There will be another recession at some point, but no state has built a recession into their budget forecast yet. And they may not be prepared for one.
Some seem convinced that the repatriation tax can grease both a big corporate tax cut and build all those new roads. It might do one or the other, but it cannot do both.
Beware the next time you hear politicians throw around a phrase like 'tax reform.' Pay more attention to what they propose than what they call it.
On average, households throughout the income distribution would see their tax bills go down under Trump. But some would see an increase.
On average, Trump would cut taxes for middle-income households making $48,000 to $83,000 by about $1,000 or 1.8 percent of their after-tax income. But he’d give those making more than $3.7 million (the top 0.1 percent) an average tax cut of more than $1 million, or 14 percent of their after-tax income.
Major tax cuts are coming in 2017. But the size and design of those cuts remain highly uncertain.
From carbon taxes to education and marijuana, there are a wealth of tax initiatives to watch on Election Day.
Both plans could result in less individual giving to charity.
The FBI is seemingly in every other headline in this year’s presidential campaign. The IRS has been in none.
Americans are learning far more about Donald Trump’s sex life and Hillary Clinton’s emails than about their respective policy agendas.
A recent review by The New York Times of some of Donald Trump's tax returns shows that he was potentially able to avoid paying federal income taxes for nearly two decades.
One reform would make very low-income workers eligible and increase assistance for workers with earnings too low to receive their full CTC. The second would double the credit for children under age 5.
When it comes to the child tax credit, both progressives and conservatives confuse the two purposes of providing benefits to children.
Is the US tax code both too small and too progressive? Yes, say Alan Viard and Sita Nataraj Slavov of the American Enterprise Institute.
In the long term, Trump’s tax plan would slow the economy by increasing deficits and driving up interest rates while Clinton’s would reduce the deficit, which would lower interest rates and boost growth.
The fiscal policy debate in the 2016 presidential election has come down to a familiar question: Do deficits matter?
You might have tuned in to the Oct. 13 Tax Policy Center discussion featuring representatives of each campaign. If you had, you would have seen an absolutely stunning contrast in both style and substance that in many ways mirrored their candidates.
Yesterday’s presentation by Donald Trump's economic adviser, Peter Navarro, at the Tax Policy Center’s discussion of the presidential candidate tax plans reminds one analyst of a passage in George Orwell’s dystopic novel 1984.
Donald Trump may have claimed huge losses starting in the early 1990s. But, like other rich investors, he wouldn’t have paid much tax anyway. Despite paying some tax, Warren Buffett's release of his 2015 tax return affirms that reality.
Clinton has proposed a significant tax increase on high-income households and businesses. Trump's plan, while less ambitious than the version he released in 2015, would still largely benefit high-income households and result in a substantial boost in the federal debt.