‘The math is the math’: Mark Cuban breaks down why Kamala Harris’ corporate tax plan is more profitable than Trump’s tariffs

As the Kamala Harris and Donald Trump campaigns barrel towards November’s election showdown, both candidates are furiously pitching bold new tax proposals to fire up their base and woo undecided voters.

It remains to be seen how the two opponents aim to jolt the U.S. economy back to life at a time when Jane and Joe Sixpack are more worried about affording Hamburger Helper than helping hamburger heirs. Billionaire business mogul Mark Cuban, however, is casting his lot with Harris, loudly proclaiming her corporate tax plan a slam dunk for importers over Trump’s draconian tariffs. The Republican nominee has floated the idea of imposing a 10% tariff on nearly all U.S. imports, with potential duties soaring to 60% on imports from adversaries like China, and even 100% on nations that abandon the almighty U.S. dollar. In contrast, Harris proposes a corporate tax increase from 21% to 28% for the wealthiest to better fund government initiatives. 

The Shark Tank investor, in a clarifying tweet, posits that businesses that import goods would fare better under Harris’ corporate tax plan than under the tariff-laden regime of the Orange Thanos. He breaks down the math simply: tariffs increase the cost of goods sold, slashing profit margins before taxes even come into play. Under Trump’s plan, a hypothetical company making $100 in sales with a 30% profit margin would see its net profit dip to $18.17 after tariffs and taxes. Under Harris, the same company would retain a net profit of $21.60, even after a higher tax hit.

Of course, real-world economics is more complex than Cuban’s admittedly “very much simplified” example. Factors like domestic production costs, currency fluctuations, and retaliatory foreign tariffs complicate the equation. But Cuban’s broader point stands: blanket import taxes cut into corporate margins more than a 7-point corporate rate hike.  This contrast reflects a fundamental philosophical difference between the two candidates’ approaches. Harris’ approach reflects a more traditional Democratic focus on taxation to fund government initiatives without directly manipulating trade. Trump’s protectionist tariffs, while intended to boost domestic production, risk triggering trade wars and spiking consumer prices.

As Cuban quipped in a recent X post addressed to “supporters of the Republican Nominee”: “What specifically will [Trump] do to lower grocery and other prices? I’m curious.” The billionaire is clearly implying Trump lacks substantive plans to curb inflation, preferring to focus on purging fellow politicians, pointing fingers, and boasting about his golf game.

Look, none of this means Harris’ tax blueprint is the unassailable gospel or that Cuban’s word is sacrosanct. However, as Cuban so pithily put it: “The math is the math.” No matter your political stripes, it’s daunting to quibble with those cold, hard numbers staring you dead in the face. When a turbo-capitalist like Cuban, is siding with “Comrade Kamala” over the second coming of Smoot-Hawley (which is widely criticized for exacerbating the Great Depression through its protectionist trade policies), you know we’ve officially tumbled through the looking glass.