U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris delivers remarks during a campaign event at West Allis Central High School in West Allis, Wisconsin, on July 23, 2024.
One of Harris’ signature proposals as senator — known as the LIFT the Middle Class Act, or Livable Incomes for Families Today — would have provided an annual tax credit of up to $3,000 per person (or $6,000 per couple) for lower- and middle-income workers, on top of the benefits they already receive.
The Harris campaign did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment.
How LIFT can help renters
In today’s climate, the LIFT Act could financially benefit renters, as many are part of the income category the tax credit is targeting, according to Francesco D’Acunto, an associate professor of finance at Georgetown University.
D’Acunto and other experts suggest the LIFT Act might even be a better aid for renters than the 5% rent cap proposal Biden unveiled on July 16. That proposal calls on Congress to cap rent increases from landlords with 50 existing units or more at 5% or risk losing federal tax breaks.
While the rent cap may lead consumers to believe prices will not increase significantly, it could have negative side effects, such as landlords taking their properties off the rental market, said Karl Widerquist, an economist and professor of philosophy at Georgetown University.
Plus, landlords who lose those federal tax breaks will still be able to raise rents, said Jacob Channel, a senior economist at LendingTree.
The advantage of the LIFT tax credit, said D’Acunto, is that it doesn’t create the same market distortions the rent cap would ignite. “But instead now on the side of the renter, we are actually very directly helping them to defray the effects of rent inflation,” he said.
Adds Widerquist: “We very often give tax benefits to all homeowners in the name of making it more affordable for people to become homeowners, and we don’t give a similar tax break to people who are paying rent. Those are the people who are struggling to become owners.”
What the LIFT Act would mean today
Since the LIFT Act was first proposed in 2018, the cost of living has only skyrocketed, hitting working-class Americans especially hard.
For these households, “real incomes have declined or remained flat due to inflation,” said Tomas Philipson, former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. That makes many workers feel less confident about their financial standing — and less satisfied with Biden’s handling of the economy.
At the same time, the rise of artificial intelligence has stoked fears about long-term job security.
In that context, “there’s a good rationale” for refloating a tax credit for those making under a certain income threshold, according to Laura Veldkamp, a professor of finance and economics at Columbia University Business School.
“A lot of people are asking the question, ‘Will AI take my job?’ There are people whose hard-earned skills could be obsolete,” she said. “One way to deal with that is to have more social insurance.”
But a tax credit like LIFT would also be extremely costly, according to Tax Policy Center estimates from 2018 and 2019.
To help cover the tab for the additional financial support, Harris at the timeproposed repealing provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for taxpayers earning more than $100,000.
However, funding such a tax credit now could be tough amid growing concerns over the federal budget deficit. Harris will also need to address trillions of expiring tax cuts enacted by former President Donald Trump before 2025.
Focus on the child tax credit
LIFT was first proposed years before Congress temporarily expanded the child tax credit during the Covid-19 pandemic, which could now be a bigger priority, experts say.
The American Rescue Plan boosted the child tax credit to $3,000 from $2,000, with an extra $600 for children under age 6 for 2021, and families received up to half upfront via monthly payments.
The child poverty rate plunged to a historic low of 5.2% in 2021, largely due to the expansion, a Columbia University analysis found. Then in 2022, the rate more than doubled to 12.4% after pandemic relief expired, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
“Whereas the last administration gave tax cuts to billionaires, we gave tax cuts to families through the child tax credit, which cut child poverty in America by half,” Harris said at a political event in North Carolina last week before the president left the race.
Biden’s fiscal year 2025 budget aimed to restore the 2021 child tax credit increase and House lawmakers in January passed a bipartisan tax package, which included a child tax credit expansion. However, the bill has been stuck in the Senate.
The enhanced tax break is “a huge priority for Democrats,” said Garrett Watson, senior policy analyst and modeling manager at the Tax Foundation.
Still, it’s unclear whether Harris will renew calls for LIFT or focus on the child tax credit, which has a different design but a similar goal, he said.
“It’s very hard to say whether they would revisit specific policy options from so long ago,” said Columbia Business School economics professor Brett House.
For now, “there are other cultural and political issues that are going to dominate.”
The Trump administration paused its plan to garnish Social Security benefits for those who have defaulted on their student loans — but says borrowers’ paychecks are still at risk.
“Wage garnishment will begin later this summer,” Ellen Keast, a U.S. Department of Education spokesperson, told CNBC.
Since the Covid pandemic began in March 2020,collection activity on federal student loans had mostly been on hold. The Biden administration focused on extending relief measures to struggling borrowers in the wake of the public health crisis and helping them to get current.
The Trump administration’s move to resume collection efforts and garnish wages of those behind on their student loans is a sharp turn away from that strategy. Officials have said that taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook when people don’t repay their education debt.
“Borrowers should pay back the debts they take on,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in a video posted on X on April 22.
Here’s what borrowers need to know about the Education Department’s current collection plans.
Social Security benefits are safe, for now
Keast said on Monday that the administration was delaying its plan to offset Social Security benefits for borrowers with a defaulted student loan.
Some older borrowers who were bracing for a reduced benefit check as early as Tuesday.
The Education Department previously said Social Security benefits could be garnished starting in June. Depending on details like their birth date and when they began receiving benefits, a recipient’s monthly Social Security check may arrive June 3, 11, 18 or 25 this year, according to the Social Security Administration.
More than 450,000 federal student loan borrowers age 62 and older are in default on their federal student loans and likely to be receiving Social Security benefits, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
“The Trump Administration is committed to protecting Social Security recipients who oftentimes rely on a fixed income,” said Keast.
Wages are still at risk
The Education Dept. says defaulted student loan borrowers could see their wages garnished later this summer.
The agency can garnish up to 15% of your disposable, or after-tax, pay, said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz. By law, you must be left with at least 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage ($7.25) a week, which is $217.50, Kantrowitz said.
Borrowers in default will receive a 30-day notice before their wages are garnished, a spokesperson for the Education Department previously told CNBC.
During that period, you should have the option to have a hearing before an administrative law judge, Kantrowitz said. The Education Department notice is supposed to include information on how you request that, he said.
Your wages may be protected if you’ve recently been unemployed, or if you’ve recently filed for bankruptcy, Kantrowitz said.
Borrowers can also challenge the wage garnishment if it will result in financial hardship, he added.
The U.S. Department of Education is seen on March 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Donald Trump is preparing to sign an executive order to abolish the Department of Education.
Win Mcnamee | Getty Images News | Getty Images
The U.S. Department of Education is pausing its plan to garnish people’s Social Security benefits if they have defaulted on their student loans, a spokesperson for the agency tells CNBC.
“The Trump Administration is committed to protecting Social Security recipients who oftentimes rely on a fixed income,” said Ellen Keast, an Education Department spokesperson.
The development is an abrupt change in policy by the administration.
The Trump administration announced on April 21 that it would resume collection activity on the country’s $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio. For nearly half a decade, the government did not go after those who’d fallen behind as part of Covid-era policies.
The federal government has extraordinary collection powers on its student loans and it can seize borrowers’ tax refunds, paychecks and Social Security retirement and disability benefits. Social Security recipients can see their checks reduced by up to 15% to pay back their defaulted student loan.
More than 450,000 federal student loan borrowers age 62 and older are in default on their federal student loans and likely to be receiving Social Security benefits, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.
The massive package of tax cuts House Republicans passed in May is expected to increase the U.S. debt by trillions of dollars — a sum that threatens to torpedo the legislation as the Senate starts to consider it this week.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates the bill, as written, would add about $3.1 trillion to the national debt over a decade with interest, to a total $53 trillion. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates a higher tally: $3.8 trillion, including interest and economic effects.
Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky was one of two Republicans to vote against the House measure, calling it a “debt bomb ticking” and noting that it “dramatically increases deficits in the near term.”
“Congress can do funny math — fantasy math — if it wants,” Massie said on the House floor on May 22. “But bond investors don’t.”
A handful of Republican Senators have also voiced concern about the bill’s potential addition to the U.S. debt load and other aspects of the legislation.
“The math doesn’t really add up,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, said Sunday on CBS.
The legislation comes as interest payments on U.S. debt have surpassed national spending on defense and represent the second-largest outlay behind Social Security. Federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, a measure of U.S. economic output, is already at an all-time high.
The notion of rising national debt may seem unimportant for the average person, but it can have a significant impact on household finances, economists said.
“I don’t think most consumers think about it at all,” said Tim Quinlan, senior economist at Wells Fargo Economics. “They think, ‘It doesn’t really impact me.’ But I think the truth is, it absolutely does.”
Consumer loans would be ‘a lot more’ expensive
A much higher U.S. debt burden would likely cause consumers to “pay a lot more” to finance homes, cars and other common purchases, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s.
“That’s the key link back to us as consumers, businesspeople and investors: The prospect that all this borrowing, the rising debt load, mean higher interest rates,” he said.
The House legislation cuts taxes for households by about $4 trillion, most of which accrue for the wealthy. The bill offsets some of those tax cuts by slashing spending for safety-net programs like Medicaid and food assistance for lower earners.
Some Republicans and White House officials argue President Trump’s tariff policies would offset a big chunk of the tax cuts.
But economists say tariffs are an unreliable revenue generator — because a future president can undo them, and courts may take them off the books.
How rising debt impacts Treasury yields
U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) speaks to the media after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Donald Trump’s agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025.
Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images News | Getty Images
Ultimately, higher interest rates for consumers ties to perceptions of U.S. debt loads and their effect on U.S. Treasury bonds.
Common forms of consumer borrowing like mortgages and auto loans are priced based on yields for U.S. Treasury bonds, particularly the 10-year Treasury.
Yields (i.e., interest rates) for long-term Treasury bonds are largely dictated by market forces. They rise and fall based on supply and demand from investors.
The U.S. relies on Treasury bonds to fund its operations. The government must borrow, since it doesn’t take in enough annual tax revenue to pay its bills, what’s known as an annual “budget deficit.” It pays back Treasury investors with interest.
If the Republican bill — called the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — were to raise the U.S. debt and deficit by trillions of dollars, it would likely spook investors and Treasury demand may fall, economists said.
Investors would likely demand a higher interest rate to compensate for the additional risk that the U.S. government may not pay its debt obligations in a timely way down the road, economists said.
Interest rates priced to the 10-year Treasury “also have to go up because of the higher risk being taken,” said Philip Chao, chief investment officer and certified financial planner at Experiential Wealth based in Cabin John, Maryland.
Moody’s cut the U.S.’ sovereign credit rating in May, citing the increasing burden of the federal budget deficit and signaling a bigger credit risk for investors. Bond yields spiked on the news.
How debt may impact consumer borrowing
Zandi cited a general rule of thumb to illustrate what a higher debt burden could mean for consumers: The 10-year Treasury yield rises about 0.02 percentage points for each 1-point increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio, he said.
For example, if the ratio were to rise from 100% (roughly where it is now) to 130%, the 10-year Treasury yield would increase about 0.6 percentage points, Zandi said. That would push the yield to more than 5% relative to current levels of around 4.5%, he said.
“It’s a big deal,” Zandi said.
A fixed 30-year mortgage would rise from almost 7% to roughly 7.6%, all else equal — likely putting homeownership further “out of reach,” especially for many potential first-time buyers, he said.
The debt-to-GDP ratio would swell from about 101% at the end of 2025 to an estimated 148% through 2034 under the as-written House legislation, said Kent Smetters, an economist and faculty director for the Penn Wharton Budget Model.
Bond investors get hit, too
It’s not just consumer borrowers: Certain investors would also stand to lose, experts said.
When Treasury yields rise, prices fall for current bondholders. Their current Treasury bonds become less valuable, weighing on investment portfolios.
“If the market interest rate has gone up, your bond has depreciated,” Chao said. “Your net worth has gone down.”
The market for long-term Treasury bonds has been more volatile amid investor jitters, leading some experts to recommend shorter-term bonds.
On the flip side, those buying new bonds may be happy because they can earn a higher rate, he said.
‘Pouring gasoline on the fire’
The cost of consumer financing has already roughly doubled in recent years, said Quinlan of Wells Fargo.
The average 10-year Treasury yield was about 2.1% from 2012 to 2022; it has been about 4.1% from 2023 to the present, he said.
Of course, the U.S. debt burden is just one of many things that influence Treasury investors and yields, Quinlan said. For example, Treasury investors sent yields sharply higher as they rushed for the exits after Trump announced a spate of country-specific tariffs in April, as they questioned the safe-haven status of U.S. assets.
“But it’s not going out on too much of a limb to suggest financial markets the last couple years have grown increasingly concerned about debt levels,” Quinlan said.
Absent action, the U.S. debt burden would still rise, economists said. The debt-to-GDP ratio would swell to 138% even if Republicans don’t pass any legislation, Smetters said.
But the House legislation would be “pouring gasoline on the fire,” said Chao.
“It’s adding to the problems we already have,” Chao said. “And this is why the bond market is not happy with it,” he added.