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.
Congress recently passed the largest economic relief bill in American history (CARES Act). We’ve created a FAQ portal to better inform policymakers, journalists, and taxpayers across the country on the new law.
As Congress and the White House consider ways to shore up the economy in the face of a public health crisis, President Trump has suggested suspending the entire payroll tax for the duration of the year. That would cost about $950 billion, according to our analysis.
The CARES Act, now signed into law, is intended to be a third round of federal government support in the wake of the coronavirus public health crisis and associated economic fallout, following the $8.3 billion in public health support passed two weeks ago and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.
The proposed Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act can be contrasted with the Senate Republican CARES Act, although they share some similarities by providing individual taxpayers with a rebate and modifying business tax provisions to provide liquidity for struggling firms.
Instead of simply reaching for fiscal stimulus with the goal of increasing economic activity, tax policy changes can give vulnerable individuals and businesses additional liquidity and space to survive the reduction in economic activity needed in light of the coronavirus outbreak.
Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders have each proposed changes to the individual income tax, one of the largest sources of federal revenue. Our new analysis compares the economic, revenue, and distributional effects of the various proposals.
As policymakers evaluate changes to the tax code, such as proposals coming from presidential candidates and the White House, it will be important for them to evaluate the relative effects of various provisions. According to our analysis, making full expensing permanent would be one of the most efficient ways to increase after-tax incomes for the middle class.
Full expensing, if made permanent, would be one of the most cost-effective ways to increase growth as it would produce about 4.5 times more GDP growth per dollar of revenue than making the law’s individual tax provisions permanent, according to our analysis.
Several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have proposed changes to federal payroll tax rates and the Social Security payroll tax wage base to raise revenue and maintain solvency for major federal entitlement programs.
Treasury released final regulations on the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT), which is meant to dissuade firms from engaging in profit shifting abroad. Other high-profile releases from 2019 include final regulations guiding enforcement of Section 199A, commonly known as the pass-through deduction; final regulations on enforcing the new tax on global intangible low-tax income (GILTI); and final regulations on state-level workarounds to the $10,000 limit on the state and local tax deduction (SALT).
Instead of raising revenue from a narrow tax base through high tax rates, policymakers should identify options to raise revenue efficiently through broad-based taxes consistent with sound tax policy.
Elizabeth Warren released a detailed plan on how she would fund Medicare For All, proposing a wealth tax, financial transactions tax, mark-to-market taxation of capital gains income, and a country-by-county minimum tax, among other reforms.