Lawmakers of both parties agree that the U.S. corporate tax system needs reform. Here is the Toder and Viard plan for corporate tax reform that may be up for consideration by Congress come 2017.
A new Congressional Budget Office report reveals the differences between the tax policy debate and what is really going on with taxes in America.
If you have any interest in future tax reform, immigration reform, or health care reform, the way the Congressional Budget Office scores the budgetary effects of major legislation matters--a lot.
In a recent interview, top Ways and Means Staffer Janice Mays says political parties are too divided to further a comprehensive tax reform, though smaller tax reforms may be in our future.
A recent FDA proposal admonishes the amount of sodium in American diets and proposes targets for reduced levels of sodium. As governments in the US and around the world discuss the possibility of a corrective tax on sugar, will salt be added to the discussion?
A new study shows that millionaires hardly ever move from one state to another for any reason, and when they do there is little evidence that their choice is driven by taxes.
New research indicates that only about one-quarter of corporate stock is held by tax-paying investors—about half of what experts generally thought. These findings may undermine the argument that U.S. firms pay too much in corporate taxes on their profits.
Just because some of what Trump says is incredible, we should not assume that everything he says is far-fetched.
Most American families would receive new government benefits that would exceed their higher taxes under the domestic policy agenda of Democratic Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders. But his proposal would still add significantly to the national debt.
You don’t have to like the new government programs she’s proposing, and you don’t have to like how she’d pay for it. But in an election season when other candidates think nothing of adding trillions of dollars to the debt, Clinton’s agenda seems almost frugal.
An expert panel tackles the most interesting tax ideas of the campaign so far. Some are good. Some are terrible. Some are, well, thought-provoking.
While most presidential candidates are proposing big, bold changes to the federal tax code, they seem to be paying little attention to what those revisions would mean for state and local governments. And those implications could be substantial.
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.