Publications

This issue brief looks at the major proposals and the bill’s economic and revenue effects.

In 1997, Congress forfeited a golden opportunity to begin returning large budget surpluses to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts. Part of the failing was political will, but faulty budget projections by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) were a major part of the failure. In this policy report, economist Larry Hunter explains the forecasting errors of CBO and the political failures of the Republican-controlled Congress, and warns that the budget surplus is a "self-negating proposition," in that Congress will spend the money before it accumulates. The only way to prevent government from simply spending the money is to cut taxes first. Hunter repeats Jack Kemp's call for large, Reaganesque tax cuts before it is too late.

This paper summarizes the three major arguments against continued U.S. involvement in the IMF.

"We'd love to cut your taxes, but it's against the rules" say politicians. The rules they are talking about is a budgetary regime referred to as "Paygo," or "pay-as-you-go." Passed as a deficit control measure, the Paygo rules were intended to prevent Congress from cutting taxes unless they cut spending by an equivalent amount. It sounds prudent, but as practiced, Paygo is an albatross around the neck of those who want to reduce a historically-high tax burden in the face of enormous mounting budget surpluses.

The purpose of this issue brief is to focus on how changing the tax treatment of married couples would affect the economy. As background, the first section explains how the tax code and marital status interact. The next section estimates the economic and revenue consequences of four proposals
while the last section discusses whether reducing marriage penalties makes for good tax policy.

 Recently released figures lead us to estimate that the federal budget surplus could be roughly $1 trillion higher than Congress expected when it drafted the bi-partisan budget deal at this time last year. We believe that at least half of this $1 trillion windfall (but preferably all of it) should be returned to taxpayers via a very large tax cut enacted immediately.

Articles include "Will Taxpayers be Last in Line for Budget Surpluses?", The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT): A Ticking Time Bomb Aimed at the Middle Class," "The Golden Rules for Making a Million," and "Getting Hit from Both Sides: Adjusting CPI Downward Cuts Entitlements and Raises Taxes."

New requirements to track additional asset holding periods have greatly increased the complexity in calculating capital gains taxes. Our researchers, Gary and Aldona Robbins, point out the reasons why these added complications are totally unnecessary.

The Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT, is an inefficient, expensive to administer portion of the federal tax code. It began in 1969 to ensure that every taxpayer paid some tax by disallowing certain tax deductions if they reduced tax liability beneath a certain level. Today, it does not even accomplish that goal. Right now, it impacts a relatively small amount of taxpayers, but in the next 10 years, one of every 14 taxpayers will be ensnared by the AMT--and the government is counting on it. They've already factored this into the rosy budget surplus scenarios.

Have you ever thought of vacationing in Hawaii and not coming back? Should you decide to do this and be unable to find a job, never fear - you can fare well on welfare. In Hawaii, 88.8 percent of the 'poor' collect welfare benefits rather than seek work--a higher percentage than any other state. Why? Hawaiians can draw up to $664 weekly ($34,528 annually) on a permanent vacation or work for average local wages and earn $476 weekly ($24,752 annually.) Which would you choose? The 'poor' do make rational economic decisions in deciding whether or not to seek work. The success of 'workfare' programs bears this out.