Both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz say their tax plans would dramatically boost the economy by reducing taxes on new investment. But which one would be the most generous?
In modeling presidential tax plans, several things need to be considered, among them the net economic impact of an explicit trade-off of higher taxes for new spending programs and the relationship between tax changes and the overall economy.
Sanders and Clinton have very different proposals on how they want to tax the very rich among us: a direct model (Sanders) and an indirect model (Clinton).
Secretary Clinton would boost federal revenues by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. But those changes would make the tax code more complex, especially for high-income households, and reduce incentives to work, save, and invest.
New analyses project that the amount of federal debt held by the public is expected to rise exponentially in the next ten years. Spending on Social Security and other programs is also expected to see a dramatic increase.
Ted Cruz’s aggressive plan to shift the tax code from a mostly income-based system to one based on consumption would slash federal revenues by $8.6 trillion over the next decade, according to a new analysis.
Marco Rubio is proposing making some structural changes to the current income tax. How would his proposal alter the economy?
Corporate tax inversion, in which companies merge and move headquarters overseas to take advantage of lower tax rates, is a huge problem. Both parties agree on that, but not on what to do about it.
The Democratic candidates have each proposed a tax on financial transactions. But will it do more harm than good?
The tax increases Bernie Sanders is proposing for wealthy households are some of the largest in recent memory.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both say they want to help the middle class, but they have different outlines for how they would do so.
There is a list, albeit a small one, of goals that President Barack Obama shares with Congress for policy reform on taxes and other issues.
Donald Trump's tax plan is set to add trillions to the national debt. Those in the presidential candidate's elite income class would receive an income boost of nearly 20 percent.
TaxVox chose the worst tax ideas of 2015. It was a process filled with tough decisions, but TaxVox managed to narrow down the list to the top ten.
Congressional leaders agreed to extend dozens of tax cuts – many permanently, while Republican presidential candidates proposed repealing all of them. As it turns out, bigger tax cuts are easier to achieve with more permanent tax extensions.
The tax plan proposed by Jeb Bush would add trillions to the national debt due to tax cuts. The wealthiest families would see incomes increase by over 10 percent, while middle income families would see less than a three percent increase.
The highway bill is far from funded. Instead, the current plan to pay for the bill relies several plans to raise money that have failed in the past.
It's easy to extend temporary tax breaks when not considering the budget deficit. Congress is entering another season of hectic turmoil over a set of "tax extenders" that technically expired last year.
Hillary Clinton's relentless pursuit of tax breaks for the middle class puts her campaign narrative in stark contrast with that of the GOP of candidates. It is too early to tell which narrative will be more appealing.
Watching the annual impasse over budgeting has becoming increasingly frustrating for many Americans. A new idea, two-year budgeting, may offer a much needed change.