Garrett Watson is Senior Policy Analyst and Modeling Manager at the Tax Foundation, where he conducts research on federal and state tax policy. His work has been featured in The Washington Post, The Atlantic, Politico, the Associated Press and other major outlets.
Previously, Garrett was a program manager at a nearby think tank and conducted policy research on economic opportunity and labor markets, including non-compete clause reform.
Garrett earned a bachelor’s degree from St. Lawrence University in upstate New York, where he studied economics and philosophy. Garrett lives in northwest Arkansas and is an avid hockey fan and snowboarder.
A new report finds many businesses have yet to receive tax refunds that they are due from pandemic-related emergency relief. Future business tax relief must be provided in a timely manner during the next downturn, because delayed tax relief is not much better than no relief at all.
The National Taxpayer Advocate argued the IRS telephone service “was the worst it has ever been” in 2021, with an answer rate of about 11 percent.
As the Senate weighs changes to the spending and tax portions of the Build Back Better Act, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Tax Foundation find the bill would increase the cumulative budget deficit over the next 10 years—contrary to claims the legislation is “fully paid for.”
Learn more about the House Build Back Better Act, including the latest details and analysis of the Biden tax increases and reconciliation bill tax proposals.
When looking at the tax burden on businesses over time, it is important to provide a complete picture by accounting for the different types of businesses in the U.S. and the timing effects of the 2017 tax law. Doing so provides important context on existing tax burdens and for considering the impact of raising taxes on corporations and pass-through firms.
Due to the House Build Back Better tax plan’s economically costly and inefficient tax increases, our analysis finds that long-run GDP would drop by a little over $1 for every $1 in new tax revenue.
The most recent versions of President Biden’s Build Back Better plan are improvements on the original proposal, but would still reduce economic growth and average after-tax incomes for the top 80 percent of earners in the long run.
Congress is debating new ways to raise revenue that would make the tax code more complex and more difficult to administer. The new proposals—imposing an alternative minimum tax on corporate book income, applying an excise tax on stock buybacks, and, at one point this week, a tax on unrealized capital gains for billionaires—are unreliable and highly complex ways to raise revenue.
Raising taxes on stock-based compensation through a book income tax will disadvantage this form of compensation and produce more complexity in the tax system without providing benefits to workers.
If the spending in the $3.5 trillion budget resolution were financed entirely from tax increases, it would rival as a share of GDP the tax increases used to finance World War II and the Korean War.
Our analysis illustrates how restoring the SALT deduction now would be more regressive than under prior law, strengthening the case for keeping the cap in place.
As Congress considers President Biden’s proposal to tax unrealized capital gains at death, the history of previous efforts suggests it faces a perilous road ahead. Lawmakers must resolve tricky design and implementation details that derailed past attempts to change how capital gains are treated when assets are passed from one generation to the next.
The White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA)’s recent report estimates the average federal individual income tax rate for the top 400 wealthiest households in the U.S to be 8.2 percent, lower than typically estimated for top earners.
The latest version of the Biden Build Back Better agenda, released last week by the House Ways and Means committee, is dense, with too many provisions to flesh out completely. Here’s a rundown of the good, the bad, and the ugly of it.
The Biden corporate tax plan would disproportionately harm these congressional districts and make the U.S. less internationally competitive. These tax hikes, along with individual tax increases, would also raise taxes on net for 96 percent of congressional districts by 2031 after these temporary credits expire in 2025.
Mark-to-market is not simple to implement, as it involves new administrative and compliance challenges for taxpayers. Mark-to-market levies tax on phantom income, requiring some taxpayers to engage in some degree of liquidation, ultimately suppressing incentives to save and invest. The limited tax revenues that could result from these proposals are not worth the risk.
Over the next ten years, the structure of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) is scheduled to change, complicating efforts to extend enhanced CTC benefits or reform the CTC for the long-term. Rather than take an all-or-nothing approach or kick the can down the road by relying on temporary expansions, lawmakers could consider alternative options that better target low-income households, retain work incentives, reduce the impact on federal revenue, and provide taxpayers with a stable, consistent tax code.
Temporary policy creates uncertainty for taxpayers and scheduling more expirations will add to the already-expiring provisions under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017.
It is important to understand how the SALT deduction’s benefits have changed since the SALT cap was put into place in 2018 before repealing the cap or making the deduction more generous. Doing so would disproportionately benefit higher earners, making the tax code more regressive.
According to the Tax Policy Center, an estimated 60 percent of U.S. households paid no income tax in 2020, up from around 43 percent of households in 2019.