The New York Times, Runner’s World, and a host of other media outlets recently hyped a new study published in Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases on the benefits of running. The study asserts that running, if performed regularly, leads to 3.2 additional years of life.
With tax reform hopefully next on the GOP’s agenda, it is important for lawmakers to think about its revenue effects in a sensible way: focus on the long-run budget impact, not the 10-year horizon embedded in congressional rules.
While the UK is generally regarded as having a larger military and is certainly understood to have a larger economy from which to finance its military, its advantage on at least some common sense metrics is modest and its demands greater; the UK has more geopolitical interests around the globe to defend. Spain, on the other hand, while somewhat less equipped would have a proximity advantage in any armed conflict over Gibraltar. In short, the winner from such a hypothetical encounter is far from obvious to a casual observer.
Pundits have posited every imaginable reason for the failure of the GOP to get their health care reform bill through the first big hurdle: passage on the House floor. As we all know too well, Speaker Ryan pulled the bill just minutes before a vote was scheduled, when it was absolutely clear that a majority of support could not be reached. But would success have ushered in a new health care paradigm? I doubt it.
If the House Republican plan for a border adjustment tax were adopted, many large U.S. multinationals and others net exporters would receive more tax subsidy on their exports than tax owed on their other business activities. Without refundable credits, a 20% border adjustment tax would actually yield $260 billion in revenue beyond the expected $1 trillion.
President Trump’s proposal to cap itemized deductions would cause a drop in charitable giving. For those giving above the cap, the net cost would jump from $0.60 per $1 of giving to an unsubsidized $1 per $1 of giving. Because a 1% increase in the price yields a 1% drop in giving, $17.6 billion in annual giving could evaporate.
Hillary Clinton wants to double the child tax credit for children under 5 and increase the refundability of the credit for more low-income households. Her proposal will further exacerbate the tax disparity between childless households and families with young children. And, by adding substantially to the federal deficit, the policy will shift the cost of raising today’s children onto future generations.
Hillary Clinton proposes doubling the child tax credit for children under 5 (from $1,000 to $2,000) and expanding the refundability of the credit to lower-income families. Her proposal 1) is expensive, 2) increases the deficit, 3) is unfair to childless taxpayers, 4) benefits a narrow group, 5) has an arbitrary cutoff, and 6) is just the beginning.
To broaden the tax base, lawmakers will need to do more than close obscure tax loopholes. They will need to limit itemized deductions. These tax breaks costabout $176 billion in 2016 or enough to finance a nearly 13% tax cut for every individual income tax bracket. And they add significant complexity to the tax code.
On July 1, the state of Vermont is set to impose a $1,000 per day per product fine on any food manufacturer who fails to disclose on the product label if any ingredients contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The effect of the new law will be to reduce choices for consumers, limit supply, and increase food prices. And these consequences will be felt far beyond the tiny state’s borders.