to 44.6% and the top long-term capital gains tax rate to 28%, up from the current 20%. And on the corporate side, she favors raising the tax rate to 28%.

But the additional tax revenue the government would collect would be offset by the significant tax breaks it has proposed, including an expansion of the child benefit and a $25,000 rebate for first-time homebuyers.

And like Trump, she has promised to end the tip tax. She has also promised not to raise taxes on households making less than $400,000 a year. Both would add to the deficit.

Combining the Penn Wharton Budget model, we estimate that Harris’ proposals could increase the deficit by an additional $1.2 trillion by 2034.

Neither candidate has proposed a credible solution to the country’s financial mess, said Joshua Gotbaum, a visiting professor of economics at the Brookings Institution. “But what Harris has proposed would create a lot less mess,” he said.