Tracking 2024 Presidential Tax Plans
Tax policy has become a significant focus of the U.S. 2024 presidential election. Our new interactive tool helps keep track of the tax policies proposed by presidential candidates during their campaigns.
The mission of our federal program is to promote tax and fiscal policy that leads to greater U.S. competitiveness, higher economic growth, and improved quality of life for all taxpayers.
We have several projects, such as the Growth and Opportunity Agenda and Options for Reforming America’s Tax Code, which help us educate taxpayers, journalists, and policymakers on how the U.S. tax system works and the impact of federal tax changes on taxpayers and the economy.
Our Center for Federal Tax Policy hosts Tax Foundation University, a crash course designed to educate congressional staff on the economics of tax policy. Our experts are also a go-to source in the media and are frequently cited in top outlets like The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. See Our Experts
Since 2012, we have used our Taxes and Growth (TAG) macroeconomic model to analyze dozens of legislative and campaign tax proposals, including every major tax plan put forth during the 2016 presidential campaigns, the House GOP’s 2016 Tax Reform Blueprint, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and President Biden’s tax reform agenda. See Our Economic and Tax Modeling
For a look at where tax modeling started, explore the extensive body of work from the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation (IRET), the think tank that pioneered dynamic tax modeling. Explore the IRET Archives
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act President Biden’s Tax Plans 2024 Tax Plans
Cost Recovery | Taxes & Inflation | Taxes on Savers & Investors | Tariffs & Trade | Carbon Taxes
Tax policy has become a significant focus of the U.S. 2024 presidential election. Our new interactive tool helps keep track of the tax policies proposed by presidential candidates during their campaigns.
Lawmakers will have to weigh the economic, revenue, and distributional trade-offs of extending or making permanent the various provisions of the TCJA as they decide how to approach the upcoming expirations. A commitment to growth, opportunity, and fiscal responsibility should guide the approach.
18 min readThe federal tax code remains a major source of frustration and controversy for Americans, and a hindrance to economic growth and opportunity. Other countries, such as Estonia, have proven that sufficient tax revenue can be collected in a less frustrating and more efficient way.
42 min readNow is the time for lawmakers to focus on long-term fiscal sustainability, as further delay will only make an eventual fiscal reckoning that much harder and more painful. Congressional leaders should follow through on convening a fiscal commission to deal with the long-term budgetary challenges facing the country.
35 min readA growing international tax agreement known as Pillar Two presents two new threats to the U.S. tax base: potential lost revenue and limitations on Congress’s ability to set its own tax policy.
39 min readA major case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court (Moore v. United States) is calling into question provisions on large portions of the U.S. tax base which could quickly become legally uncertain, putting significant revenue at stake.
7 min readIf bonus depreciation is allowed to phase out, then the tax bias against capital investments will increase, discouraging firms from making otherwise profitable investments.
14 min readA border-adjusted carbon tax that uses some of the revenue for pro-investment tax reform could improve U.S. more competitiveness while also addressing concerns with a carbon tax.
29 min readThe business tax changes originally introduced in the TCJA are scheduled to increase tax burdens on businesses at a time when economic headwinds and broader uncertainty are higher than they have been in decades.
12 min readWe find that the dynamic cost of permanent bonus depreciation rises by about 7 percent under 4 percent inflation, but the economic benefit, measured by the size of the economy, rises by about 25 percent.
4 min readRepealing LIFO, as some policymakers have proposed, is not sound policy. LIFO helps firms avoid the penalty on inventory investment created by FIFO and is neither a targeted tax break nor a subsidy (as some opponents suggest).
17 min readThe Section 232 tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum raised the cost of production for manufacturers, reducing employment in those industries, raising prices for consumers, and hurting exports.
14 min read