Vice President Kamala Harris, under her Bidenomics 2.0 initiative, has put forth a $5 trillion tax hike, a significant part of which targets corporations and the wealthy. She frames this proposal as a push to ensure that the richest Americans and large corporations pay their “fair share.” While Harris claims this plan is focused on benefiting the middle class, her approach raises critical questions: Who really bears the brunt of these taxes? And how can she promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning under $400,000 while pushing a corporate tax hike that inevitably impacts American workers and consumers?

At first glance, her rhetoric appears compelling: increasing taxes on corporations and the wealthy seems like a step toward fairness. However, the notion of a “fair share” is inherently subjective. For Harris, fair share means higher taxes on corporations, but the reality is that these taxes don’t stop at boardrooms. They ripple through the economy, affecting everyone from shareholders to employees, and ultimately consumers.

To begin with, it’s important to look at the current tax landscape. The US tax system is already highly progressive, meaning the wealthy pay a disproportionately large share of federal taxes. According to the Tax Foundation, the top 1 percent of earners paid 45.8 percent of federal individual income taxes in 2022. Moreover, the top 50 percent of income earners collectively paid 97.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes. These numbers raise an important question: At what point has the top tier of earners paid enough?

Before Harris pushes these figures higher, the question remains: what is the end goal? By proposing an increase in corporate taxes from 21 percent to 28 percent, Harris is claiming that this new threshold represents the “fair share” corporations should pay. But why 28 percent? What justifies this figure over, say, 30 percent or 40 percent? Harris provides little explanation as to why this specific number is the right one, which leaves room for further increases in the future under the same justification.

A critical misunderstanding embedded in Harris’ plan is the belief that corporations actually pay taxes. While corporations remit taxes to the government, they don’t ultimately bear the burden of these taxes. Instead, the cost is passed on to real people-workers, shareholders, and consumers. This is one of the oldest principles of public finance: corporations don’t pay taxes; people do.

When a corporation is hit with a tax hike, the business has to absorb this cost in some way. The company can reduce employee wages, cut back on benefits, raise prices, or pass the cost on to shareholders. The distribution of these costs varies by industry, company size, and economic circumstances, but the underlying truth is consistent-corporate taxes are borne by people.

One group that feels the immediate effect of corporate tax hikes is the workforce. While it’s rare for companies to directly cut employee wages in response to increased taxes, the impact is often seen in slower wage growth or reductions in benefits like health care. Think of it like shrinkflation: the size of your paycheck may not go down, but the value of what you receive in return for your labor diminishes over time. Employees might see smaller bonuses, reduced retirement contributions, or fewer perks.

Future wage increases are often sacrificed in the face of rising corporate taxes. Companies may also be less likely to expand or hire more workers, thus dampening job growth. In this way, Harris’ corporate tax hikes will hit American workers-particularly middle-class employees who rely on steady wage growth to keep up with inflation and rising costs of living.

Another way companies offset the burden of corporate taxes is by raising prices on the goods and services they sell. Although some businesses might be able to absorb a portion of the increased tax burden without passing it on to consumers, many cannot. Corporations are profit-driven, and when they face higher taxes, they will typically adjust their pricing strategies to maintain their profit margins.

This is where the impact of Harris’ tax hikes spreads beyond the workforce to everyday consumers. A corporation may decide to increase the price of a product to offset the higher taxes it now faces. This could lead to higher prices on everything from groceries to electronics, thus increasing the cost of living for all Americans, especially those in the middle and lower classes. Ironically, this contradicts Harris’ promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 per year because it indirectly raises costs for everyone, including the poor.

For those who own stocks, have retirement accounts like 401(k)s or IRAs, or participate in investment plans, the corporate tax hikes will affect them as well. As companies face higher taxes, their profitability often decreases, leading to smaller returns for shareholders. This means that even middle-class Americans with retirement investments are targeted by Harris’ tax plan, as their financial portfolios could see reduced growth over time.

Although the wealthy own a larger share of stock in America, millions of middle-class families also rely on these investments for their long-term financial security. Reducing the value of these investments undermines Harris’ claim that her tax plan is focused on protecting the middle class.

Perhaps one of the most concerning aspects of Harris’ plan is its indirect effect on low-income Americans. While she champions progressive policies designed to help the poor, raising corporate taxes could have the opposite effect. As mentioned earlier, price increases on consumer goods caused by corporate tax hikes will disproportionately impact lower-income households, who spend a greater portion of their income on essential goods.

In essence, Harris’ plan to raise corporate taxes may end up placing an extra burden on the very people she claims to be helping-those struggling to make ends meet. Higher taxes on businesses won’t stop at the doors of corporate headquarters; they will seep into every corner of the economy, affecting the middle class, the poor, and small investors alike.

Vice President Harris’ proposed $5 trillion tax hike, under the guise of ensuring that corporations and the wealthy pay their “fair share,” is fraught with complexities and contradictions. While she claims that middle-class Americans won’t be affected, the reality is that corporate taxes are borne by people-workers, consumers, and shareholders. In trying to level the playing field, Harris risks tilting it against the very people she professes to support, as her plan could lead to lower wages, higher prices, and diminished investment returns for ordinary Americans. The question remains: when will enough truly be enough?