|
|
|||
|
by
Bob Williams
on Mon 01 Jun 2009 04:07 PM EDT
After I wrote about how Obama’s tax proposals would cut taxes for many wealthy households, some readers objected that I’d ignored the fact that the alternative minimum tax (AMT) would wipe out any potential tax savings. I had commented that the AMT could, in fact, do just that, but TPC had not yet estimated how many taxpayers would be affected. Research assistant Katie Lim has now generated those estimates and they show, as expected, that the AMT would take the potential tax cut away from many people.
more »
by
Rosanne Altshuler
on Tue 26 May 2009 07:00 AM EDT
During the 2008 presidential campaign, much was made of candidate Obama’s proposal to boost taxes on “high-income” taxpayers. Campaign attack ads warned those folks—couples with income over $250,000 and others with income over $200,000—that a big tax increase was on the way. Joe the Plumber complained that the tax increases would stifle his unborn entrepreneurial dreams. more »
by
Adam Kent
on Mon 18 May 2009 10:20 AM EDT
Taxes aren’t just for grown-ups. In fact, our new Urban/Brookings study estimates that 40 percent of all federal expenditures spent on infants and toddlers flows through the tax system. That’s more than $22.8 billion.
The two main programs that drive this spending are the earned income tax credit (EITC) and the child tax credit (CTC). Although both allocate fairly large percentages (18%) of their total program expenditures to families with infants and toddlers, they differ dramatically in the benefits that are refundable and those that are not. The EITC is fully-refundable, so in 2007 (the most recent year of available data), almost 90 percent of benefits received by families with infants and toddlers ($7.1 billion) came as a tax refund. In contrast, only one third of the partially refundable CTC benefits ($2.8 billion) were refundable, so most of CTC’s benefits reduced tax liability but failed to put cash back into needy families’ hands.
more »
by
Len Burman
on Mon 20 Apr 2009 02:52 PM EDT
I was quoted in the New York Times yesterday, which is kind of fun. Many of my friends read the Times, and it’s a great way to make new friends, and enemies. more »
by
Rosanne Altshuler
on Fri 17 Apr 2009 09:00 AM EDT
It’s never too early to plan for next year’s taxes. Let’s say you’re thinking about doing some energy-saving home improvements soon and want to know what federal tax credits are available and how they work. How would you find out?
You might try the IRS website. I did but, unfortunately, couldn’t find any information about energy credits for 2009. more »
by
Howard Gleckman
on Tue 07 Apr 2009 03:05 PM EDT
Since his election, President Obama and his top aides have frequently cast the economic crisis as an opportunity to push his agenda of change. Now, three months into his presidency, we are getting a good sense of how he and the Democratic Congress intend to use that opportunity. more »
by
Rosanne Altshuler
on Thu 26 Mar 2009 03:22 PM EDT
President Obama announced yesterday that he has asked former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to head a new tax reform panel that will make recommendations by December 4th. This is great news. The current tax system is a complicated mess and can’t produce the revenues we will need in the coming years. But there is no reason for Volcker to reinvent the wheel. His panel could start by looking at the work of a bipartisan tax reform panel established by President Bush in 2005. I may be biased, since I served as the staff’s chief economist, but I think we designed a pretty good blueprint.
more »
by
Howard Gleckman
on Mon 16 Mar 2009 10:00 AM EDT
In the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised he’d cut taxes for 95 percent of all Americans. And, so far at least, it looks like he’s coming close to meeting that goal. I think this sort of largess is a mistake given the nation’s long-run fiscal problems. But GOP claims that Obama is trying to raise taxes for many Americans are bogus.
TPC has just completed a major analysis of the tax provisions of the President’s 2010 budget. We found that, compared to current law, 91 percent of taxpayers would get a tax cut under the Obama plan. That is, they’d pay less tax than they would if the Bush tax cuts expired as scheduled in 2010 and the Alternative Minimum Tax is allowed to bite millions more taxpayers.
more »
by
Howard Gleckman
on Tue 10 Mar 2009 03:22 PM EDT
President Obama’s promise of transparency in government is a laudable goal after too many years of near-obsessive secrecy by the Executive Branch. Unfortunately, at least when it comes to his tax agenda, the president’s new budget falls far short of that vow.
Too many tax proposals are written in Inside-the-Beltway code. For many provisions, there is no description at all in the 134-page budget. Most can be found only by deciphering the tables in the back. Some items worth hundreds of billions of dollars appear only as mere footnotes. Others are nothing more than numbers in revenue tables. There are no real proposals at all.
more »
by
Howard Gleckman
on Fri 27 Feb 2009 08:41 AM EST
This won’t take long. If you are blue-collar wage earner, a low-income family with children, or a college student, you should love President Obama’s tax plan. On the other hand, if you are making more than $250,000, you may not be so happy: By 2011, you'd be paying a lot more tax than you've gotten used to over the past few years.
To the surprise of absolutely nobody, Obama’s budget includes many of the tax changes he promised during the campaign. He’d make permanent many of the “temporary” tax cuts in the just-passed stimulus. Working families would continue to get an $800-a-year tax cut long after the recession ends, and they’d continue to enjoy the benefits of a more generous Earned Income Credit and a more refundable child credit. Obama is proposing tax reductions for low- and moderate-income families of almost $800 billion over the next decade.
more »
by
Howard Gleckman
on Tue 24 Feb 2009 03:01 PM EST
Whatever his intentions, President Obama’s missed an opportunity at his fiscal summit yesterday.
It is critically important for Washington to finally confront the long-term deficit. And Obama sent an important symbolic message by throwing this shindig. But the timing was all wrong. Right now the public and financial markets are obsessed with only one economic issue: the recession. With those fears so dominant, whatever was said at the White House yesterday will be quickly forgotten.
more »
by
Howard Gleckman
on Wed 11 Feb 2009 06:59 PM EST
House-Senate conferees have just about wrapped up a compromise $789 billion stimulus plan that should land on President Obama’s desk by the weekend.
While we do not yet have bill language or revenue estimates, published reports suggest that about one-third of the compromise measure is made up of tax cuts. For the most part, the final version of those tax breaks is worse than the initial House proposal. Most troublesome, this measure waters down two important proposals that would have gotten money into the economy rather quickly and instead adds a $70 billion Alternative Minimum Tax patch that will do little to boost spending—the goal of any good stimulus.
more »
by
Howard Gleckman
on Thu 05 Feb 2009 03:18 PM EST
I am beginning to understand why the stimulus plan is so bloated with stuff that is so obviously not stimulus. It was designed backwards.
Congress and President Obama could have identified a list of those proposals that are both timely and targeted, figured out what they would cost, and assembled them into a stimulus measure. Instead, they are doing what Washington always does with big bills such as this: They first invented, out of whole cloth, a number for the size of the stimulus. Having capped the price at a roughly a trillion dollars, they are now horse trading to choose the individual tax cuts and spending to fit that pre-arranged cost target. As my colleague Bill Gale puts it, first they built the bucket, now they are trying to fill it.
more »
by
Howard Gleckman
on Tue 27 Jan 2009 04:32 PM EST
Washington has kicked off a perfectly predictable donnybrook over stimulus. Democrats, who spent the past eight years bashing George Bush for turning a Clinton-era surplus into a big deficit, are now defending what will be nearly $1 trillion in new tax cuts and spending. Republicans, who presided over decades of deficits, suddenly are worried about the debt we are leaving to our grandchildren. more »
by
Howard Gleckman
on Mon 26 Jan 2009 01:28 PM EST
My TPC colleagues—most having taught at some point in their careers—couldn’t resist. They’ve given grades to the major tax provisions of the stimulus bill now working its way through Congress. While you can argue over the specific grades (and we surely did), the benefit of this exercise is that it forces you to look at the relative value of each of the elements of the plan.
For a first pass, TPC graded the Ways & Means bill, and concluded that the best proposals of the bunch are those that give temporary tax relief to low-income families. It makes sense, since they are the most likely to spend the money they receive. As I noted in a recent post, even these are far from perfect, but they should help to get the struggling economy get back on its feet.
more »
|
Posts and comments are solely the opinion of the author and not that of the Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute, or Brookings Institution. Read the Terms of Participation Recent Entries
Login
Search
Month Archive
|
||
|
|
|||


