'Federal spending' figures are not reliable markers. In reality, the federal government spends about 30 percent more than it admits.
The tax cuts in Paul Ryan’s 2013 budget plan would result in huge benefits for high-income people and very modest—or no— benefits for low income working households. No surprise here.
Paul Ryan may not have intended it, but his 2013 budget is the strongest argument I’ve seen for why any serious fiscal plan must include new revenues.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) released a fiscal plan that promises trillions of dollars in tax cuts and a nearly balanced budget within a decade, but never says how he'd get there.
In theory, it makes sense to establish special accounts where designated revenues are set aside for a specific purpose. But in practice, Washington is grossly abusing the idea.
In an election year, President Obama may be the last guy who wants gas prices to rise. However, if we want to reduce our need for foreign oil, slow climate change, and encourage development of new energy technology, we ought to be raising taxes on fossil fuels. A lot.
Romney is promising both massive tax cuts and a balanced budget, but it's unclear how he will pay for either.
If you want a good read on individual or corporate tax refprm, pick up one of these new titles.
Romney rolled out a new tax proposal after many Republicans blasted his initial plan as too cautious. His plans to cut income tax rates by 20 percent and eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax sound appealing, but he offers no specifics on how he'll offset the billions in lost revenue.
Romney wants to reduce individual tax rates by 20 percent across the board. Sounds good, but it would increase the deficit to the tune of $3 trillion.
Obama and GOP leaders are in agreement on many corporate tax reform policies. But on the question of how foreign earnings of U.S.-based multinationals should be taxed, the gap remains wide.
Which Republican Presidential candidates would successfully eliminate the deficit and national debt? According to a new analysis from the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, none of them would.
The president's Framework for Business Reform does a great job in identifying what's wrong with the way businesses are taxed. But the cure for those problems leaves a lot to be desired.
There are two gimmicks happening here. Both are functions of the 10-year budget window the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation use to score legislation.
After months of squabbling, it looks as if Congress is about to extend a “temporary” tax cut for another 10 months, borrowing $100 billion to do it. That would be OK if this was just a short-term stimulus.
When it comes to taxes, Obama's budget is long on principles but woefully short on statistics.
State competition to provide tax breaks to older residents, especially wealthy seniors, is similar to the way states use tax subsidies to woo businesses. It may not make much sense, but it sure is trendy.
Congress could go a long way towards fixing the federal system without destroying state revenue codes—but only if reform is done carefully.
A well-designed Value-Added Tax, a national consumption levy that would tax household purchases of all goods and services, could simplify the tax code for most households and finance significant reductions in corporate and individual income tax rates without adding to the budget deficit.
The Romney and Gingrich returns tell us a lot about the way those with incomes of $1 million or more are taxed, and how they structure their lives to minimize taxes. But mostly, they tell us that all those who make $1 million-a-year are not alike. Most of them are surprisingly like the rest of us, only more so.