Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney says he wants to cut tax rates, and he wants high-income households to pay the same share of taxes they do today. This first promise is easy to understand. But the second is far more subtle.
While optimists may hang on to the small morsels of agreement between Senator Baucus and Representative Camp's tax reform proposals, in general the dueling plans are opposites, making bipartisan cooperation on the issue seem unlikely.
Over the past week, Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, and Glenn Hubbard have all made the same suggestion: Congress should extend all of the 2001/2003 tax cuts into early next year. It seems like an awful idea.
As a matter of pure tax policy, our tax analyst analyzes the different option on the table. Ideally, Congress should build the best possible tax base and then adjust the rates to meet an agreed-upon revenue target. But in a partisan Congress, few things are 'ideal.'
As a behind-the-scenes debate begins among reformers over just how to fix the US tax code, some Republicans insist that big, broad-based reform would be easier to accomplish, while others in Congress advocate for a more step-by-step process.
What if hitting the statutory debt limit does not happen until sometime in the first quarter of 2013? That is increasingly likely, say the folks who watch this sort of thing. And it would completely change the politics of the coming train wreck.
Tax reform will be difficult, but with a four-step road map, it can be done.
Ever since the U.S. financial crash of 2008 and the beginnings of the pending Euro-zone financial collapse, governments have been debating whether securities transactions should be subject to a new tax. Such a levy would discourage bad behavior in the financial markets, but it could have dire unintended consequences.
Will Obama's public support of marriage equality spill over to financial matters?
It's easy to look at European elections in France, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Denmark and see a massive rejection of fiscal austerity. Is that accurate, and what does it mean for proponents of austerity in the US?
Two economists, a tax historian, and a philosopher debated what a 'fair' tax code means at an Urban Institute panel this week.
A House subcommittee is reviewing dozens of expiring tax provisions. The political pressure to extend the subsidies en bloc is immense.
The mechanics of the House GOP's Small Business Tax Cut Act seem to fly in the face of what many in the party have been saying lately.
Letting the Bush/Obama tax cuts (including the payroll tax cut) fall off the cliff would increase taxes on an average American household by $3,000 in 2013 alone, likely wrecking a still-fragile economy.
Our current insanely complex tax rules are made possible by technology. Yes, computer software makes filing easier, but that may be the problem.
Tax policy experts disagree on many things, including what the definition of 'rich' is. But they agree that imposing a minimum tax of any kind is an admission of policy failure.
One study predicts health care reform would add billions to the deficit, while another predicts just the opposite. Which is right?
Two Ohio Members of Congress have introduced a bill to allow states to issue tax-exempt bonds to demolish buildings, which is a bad solution to a serious problem of urban development.
It is the unfounded rumor that never dies: You will have to pay a 3.8 percent federal health care tax on the sale of your house. For all but a handful of taxpayers, this is not true.