Democratic lawmakers are moving to revive a politically traditional Republican tactic—cutting taxes—as they seek an answer to voter concerns about affordability, according to a raft of proposals rolling out across campaigns for Congress and state office. Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland has proposed effectively ending the federal income tax on individuals making $46,000 or less annually, while cutting the tax for people making up to about $60,000 beyond that level. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey has floated a plan under which households would pay no income tax on the first $75,000 of earnings.
The proposals echo the style of President Donald Trump, who returned to the White House with “no tax” sound bites such as “no tax on tips” and “no tax on overtime.” But Democrats, while borrowing the tax-cut framing, are also trying to preserve their broader agenda of higher levies on the ultra wealthy. The result is a set of competing priorities—granting some tax relief to lower- and middle-income households while attempting to keep the revenue picture strong enough to fund programs and to reverse earlier tax changes.
Van Hollen and Booker have rejected the comparison that Democrats are becoming Trump-like. Booker said he was responding to voters who want “somebody to start fighting for them in a way that is bigger, bolder and more ambitious,” framing the tax-cut emphasis as straightforward relief rather than a partisan makeover. Van Hollen also described his approach as designed to ensure that the targeted benefits reach people who would otherwise be excluded from the kind of broader tax cuts he argues Republicans have backed.
Even with these new reduction proposals, Democrats are still pairing them with proposals that focus additional revenue on the ultra wealthy. Van Hollen would impose a surtax on every dollar of income over $1 million, which he has said would pay for the lower-income tax cuts. Booker has proposed raising the corporate rate nationally, while Sen. Katie Porter of California has argued for similar steps at the state level. Porter has also signaled that she wants less complexity in the way tax benefits are delivered, in contrast to what she described as a “complicated approach” in prior policy.
Portfolio of state-level plans shows the same theme spreading beyond federal races. Former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said she would exempt public school teachers from Georgia state income taxes as she runs for governor. Porter, running for governor in California, said families that make under $100,000 shouldn’t pay state income tax, and she criticized overly intricate credits in prior federal legislation, including an Inflation Reduction Act credit aimed at those making less than 150% of the median income in their area. “I don’t even know what 150% the median income is in my area,” Porter said.
Analysts and tax experts, however, said the relief packages may not translate into large benefits for the middle class compared with their impact on higher earners, and they raised concerns about how much revenue Democrats could lose for their larger funding priorities. Vanessa Williamson of the Tax Policy Center said of the middle-class gains, “The breaks that middle-income people are getting out of these proposals is not impressive.” The Yale Budget Lab’s analysis described in the reporting found that Booker’s plan would save those up to the 80th percentile in income—roughly $106,000 annually for an individual—5.3% of their taxes, slightly higher than those in the 20th-40th percentile, and that everyone up to the top 1% would save some money.
For Van Hollen’s proposal, the reported analysis found that tax cuts would taper as income rises, with the Yale Budget Lab estimating that they would reduce taxable income for the top 20% by about 2%. The analysis also described the biggest hit at the very top, saying the top 1% would see about a 12% drop in taxable income under his plan. Such patterns reflect a longstanding tax-policy dynamic that critics of Republican tax cuts have argued has allowed larger benefits to flow upward, even when the rhetoric is aimed at affordability.
The debate over where the benefits land is unfolding alongside Democrats’ own political and funding challenges. Chuck Marr, vice president at the liberal Center on Budget Priorities and Policies, said Democrats would “desperately need revenue to reverse Trump’s cuts,” warning that reversing those costs would require “a lot of money.” Marr said he feared the implementation of the tax-cut proposals might end up benefitting more affluent taxpayers than Democrats advertise. “I just don’t think the execution works as well as the intention,” Marr said.
Still, Democratic politicians have leaned into the clarity of tax-cut messages and have sought support from organized labor. Van Hollen’s legislation picked up 19 cosponsors among fellow Democratic senators as well as the two independents who caucus with the party, and it has drawn backing from groups including the AFL-CIO. AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler said at a press conference introducing the bill that “We need ideas that are as clear and simple as the demands workers have given us,” adding that “That’s how we restore faith — give people real relief.” Porter, meanwhile, said Democrats need to rethink how they talk about taxes—calling them both a tool for funding programs and “a driver of unaffordability.”
Economists also connected the shift to demographic and coalition changes inside the party. Alan Cole, an economist at the conservative Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C., said the Democratic approach was “different than anything in the past” because it is “trying to splice away the very wealthiest from people who are also wealthy.” Cole added that “Democratic priorities mirror what their coalition looks like,” suggesting Democrats’ tax messaging is following the composition of voters they are trying to retain and expand as the midterm election season continues.
As these proposals circulate, Democrats are left with a narrow path: they must persuade voters that tax cuts will deliver tangible relief, while also explaining how those reductions fit within a funding and deficit environment that already constrains new spending promises. The tension—between quick-hit relief and longer-term fiscal commitments—appears likely to shape how tax-cut language is used in campaigns as well as how the party tries to reconcile affordability politics with its longstanding push for more revenue from the ultra wealthy.