Details and Analysis of President Joe Biden’s Campaign Tax Plan
What has President Joe Biden proposed in terms of tax policy changes? Our experts provide the details and analyze the potential economic, revenue, and distributional impacts.
The United States has long been a forward-thinking country that builds for tomorrow through saving, investment, and entrepreneurship. Saving gives us security, investment gives us rising incomes through enhanced productivity, and entrepreneurship drives economic growth and dynamism, creating new opportunities.
However, over the last fifty years, all three have been eroded. Citizens aren’t saving enough, businesses aren’t investing enough, and the country is undergoing a retreat in the level of economic growth and dynamism.
As it is, the U.S. tax code places substantial burdens on each of these essential factors of our economy. What’s worse, while other nations have become more attractive, there has been a proliferation of proposals in the U.S. that would only cause further harm—wealth taxes, “mark-to-market” capital gains taxes, estate taxes, and financial transaction taxes.
Below, we offer in-depth analysis of these and other proposals, which highlight a harmful trend in tax policy. Americans are industrious, entrepreneurial, and innovative. Policymakers should ensure we have a tax code that enhances those qualities, not hinders them.
What has President Joe Biden proposed in terms of tax policy changes? Our experts provide the details and analyze the potential economic, revenue, and distributional impacts.
New modeling finds that the wealth taxes proposed by Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders would raise significantly less revenue than promised, face serious administrative and compliance challenges, and would increase foreign ownership of U.S. capital.
A key element of America’s dynamism problem is a drop in entrepreneurship. Removing tax barriers for entrepreneurs would improve America’s dynamism while making America’s tax code more neutral, efficient, and simple for all taxpayers.
Capital gains taxes create a burden on saving because they are an additional layer of taxes on a given dollar of income. The capital gains tax rate cannot be directly compared to individual income tax rates, because the additional layers of tax that apply to capital gains income must also be part of the discussion.
The success of any mark-to-market system lies in its ability to accurately value tangible and non-tangible (or non-tradable) assets such as intellectual property and brand-value recognition. Administrative regulations, guidance, and enforcement are the Achilles’ heel of any plan to annually tax accrued gains.
Policymakers should exercise caution in deciding whether to enact an FTT given the uncertainty regarding the FTT’s ability to raise revenue and the significant damage it could cause to the U.S. financial system
Wyden’s “mark-to-market” proposal strives to subject capital gains to the same treatment as ordinary income. While the plan resolves the “lock in effect” issue and would make the tax code more progressive, it would increase the tax burden on savers and increase tax code complexity.
Van Hollen’s proposals add to the long list of Democratic Party tax proposals that attempt to both raise additional revenue from corporations and high-income households and make the tax code more progressive and “equitable.”
Warren’s comparison between the property tax and her proposed wealth tax makes a good sales pitch. However, there are important differences between the taxes. By no means is the property tax in many jurisdictions perfect, but it is generally better structured than a wealth tax.
America’s tax code distorts the economic decision-making of firms, such as the favorable treatment of debt financing over equity. This study adds to this argument while providing motivation for policymakers to focus on how reforms to tax policy can increase American entrepreneurship.
Findings from a new study suggest that while a policy agenda to revive innovation must include an assortment of changes – including greater access to mentorship – tax policy matters too.
While progressivity may look appealing—particularly at a time when policymakers in Congress seem to be competing on how best to extract revenue from the wealthiest in the country—it may not raise the revenue intended.
There is a chance that Senator Warren’s proposed wealth tax would be found unconstitutional, but opinions are mixed and the precedents go both ways.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren recently proposed a wealth tax on high-net-worth individuals, a type of tax that is poorly targeted, difficult to administer, and raises constitutional questions.
A recent paper discusses two main trends related to U.S. entrepreneurs: the decrease in the number of entrepreneurs and the increase in their borrowing. Entrepreneurs have increased their debt holdings relative to their assets over the past three decades.
The estate tax’s narrow base and high rate limit its ability to generate revenue. The estate tax discourages economic growth by discouraging investment.