Clear nonpartisan analysis of fiscal and tax policy enables policymakers and the public to weigh competing theories on how to end the country’s economic crisis. Urban Institute researchers evaluated key components of the stimulus package and analyzed the tax proposals in the president’s budget. Warning decisionmakers about the unsustainable fiscal course ahead, our experts propose ways to control deficits and reform the entitlement programs that drive up spending. Read more.
Clear nonpartisan analysis of fiscal and tax policy enables policymakers and the public to weigh competing theories on how to end the country’s economic crisis. Urban Institute researchers evaluated key components of the stimulus package and analyzed the tax proposals in the president’s budget. Warning decisionmakers about the unsustainable fiscal course ahead, our experts propose ways to control deficits and reform the entitlement programs that drive up spending. Read more.
This paper attempts to better understand rhetoric over the charitable contributions deduction, arguing that debate surrounding the deduction is ultimately a projection of more fundamental debates relating to the theme of government versus charity. The phrase "government versus charity" can mean government as opposed to charity or government in opposition to charity. The first sense contemplates the need to choose which of government versus charity should supply a given good or service. The second sense contemplates the ideal regulatory posture of government in relation to charity. Competing views over the charitable contributions deduction often reduce to competing views over these two issues.
The Heritage Foundation has repeatedly and misleadingly claimed that Urban Institute research shows most states would experience budget problems if they implemented the ACA's Medicaid expansion. In fact, every comprehensive fiscal analysis done at the state level has concluded that expansion would yield net state budget gains, with revenues and savings that exceed increased state costs. All states must pay for national health reform but only those that expand Medicaid will receive large, offsetting allotments of federal Medicaid dollars, with resulting economic activity, jobs, and state revenue. Solid research shows that Medicaid expansion saves lives and improves access to care.
The exclusion of employer-sponsored health insurance premiums and medical benefits reduced federal tax revenues by $268 billion in 2011 alone-by far the largest federal tax expenditure. Moreover, the exclusion disproportionately subsidizes those with higher incomes. In this brief, we provide estimates of the revenue potential and distributional consequences of limiting the exclusion from income and payroll taxes at the 75th percentile of 2013 premiums, indexing by GDP. The policy would produce $264.0 billion in new tax revenues over the coming decade while preserving 93 percent of the tax subsidies available under the current policy.
This document reviews several notable tax proposals in President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget. These include a 28 percent limit on certain tax expenditures, a cap on tax preferences for retirement savers with high balances, a minimum tax ("Buffett Rule") on high-income taxpayers, alternative incentives for infrastructure investment, and a new measure of inflation ("chained CPI") for indexing tax parameters.
Latest Research
