Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) vs. Biden Tax Policies: Analysis & Testimony

TCJA, Biden’s Tax Insurance policies, and Potential Professional-Development Reforms

Chairman Arrington, Rating Member Boyle, and distinguished members of the Home Finances Committee, thanks for the chance to offer testimony on “incentivizing financial excellence by tax coverage.” I’m William McBride, Vice President of Federal Tax Coverage and Stephen J. Entin Fellow in Economics on the Tax Basis, the place I give attention to how we will enhance our federal tax code.

At the moment, my testimony will give attention to three factors. First, I’ll describe how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) improved incentives and financial development, contributing to document low unemployment and document excessive federal tax collections. Second, I’ll distinction TCJA with President Biden’s tax insurance policies. Third, I’ll advocate methods to reform the federal tax code to cut back complexity, enhance financial incentives, develop the financial system, improve alternative, and lift adequate tax revenues at or above present ranges.

TCJA Lowered Marginal Tax Charges and Raised Financial Development

TCJA decreased earnings tax charges broadly for people and companies: for people by a set of tax cuts that apply from 2018 to 2025, together with decrease statutory earnings tax charges on particular person earnings, a bigger commonplace deduction, and a bigger youngster tax credit score; for firms primarily by a everlasting discount within the statutory company earnings tax fee from 35 p.c to 21 p.c in addition to short-term 100% bonus depreciation (permitting corporations to instantly deduct the complete price of funding in gear) that applies from 2018 to 2022 and is phased out thereafter. These tax cuts had been partially offset by curbing deductions, amongst different issues, together with capping particular person deductions for state and native taxes and mortgage curiosity and limiting enterprise deductions for curiosity expense and R&D. Starting in 2022, the restrict on enterprise curiosity expense grew to become extra stringent and companies had been required to amortize R&D bills over 5 years (15 years for overseas R&D).[1]

Just like evaluation by the Congressional Finances Workplace (CBO), in 2018, the Tax Basis analyzed the distributional influence of TCJA and located it will scale back taxes, and lift after-tax incomes, for all earnings teams all through the interval 2018 to 2025 through which the legislation’s particular person earnings tax cuts apply.[2] For instance, we discovered TCJA would increase actual (inflation-adjusted) after-tax incomes for all quintiles of earners in 2022, by 0.9 p.c for the underside quintile, 1.6 p.c for the center quintile, and a pair of.4 p.c for the highest quintile, primarily based on typical (static) evaluation that doesn’t account for financial development.

Additionally, just like evaluation by the CBO in addition to a number of different researchers, we discovered that TCJA would enhance incentives to work, save, and make investments by decreasing marginal earnings tax charges that apply to labor and capital earnings, leading to extra funding, extra labor provide, and quicker financial development.[3] Reducing the company tax fee particularly improved the long-run well being of the financial system, lowering the tax burden on company funding, whereas bonus depreciation decreased the financial hurt of each the company tax and particular person earnings taxes on pass-through enterprise earnings, boosting enterprise funding incentives broadly albeit on a brief foundation.

We discovered TCJA’s constructive impacts on the financial system would construct over time and by 2025 would end in a 3.0 p.c improve in GDP, a 6.4 p.c improve within the capital inventory, and a 1.7 p.c improve in actual wages. The improved financial development would translate into bigger incomes for all earnings teams. For instance, accounting for the expansion results, we discovered TCJA would considerably increase actual after-tax incomes for all quintiles of earners in 2025, by 3.9 p.c for the underside quintile, 4.1 p.c for the center quintile, and 4.9 p.c for the highest quintile. After 2025, as the person tax cuts expire and enterprise taxes improve, the financial advantages of TCJA diminish, however the legislation’s everlasting options result in a 1.7 p.c improve in GDP in the long term.[4]

No less than 9 different analysis teams, together with the CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), and the Worldwide Financial Fund, got here to related conclusions, though they predicted considerably totally different patterns and magnitudes of development ensuing from the legislation, reflecting differing assumptions used and appreciable uncertainty within the legislation’s results.[5]

Comparability of the anticipated results to precise outcomes is awfully tough as a consequence of a sequence of confounding and unrelated occasions together with greater tariffs and different coverage developments, a pandemic, and the return of excessive inflation. Nonetheless, at a excessive stage, a number of measures level to a strengthening financial system post-TCJA relative to expectations and to historic averages. As an illustration, precise enterprise funding surged in 2018 by 6.5 p.c, exceeding CBO’s forecast that factored within the results of the legislation.[6] In 2019, unemployment hit a 50-year low of three.5 p.c.[7] Determine 2 and Desk 1 present that financial efficiency, as measured by actual GDP, funding, and labor compensation, improved within the two years after enactment of TCJA and earlier than the pandemic relative to historic averages. Actual GDP grew at an annual fee of two.6 p.c from 2017 to 2019, in comparison with 2.3 p.c over the 20 years previous to TCJA. Actual gross non-public home funding grew 4.2 p.c and nonresidential enterprise funding grew 5.0 p.c from 2017 to 2019, in comparison with 2.8 p.c and three.8 p.c development respectively over the interval 1997 to 2017. Actual compensation of staff grew 2.6 p.c from 2017 to 2019, in comparison with 2.1 p.c over the 20 years previous to TCJA.

Desk 1: Financial Efficiency earlier than and after TCJA (Actual Annualized P.c Change)

	Publish-TCJA		Pre-TCJA
	2019-22	2017-19	2015-17	1997-2017
GDP	1.7%	2.6%	2.0%	2.3%
Gross Personal Home Funding	2.4%	4.2%	1.5%	2.8%
Nonresidential Funding	1.6%	5.0%	2.5%	3.8%
Compensation of Staff	1.5%	2.6%	2.2%	2.1%
Supply: BEA, “Desk 1.1.3. Actual Gross Home Product, Amount Indexes”; BEA, “Desk 1.10. Gross Home Earnings by Kind of Earnings”; BEA, “Desk 1.1.4. Worth Indexes for Gross Home Product.”

Tax Revenues beneath TCJA Have Met or Exceeded Historic Ranges

Concerning income estimates for TCJA, the legislation’s main modifications, together with a discount within the company tax fee from 35 p.c to 21 p.c in addition to the introduction of GILTI and different worldwide provisions, resulted in appreciable uncertainty about how the legislation would possibly have an effect on tax income, notably as a consequence of results on revenue shifting and financial development. Whereas the JCT estimated in December 2017 that TCJA would cut back tax income by $1.5 trillion over the interval 2018 to 2027, the JCT additionally supplied a macroeconomic evaluation of the invoice estimating that TCJA would improve the typical stage of GDP over the price range window by 0.7 p.c, leading to an offsetting improve in income of $451 billion over the price range window.[8]

Our modeling and evaluation of TCJA largely agreed with JCT’s, although our estimates had been considerably totally different. We estimated TCJA would improve GDP by 2.9 p.c over the price range window, lowering a static income lack of about $1.8 trillion to about an $800 billion loss after accounting for financial development, with preliminary income losses switching to income positive aspects by 2023.[9]

Precise income collections have usually matched or exceeded these forecasts, although noting once more the affect of a number of non-tax components. Federal tax collections dropped initially in fiscal years 2018 and 2019 to 16.4 p.c of GDP, beneath the long-run common of 17.2 p.c since World Warfare II, and stayed at about that stage within the pandemic 12 months of 2020. Reflecting the rebounding financial system and booming inventory and housing markets, tax collections soared to 17.9 p.c in 2021 and 19.6 p.c in 2022, the best stage because the dot-com bubble in 2000 and practically the best stage on document. Common federal tax collections within the 5 years since TCJA’s enactment are about 17.3 p.c of GDP, greater than the 16.7 p.c forecasted by the CBO following its passage, greater than most years main as much as TCJA, and better than the long-run common of 17.2 p.c.[10]

It stays to be seen the place federal tax collections go from right here. By the primary eight months of FY 2023, collections are down 11 p.c relative to the identical interval final 12 months, apparently due partly to decreased capital positive aspects income because the inventory and housing markets deflated in 2022.[11] Nonetheless, that is relative to a record-breaking FY 2022. As such, relying on the trail of GDP, federal tax collections as a share of GDP might are available in close to the historic common in FY 2023.

Notice that tax collections as a share of GDP displays each modifications in nominal collections and modifications in nominal GDP. TCJA boosted actual and nominal GDP (in line with our evaluation and the JCT’s, for example), so reaching and exceeding the historic common of tax collections as a share of GDP as TCJA has carried out understates the income efficiency of the legislation. Certainly, the accessible proof over the past 5 years signifies the federal tax system beneath TCJA considerably boosted each the financial system and federal tax collections, roughly in proportion.

President Biden’s Tax Proposals Would Stifle Financial Development

In distinction to TCJA, President Biden’s tax proposals would increase marginal earnings tax charges, lowering incentives to work, save, and make investments. Whereas the proposals are ostensibly aimed toward high-income earners and companies, they might depress financial exercise usually and scale back alternatives for employees at each stage. Income raised with these tax hikes would partly be spent on tax credit and different subsidies for particular industries and taxpayers, additional including to the complexity of the tax code and increasing scope of the IRS.

The president’s most up-to-date price range proposes practically $4.8 trillion in new taxes by 2033 concentrating on companies and high-income people, offset by about $833 billion in tax credit resulting in a web tax improve of about $4 trillion.[12] The proposals embody:

• Elevating the highest particular person earnings tax fee to 39.6 p.c, including one other 1.2 p.c to the Medicare tax on wages, and increasing the bottom of the Internet Funding Earnings Tax (NIIT) to incorporate all pass-through enterprise earnings whereas elevating the speed to five p.c, successfully leading to a federal high earnings fee of about 44 p.c (when mixed with state earnings taxes, many taxpayers would face high charges over 50 p.c).[13]
• Doubling the highest capital positive aspects tax fee to 39.6 p.c, which mixed with the NIIT yields a high fee of 44.6 p.c—the best fee in a number of many years and the best within the Organisation for Financial Co-operation and Improvement (OECD).[14]
• Taxing unrealized capital positive aspects with a 25 p.c minimal tax, an untried and impractical coverage that taxes phantom earnings and has many potential downsides.[15]
• Elevating the company earnings tax fee to twenty-eight p.c, leading to the next company tax fee than any of our main buying and selling companions.[16]
• Mountaineering the GILTI tax and including an Undertaxed Income Rule (UTPR), additional exposing U.S. corporations to double taxation on their overseas earnings.[17]
• Quadrupling the inventory buyback tax to 4 p.c, which might additionally topic multi-national corporations to double taxation.[18]
• Elevating taxes additional on focused industries, hitting pharmaceutical innovation and oil and gasoline manufacturing.[19]

Estimating the financial results of many of those main tax hikes, we discover they would cut back the scale of the financial system as measured by GDP by 1.3 p.c over the long term, scale back wages by 1.0 p.c and get rid of 335,000 jobs. This estimate possible understates the complete financial hurt from the president’s price range as a result of it excludes the results of the 25 p.c minimal tax on unrealized capital positive aspects and the UTPR, which collectively signify a few $1 trillion tax hike in line with the administration’s estimates.[20]

The president’s price range is proposed along with the just lately enacted Inflation Discount Act (IRA), which incorporates a number of new, difficult, and burdensome tax hikes and tax credit that go into impact this 12 months, together with a guide minimal tax, inventory buyback tax, an excise tax to regulate drug costs, and about two dozen inexperienced vitality tax credit.[21] The IRA was initially estimated to cut back deficits, in line with evaluation by the CBO and JCT, and was thus offered as a solution to scale back inflation. Nonetheless, JCT at the moment estimates the price of the inexperienced vitality credit has greater than doubled to $663 billion whereas outdoors estimates put the associated fee at about $1 trillion over 10 years, indicating the IRA possible will increase deficits.[22]

We discover the IRA is a web drag on the financial system, because it provides new penalties on enterprise funding by the guide minimal tax and inventory buyback tax, in the end shrinking the financial system by 0.2 p.c in the long term, decreasing wages by 0.1 p.c and eliminating 29,000 jobs.[23] Nonetheless, these estimates don’t seize what could also be the costliest elements of the legislation, which is the extraordinary complexity of a lot of its provisions and the related distortionary results of concurrently penalizing and subsidizing particular actions and kinds of taxpayers, i.e., selecting winners and losers on a grand scale.

The guide minimal tax suffers from many flaws, together with the truth that guide earnings just isn’t a well-defined tax base, and so it requires voluminous regulatory steerage and taxpayer feedback to attempt to kind out the way it might presumably work.[24] In the meantime, the steerage continues to roll out whilst the brand new tax liabilities are due, and plenty of excellent points, similar to how small partnerships are affected, will most likely have to be settled within the courts.[25] Practitioners have famous that the guide minimal tax accommodates so many unresolved, and presumably unresolvable, issues regarding basic variations in guide and tax accounting guidelines, that the following complexity and uncertainty for company taxpayers might exceed that created by all the company tax modifications in TCJA.[26]

The inventory buyback tax is one other new concept in taxation, however not a superb one.[27] Ostensibly aimed toward perceived issues in company finance, in observe it is usually proving to be a means the administration can selectively punish sure kinds of corporations and create extra compliance prices.[28]

Whereas some would possibly see the exploding budgetary price of the inexperienced vitality credit as an indication that they’re working, as a result of they aim so particularly sure actions and applied sciences, they may primarily profit a small minority of taxpayers, such because the 1 p.c of comparatively rich automobile homeowners who drive an electrical automobile;[29] automakers; photo voltaic panel and battery producers; lithium miners; and monetary, accounting, and consulting corporations specializing within the advanced guidelines regarding eligibility, credit score transferability and monetization. Such a big subsidy concentrating on a restricted variety of suppliers will face substantial capability constraints, particularly in an overheated financial system racked by labor shortages and inflation, doubtlessly worsening worth pressures for shoppers.

Total, the president’s tax insurance policies sign a desire for expansive authorities intervention, management, and path of the non-public financial system, mixed with a disregard for taxpayer considerations about complexity, compliance prices, and the financial price of excessive marginal earnings tax charges.[30] At 4 million phrases and counting, the complexity of the federal tax code has reached absurd ranges, far exceeding the flexibility of taxpayers to grasp it and costing taxpayers greater than $300 billion a 12 months in compliance prices.[31] The financial price of excessive marginal earnings tax charges have been nicely understood by economists for many years and have been documented and reaffirmed by dozens of research.[32] The president and his advisors ought to weigh these prices when contemplating the potential advantages of recent tax proposals.

Suggestions for Reform

Adam Smith’s recommendation on tax coverage nonetheless applies, maybe now greater than ever:

“Little else is requisite to hold a state to the best diploma of opulence from the bottom barbarism, however peace, simple taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the remaining being caused by the pure course of issues. All governments which thwart this pure course, which drive issues into one other channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a selected level, are unnatural, and to assist themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”[33]

Moderately than simple taxes, we’ve a behemoth of a tax code that creates confusion and controversy whereas punishing success. Lawmakers ought to give attention to simplifying the federal tax code, creating stability, and broadly enhancing financial incentives. There are incremental steps that may be made on the trail to basic tax reform.

Within the rapid time period, lawmakers ought to search options with bipartisan enchantment. On the high of the listing is returning to full expensing for R&D on a everlasting foundation, a coverage that had existed from the start of the tax code, till final 12 months, when a TCJA provision started requiring amortization of R&D bills over 5 years (15 years for foreign-located R&D).[34] This coverage change delays professional enterprise deductions for R&D, triggering liquidity issues for small companies and penalizing R&D funding, notably in manufacturing, data know-how, and different R&D-intensive sectors, as a consequence of inflation and the time worth of cash.

A associated coverage, 100% bonus depreciation, permits full expensing for gear, however is phasing right down to 80 p.c this 12 months and to zero over the following 4 years, that means corporations must wait as much as 20 years to deduct the unique price of kit purchases, in line with difficult depreciation schedules.[35] If bonus depreciation had been made everlasting together with R&D expensing, we estimate it will enhance GDP by 0.5 p.c over the long term and add about 87,000 jobs. Whereas these insurance policies would have a dynamic budgetary price of about $460 billion over the following decade, in the long term, revenues could be above baseline ranges as a consequence of financial development.[36] Short-term deficits may very well be lined by curbing tax credit and different tax expenditures, similar to by repealing or capping a few of the inexperienced vitality credit just lately applied as a part of the IRA.

Going one step additional and offering full expensing for all property, together with constructions, on a everlasting foundation would significantly simplify enterprise taxation whereas considerably rising the financial system. We estimate full expensing would improve GDP by 2.3 p.c in the long term, increase wages by 1.9 p.c, and add 442,000 jobs.[37] Whereas the income price inside the price range window would exceed $1 trillion, this too may very well be offset by a extra thorough scrubbing of the tax code’s roughly 200 tax preferences that price about $2 trillion yearly.[38]

As 2025 approaches, when a lot of TCJA expires, lawmakers ought to contemplate basic tax reform to systematically tackle the tax code’s shortcomings. Whereas there are a lot of approaches to basic, pro-growth tax reform, we’ve just lately detailed and analyzed a proposal that will considerably enhance financial development and alternative.[39] It follows alongside the strains of the Estonian earnings tax system, which tops our annual rating of best tax methods.[40]

Simplicity and neutrality are the hallmarks of the Estonian earnings tax system.[41] Taxes are so easy in Estonia that they will sometimes be filed in 5 minutes, and the price of compliance for companies is among the many lowest of any nation.[42] Estonia’s tax system can also be very pro-growth, growing small enterprise entrepreneurship, funding, labor productiveness and, thereby, wages.[43] Estonia’s earnings tax system does all of this whereas producing substantial income corresponding to different developed international locations.[44]

The Estonian earnings tax is totally built-in, so it avoids double-taxing company earnings by taxes at each the entity and shareholder ranges. As a substitute of a sophisticated company earnings tax and separate guidelines that apply to passthrough companies, all companies are topic to a easy 20 p.c tax on distributed income (together with dividends and inventory buybacks). On the particular person stage, a easy flat tax of 20 p.c applies to all particular person earnings besides dividends, since they’re already taxed by the distributed income tax. Capital positive aspects are taxed as atypical earnings at 20 p.c. Moderately than a sophisticated property tax like ours that taxes amassed financial savings at demise, bequeathed property are merely taxed as capital positive aspects when offered by the inheritor with deductible foundation decided solely by prices incurred by the inheritor.[45]

Our proposal consists of a revenue-neutral reform of the U.S. tax code alongside the strains of the Estonian earnings tax system, holding solely sure options of the present code that profit low-income households (such because the Earned Earnings Tax Credit score and Little one Tax Credit score) and assist saving (similar to 401ks).[46] By significantly simplifying the federal tax code, these reforms would considerably scale back compliance prices, doubtlessly saving U.S. taxpayers greater than $100 billion yearly, comprised of greater than $70 billion in decreased compliance prices for companies and greater than $30 billion in decreased compliance prices for people associated to particular person earnings and property tax returns.

Along with compliance price financial savings, our modeling of the reform’s impacts on the U.S. financial system signifies it will improve GDP by 2.3 p.c in the long term, amounting to about $400 billion in extra annual output by 2032 and $1 trillion in the long term (each in 2023 {dollars}). These modifications would improve the long-run capital inventory by 3 p.c, amounting to $2.1 trillion in 2023 {dollars}. Moreover, we estimate it will add 1.3 million full-time equal jobs and lift wages by 1.3 p.c. By growing GDP, the debt burden as measured by the debt-to-GDP ratio would fall by 5.9 share factors over the long term.

Distributionally, we discover the reform would improve after-tax earnings general by 2.1 p.c in the long term, accounting for improved financial development, with a bigger enhance of two.7 p.c for the underside quintile of earners, and three.0 p.c for the second quintile.

Extra usually, the U.S. might be taught from the expertise of different international locations within the OECD, which rely extra closely on consumption taxes than the U.S. does.[47] Worth added taxes (VATs) are a significant income in just about each developed nation besides the USA. VATs and different taxes on consumption are among the many least economically dangerous methods to lift income.[48]

OECD international locations have additionally tended to desert extra difficult technique of taxing excessive earners similar to wealth taxes as a consequence of their administrative and financial challenges.[49] Moderately than excessive capital positive aspects taxes, or any try and tax unrealized capital positive aspects, most OECD international locations have decrease capital positive aspects tax charges than the U.S., and tax capital earnings general at decrease common tax charges.[50]

Consumption taxes may be designed to progressively tax the consumption of upper earners with out the executive complexity and compliance prices of our present progressive earnings tax system. For instance, by splitting the VAT base in two, companies would pay taxes on their money circulation (gross sales much less purchases and compensation paid), whereas households would pay taxes on compensation acquired. Making use of a progressive fee schedule on the family stage, with the highest fee matching the speed on enterprise money circulation, is a comparatively easy solution to obtain progressivity inside a consumption tax.[51] Underneath a extra commonplace value-added tax, essentially the most environment friendly solution to improve progressivity could be to supply focused aid to lower- and middle-income households.[52]

[1] Tax Basis, “Preliminary Particulars and Evaluation of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” Dec. 18, 2017, https://taxfoundation.org/final-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-details-analysis/; Huaqun Li and Kyle Pomerleau, “The Distributional Influence of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act over the Subsequent Decade,” Tax Basis, Jun. 28, 2018, https://taxfoundation.org/the-distributional-impact-of-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-over-the-next-decade/.

[2] Huaqun Li and Kyle Pomerleau, “The Distributional Influence of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act over the Subsequent Decade,” Tax Basis, Jun. 28, 2018, https://taxfoundation.org/the-distributional-impact-of-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-over-the-next-decade/; Congressional Finances Workplace, “Distributional Evaluation of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” Nov. 27, 2017, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53349; Garrett Watson, “Congressional Finances Workplace Reveals 2017 Tax Legislation Decreased Tax Charges Throughout the Board in 2018,” Tax Basis, Aug. 5, 2021, https://taxfoundation.org/congressional-budget-office-shows-2017-tax-law-reduced-tax-rates-across-board-2018/.

[3] John McClelland and Jeffrey Werling, “How the 2017 Tax Act Impacts CBO’s Projections,” Congressional Finances Workplace, Apr. 20, 2018, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53787; Congressional Finances Workplace, “The Results of the 2017 Tax Act on CBO’s Financial and Finances Projections,” Appendix B of The Finances and Financial Outlook: 2018 to 2028, Apr. 9, 2018, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53651; Tax Basis, “Preliminary Particulars and Evaluation of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” Dec. 18, 2017, https://taxfoundation.org/final-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-details-analysis/; Huaqun Li and Kyle Pomerleau, “The Distributional Influence of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act over the Subsequent Decade,” Tax Basis, Jun. 28, 2018, https://taxfoundation.org/the-distributional-impact-of-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-over-the-next-decade/.

[4] Tax Basis, “Preliminary Particulars and Evaluation of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” Dec. 18, 2017, https://taxfoundation.org/final-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-details-analysis/; Huaqun Li and Kyle Pomerleau, “The Distributional Influence of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act over the Subsequent Decade,” Tax Basis, Jun. 28, 2018, https://taxfoundation.org/the-distributional-impact-of-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-over-the-next-decade/.

[5] For a comparability of estimated results, see: Congressional Finances Workplace, “The Results of the 2017 Tax Act on CBO’s Financial and Finances Projections,” Appendix B of The Finances and Financial Outlook: 2018 to 2028, Apr. 9, 2018, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53651.

[6] Congressional Finances Workplace, “The Results of the 2017 Tax Act on CBO’s Financial and Finances Projections,” Appendix B of The Finances and Financial Outlook: 2018 to 2028, Apr. 9, 2018, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53651; Bureau of Financial Evaluation, “Desk 5.3.6. Actual Personal Fastened Funding by Kind, Chained {Dollars},” final revised on Might 25, 2023, https://www.bea.gov/itable/national-gdp-and-personal-income.

[7] Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://information.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000.

[8] Joint Committee on Taxation, “Macroeconomic Evaluation of the Convention Settlement for H.R. 1, The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” Dec. 22, 2017, JCX-69-17 | Joint Committee on Taxation (jct.gov).

[9] Tax Basis, “Preliminary Particulars and Evaluation of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” Dec. 18, 2017, https://taxfoundation.org/final-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-details-analysis/.

[10] William McBride, “Inflation Is Surging, So Are Federal Tax Collections,” Tax Basis, Oct. 13, 2022, https://taxfoundation.org/federal-tax-collections-inflation-surging/.

[11] Congressional Finances Workplace, “Month-to-month Finances Evaluate: Might 2023,” Jun. 8, 2023, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59134.

[12] Garrett Watson et al., “Particulars and Evaluation of President Biden’s Fiscal 12 months 2024 Finances Proposal,” Tax Basis, Mar. 23, 2023, https://taxfoundation.org/biden-budget-tax-proposals-analysis/.

[13] Erica York, Garrett Watson, and Alex Durante, “Biden’s FY 2024 Finances Would Lead to Extra Than $4.5 Trillion in Gross Tax Will increase,” Tax Basis, Mar. 9, 2023, https://taxfoundation.org/biden-budget-taxes/.

[14] Alex Muresianu, Erica York, and Garrett Watson, “Biden’s Proposed Capital Features Tax Charge Could be Highest for Many in a Century,” Tax Basis, Apr. 26, 2021, https://taxfoundation.org/biden-capital-gains-tax-rate-historical/; Clifton Painter, “Biden’s Prime Marginal Capital Features Tax Charge Would Be Highest in OECD,” Tax Basis, Jul. 6, 2021, https://taxfoundation.org/biden-capital-gains-tax-rate-oecd/.

[15] Garrett Watson and Erica York, “Proposed Minimal Tax on Billionaire Capital Features Takes Tax Code in Improper Path,” Tax Basis, Mar. 30, 2022, https://taxfoundation.org/biden-billionaire-tax-unrealized-capital-gains/.

[16] Christina Enache, “Company Tax Charges across the World, 2022,” Tax Basis, Dec. 13, 2022, https://taxfoundation.org/publications/corporate-tax-rates-around-the-world/.

[17] Daniel Bunn, “U.S. Cross-border Tax Reform and the Cautionary Story of GILTI,” Tax Basis, Feb. 17, 2021, https://taxfoundation.org/gilti-us-cross-border-tax-reform/.

[18] Alex Durante, “Inventory Buyback Tax Would Harm Funding and Innovation,” Tax Basis, Aug. 12, 2022, https://taxfoundation.org/inflation-reduction-act-stock-buybacks/.

[19] Erica York, “Lawmakers Revive Prescription Drug Pricing Insurance policies and 1,900% Excise Tax,” Tax Basis, Jul. 11, 2022, https://taxfoundation.org/prescription-drug-pricing-reform/; Alex Muresianu and William McBride, “A Information to the Fossil Gas Provisions of the Biden Finances,” Tax Basis, Sep. 2, 2021, https://taxfoundation.org/biden-fossil-fuel-tax/.

[20] Garrett Watson et al., “Particulars and Evaluation of President Biden’s Fiscal 12 months 2024 Finances Proposal,” Tax Basis, Mar. 23, 2023, https://taxfoundation.org/biden-budget-tax-proposals-analysis/

[21] Alex Durante et al., “Particulars and Evaluation of the Inflation Discount Act Tax Provisions,” Tax Basis, Aug. 12, 2022, https://taxfoundation.org/inflation-reduction-act/.

[22] William McBride and Daniel Bunn, “Repealing Inflation Discount Act’s Power Credit Would Elevate $663 Billion, JCT Tasks,” Tax Basis, Jun. 7, 2023, https://taxfoundation.org/inflation-reduction-act-green-energy-tax-credits-analysis/.

[23] Alex Durante et al., “Particulars and Evaluation of the Inflation Discount Act Tax Provisions,” Tax Basis, Aug. 12, 2022, https://taxfoundation.org/inflation-reduction-act/.

[24] Cody Kallen, William McBride, and Garrett Watson, “Minimal Guide Tax: Flawed Income Supply, Penalizes Professional-Development Value Restoration,” Tax Basis, Aug. 5, 2022, https://taxfoundation.org/inflation-reduction-act-accelerated-depreciation/; IRS, “Inflation Discount Act of 2022: Newest Updates,” https://www.irs.gov/inflation-reduction-act-of-2022; Chandra Wallace, “Company AMT Remark Letters Wealthy in Element – And Disagreement,” Tax Notes, Mar. 22, 2023, https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-notes-today-federal/corporate-alternative-minimum-tax/corporate-amt-comment-letters-rich-detail-and-disagreement/2023/03/22/7g804.

[25] Erin Slowey, “Partnerships Battle With Influence of US Company Minimal Tax,” Oct. 4, 2022, https://information.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report/partnerships-struggle-with-impact-of-us-corporate-minimum-tax.

[26] Tax Coverage Middle, “Elevating Income for Firms,” Might 16, 2023, https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/occasion/raising-revenue-corporations.

[27] Alex Durante, “Inventory Buyback Tax Would Harm Funding and Innovation,” Tax Basis, Aug. 12, 2023, https://taxfoundation.org/inflation-reduction-act-stock-buybacks/.

[28] Alex Muresianu, “A Higher Method to Tax Buybacks,” Tax Basis, Apr. 25, 2023, https://taxfoundation.org/biden-stock-buybacks-tax/; Jennifer Williams-Alvarez, “U.S. Buyback Tax May Hit Extra Overseas Companies Than First Anticipated,” The Wall Road Journal, Apr. 14, 2023, https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-buyback-tax-could-hit-more-foreign-firms-than-first-expected-e9dedec3.

[29] David Roberts, “Clear Power Tax Credit Largely Go to the Prosperous. Is There a Higher Method?,” Vox, Nov. 24 2015, https://www.vox.com/2015/11/24/9792474/energy-tax-credits-inequitable; U.S. Division of Power, “Car Registration Counts by State,” https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicle-registration.

[30] William McBride, “Testimony: The Prices and Complexity of the Federal Tax Code Demand Reform,” Tax Basis, Apr. 18, 2023, https://taxfoundation.org/federal-tax-complexity-costs-reform/.

[31] Scott Hodge, “The Tax Compliance Prices of IRS Laws,” Tax Basis, Aug. 23, 2022, https://taxfoundation.org/tax-compliance-costs-irs-regulations/.

[32] N. Gregory Mankiw, Matthew Weinzierl, and Danny Yagan, “Optimum Taxation in Concept and Follow,” Journal of Financial Views 23:4 (2009), https://eml.berkeley.edu/~yagan/OptimalTaxation.pdf; William McBride, “What Is the Proof on Taxes and Development,” Tax Basis, Dec. 18, 2012, https://www.taxfoundation.org/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth/; Alex Durante, “Reviewing Latest Proof of the Impact of Taxes on Financial Development,” Tax Basis, Might 21, 2021, https://taxfoundation.org/reviewing-recent-evidence-effect-taxes-economic-growth/; Timothy Vermeer, “The Influence of Particular person Earnings Tax Adjustments on Financial Development,” Tax Basis, June 14, 2022, https://taxfoundation.org/income-taxes-affect-economy/; Robert Carroll, “The Extra Burden of Taxes and the Financial Value of Excessive Tax Charges,” Tax Basis, August 2009, https://recordsdata.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/sr170.pdf; Martin Feldstein, “Tax Avoidance and the Deadweight Lack of the Earnings Tax,” The Evaluate of Economics and Statistics 81:4 (November 1999): 674-680, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2646716; Åsa Johansson, Christopher Heady, Jens Arnold, Bert Brys, Cyrille Schwellnus, & Laura Vartia, “Taxation and Financial Development.”; Congressional Finances Workplace, “The Economics of Financing a Massive and Everlasting Improve in Authorities Spending: Working Paper 2021-03,” Mar. 22, 2021, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57021; see additionally Garrett Watson, “Congressional Finances Workplace and Tax Basis Modeling Present That Some Tax Hikes Are Extra Damaging Than Others,” Tax Basis, Mar. 26, 2021, https://www.taxfoundation.org/tax-hikes-are-more-damaging-than-others-analysis/.

[33] Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Cannan ed.), vol. 1, Methuen, 1776, https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/smith-an-inquiry-into-the-nature-and-causes-of-the-wealth-of-nations-cannan-ed-vol-1

[34] Alex Muresianu, “R&D Amortization Hurts Financial Development, Development Industries, and Small Companies,” Tax Basis, June 1, 2023, https://taxfoundation.org/rd-amortization-impact/

[35] Stephen J Entin, “Expensing of Equipment and Gear Ought to Be Made Everlasting,” Tax Basis, Might 30, 2023, https://taxfoundation.org/permanent-expensing-machinery-equipment/

[36] Garrett Watson, Erica York, Cody Kallen, and Alex Durante, “Particulars and Evaluation of Canceling the Scheduled Enterprise Tax Will increase in Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” Tax Basis, Nov. 1, 2022, https://taxfoundation.org/tax-cuts-jobs-act-business-tax-increases/

[37] Tax Basis, “Choices for Reforming America’s Tax Code 2.0: Possibility 65,” Apr. 19, 2021, https://taxfoundation.org/tax-reform-options/?choice=65

[38] The Joint Committee on Taxation, “Estimates of Federal Tax Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2022-2026,” Dec. 22, 2022, https://www.jct.gov/publications/2022/jcx-22-22/; Treasury Division, “Tax Expenditures,” https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/tax-policy/tax-expenditures.

[39] William McBride, Huaqun Li, Garrett Watson, Alex Durante, Erica York, and Alex Muresianu, “Particulars and Evaluation of a Tax Reform Plan for Development and Alternative,” Tax Basis, Feb. 14, 2023, https://taxfoundation.org/growth-opportunity-us-tax-reform-plan/

[40] Daniel Bunn and Lisa Hogreve, “Worldwide Tax Competitiveness Index, 2022,” Tax Basis, Oct. 17, 2022, https://taxfoundation.org/2022-international-tax-competitiveness-index/.

[41] Estonia’s easy method to taxing enterprise and particular person earnings has additionally been applied in Latvia and Georgia. Daniel Bunn, “Higher than the Relaxation,” Tax Basis, Oct. 9, 2019, https://taxfoundation.org/estonia-tax-system-latvia-tax-system/; Gia Jandieri, “Tax Reform in Georgia 2004-2012,” Tax Basis, Jul. 17, 2019, https://taxfoundation.org/tax-reforms-in-georgia-2004-2012/.

[42] Kyle Pomerleau, “The Finest A part of the Estonian Tax Code Is Not 5 Minute Tax Submitting,” Tax Basis, Jul. 21, 2015, https://taxfoundation.org/best-part-estonian-tax-code-not-5-minute-tax-filing/; William McBride, Garrett Watson, Erica York, “Taxing Distributed Income Makes Enterprise Taxation Easy and Environment friendly,” Tax Basis, Mar. 1, 2023, https://taxfoundation.org/distributed-profits-tax-us-businesses/.

[43] Jaan Maaso, Jaanika Meriküll, and Priit Vahter, “Gross Revenue Taxation Versus Distributed Revenue Taxation and Agency Efficiency: Results of Estonia’s Company Earnings Tax Reform,” The College of Tartu College of Economics and Enterprise Administration Working Paper No. 81-2011, Mar. 23, 2011, https://ssrn.com/summary=1793143 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1793143; Jaan Masso and Jaanika Merikull, “Macroeconomic Results of Zero Company Earnings Tax on Retained Earnings,” Baltic Journal of Economics, 11:2 (2011): 81-99, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1406099X.2011.10840502; Aaro Hazak, “Corporations’ Monetary Selections Underneath the Distributed Revenue Taxation Regime of Estonia,” Rising Markets Finance & Commerce 45:4 (2009): 4-12, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27750676; Eduardo Davila and Benjamin Hebert, “Optimum Company Taxation beneath Monetary Frictions,” NBER Working Paper No. 25520, Oct. 2021, https://www.nber.org/papers/w25520.

[44] During the last 10 years, Estonia’s central authorities tax collections from earnings and revenue quantity to about 7.4 p.c of GDP, in comparison with 7.3 p.c for the median OECD nation and eight.4 p.c averaged throughout OECD international locations. See OECD Tax Income Statistics, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx

[45] William McBride, “Biden’s New Tax Proposals are Difficult and Rife with Double Taxation,” Tax Basis, Mar. 13, 2023, https://taxfoundation.org/biden-tax-fairness/.

[46] William McBride, Huaqun Li, Garrett Watson, Alex Durante, Erica York, and Alex Muresianu, “Particulars and Evaluation of a Tax Reform Plan for Development and Alternative,” Tax Basis, Feb. 14, 2023, https://taxfoundation.org/growth-opportunity-us-tax-reform-plan/

[47]Daniel Bunn and Cecilia Perez Weigel, “Sources of Authorities Income within the OECD,” Tax Basis, Feb. 23, 2023, https://taxfoundation.org/oecd-tax-revenue-by-country-2023/.

[48] William McBride, “What Is the Proof on Taxes and Development,” Tax Basis, Dec. 18, 2012, https://www.taxfoundation.org/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth/.

[49] Daniel Bunn, “What the U.S. Can Be taught from the Adoption (and Repeal) of Wealth Taxes within the OECD,” Tax Basis, Jan. 18, 2022, https://taxfoundation.org/wealth-taxes-in-the-oecd/.  

[50] Daniel Bunn and Elke Asen, “Financial savings and Funding: The Tax Therapy of Inventory and Retirement Accounts within the OECD,” Tax Basis, Might 26, 2021, https://taxfoundation.org/savings-and-investment-oecd/#Capital; Jacob Lundberg and Johannes Nathell, “Taxing Capital—An Worldwide Comparability,” Tax Basis, Might 11, 2021, https://taxfoundation.org/tax-burden-on-capital-income/. 

[51] This design is named the “X Tax,” developed by the late economist David Bradford. See Robert Carroll and Alan D. Viard, Progressive Consumption Taxation: The X Tax, (Washington, D.C: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, 2012).

[52] See Rita de la Feria and Michael Walpole, “The Influence of Public Perceptions on Common Consumption Taxes,” British Tax Evaluate 67:5 (Dec. 4, 2020), 637-669, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3723750 for a dialogue on how different approaches, similar to exemptions or decreased charges can, counterintuitively, improve regressivity by offering extra advantages to higher-income households.