Affordability as a political issue would in no way surprise my family. During Sunday dinners with my two-jobs, blue-collar mother and my retired grandparents, a former truck driver and former cafeteria worker, prices were always a topic of conversation. Even when inflation was low. Why? All three were running on a treadmill to keep up. My mother had less leverage to get the wage increases that she needed than others had in our economy, and Social Security payments go up only after a year of declining purchasing power and increased Medicare premiums.
Call it “sticky wages” and “fixed income.” I would also call it kitchen table truths. Inflation above 2% is unacceptable. The difference between 3% inflation and 2% inflation is the difference between prices doubling in only 24 years versus 36 years. Add that inflation from the Biden era, which peaked at 9.1%, is baked into the current price level.
Inflation is feeding the already existing problems of cynicism and distrust in institutions. As the famous economist John Maynard Keynes wrote, “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction.”
Sticker shock afflicts the American voter every time they go to the store. They can shift spending habits, substituting a cheaper product for a more expensive product, and thereby making inflation seem less. Say, yogurt for eggs. Producers can shrink the amount of a good contained in a package or otherwise reduce value. Say, reducing cereal in a box by a few ounces. Yet it will not feel like inflation is going down.
There is talk among the political class about bringing down prices, not just the rate of inflation. Of course, such deflation would be no solution. Profits would be destroyed and jobs along with those profits. What is needed is stable money, but then what of those who have struggled to keep up with recent inflation? Voters feeling neglected by the political class are more susceptible to political polarization and radicalization. High-stakes economic anxiety may undermine the sort of civic participation we need.
Americans require a pay raise. This most of all means policies boosting real economic growth. Yet we could also add to real income and wage growth: Reducing the lowest income tax bracket.
Currently, the lowest tax bracket is 10%, a rate established under the George W. Bush administration to reward work by those barely making enough to pay income taxes. He frequently cited the example of a single mother working as a waitress, reminding me of those Sunday dinners. With inflation in 2025 running at nearly 3%, we could reduce the 10% bracket by this amount, creating a 7% income tax bracket. This would mean a pay raise of up to $348 for every single taxpayer and $696 for every couple.
A back of the envelope calculation based on the number of returns paying federal income tax says the cost would be less than $80 billion per year. The number of years for the lower rate rate could be limited if necessary. If we add in a one-time $348 check sent to every Social Security recipient, the cost would be an additional $24 billion.
Whenever the 7% tax rate is scheduled to revert to 10%, we will find ourselves debating our fiscal future again, as we did with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and it locking in other income tax rates. We should be looking for pay-fors when this time comes, such as limiting itemized deductions. This is necessary as the national debt continues to stand at an unprecedented level. Yet I cannot shake those Sunday dinners. They will always impact me and, for that, I am grateful.
Scott Miller is a graduate of Widener School of Law, a former chief of staff in Congress, and the author of 'Christianity & Your Neighbor's Liberty.
