How Much Will the Major Presidential Candidates Steal From You?
Neither Harris nor Trump has a plan to address national debt, but they dramatically differ on taxation.
Neither Harris nor Trump has a plan to address national debt, but they dramatically differ on taxation.
Both party leaders are selling the idea of a sovereign wealth fund, but it’s more political fantasy than fiscal fix.
The costs of steep tariffs and a higher corporate income tax extend far beyond the advertised targets.
As with Trump and his tariffs, Harris appears unwilling to acknowledge the obvious consequences of hiking taxes on businesses.
Both campaigns represent variations on a theme of big, fiscally irresponsible, hyper-interventionist government.
Exempting tips from the federal income tax would add to the deficit and unfairly penalize nontipped workers. It's a bad idea no matter who is pitching it.
A key indicator has predicted every recession since 1970, and the alarm just sounded.
Researchers found that giving people $1,000 every month for three years resulted in decreased productivity and earnings, and more leisure time.
There seems to be general bipartisan agreement on keeping a majority of the cuts, which are set to expire. They can be financed by cleaning out the tax code of unfair breaks.
Wealth taxes discourage investment, shrink wages, and don’t generate much revenue.
The Biden administration's $60 billion expansion of the IRS has netted $1 billion in new revenue so far.
Although former President Donald Trump's deregulatory agenda would make some positive changes, it's simply not enough.
Which party can do the least to fix America's troubled old-age welfare system?
The U.S. has successfully navigated past debt challenges, notably in the 1990s. Policymakers can fix this if they find the will to do so.
The candidate who grasps the gravity of this situation and proposes concrete steps to address it will demonstrate the leadership our nation now desperately needs. The stakes couldn't be higher.
Plus: A listener asks if there are any libertarian solutions to rising obesity rates.
We could grow our way out of our debt burden if politicians would limit spending increases to just below America's average yearly economic growth. But they won't even do that.
The president has tried to shift blame for inflation, interest rate hikes, and an overall decimation of consumers' purchasing power.
Reducing revenue without identifying offsetting spending cuts means Trump is merely promising to borrow more heavily.
Reasonable options include gradually raising the minimum retirement age, adjusting benefits to reflect longer life expectancies, and implementing fair means-testing to ensure benefits flow where they're actually needed.
The average American will lose between $5,000 and $14,000 annually by 2054 due to the burden of the growing national debt.
Why aren't politicians on both sides more worried than they seem to be?
Price controls lead to the misallocation of resources, shortages, diminished product quality, and black markets.
Let's just call this what it is: another gimmick for Congress to escape its own budget limits and avoid having a conversation about tradeoffs.
There are many pervasive myths about the U.S. tax code. Here are a few.
Despite their informal nature, those norms have historically constrained U.S. fiscal policy. But they're eroding.
Governments around the world have been on a borrowing spree, and prosperity has suffered.
Neither presidential candidate is willing to back the reforms necessary to close the gap between revenue and benefits.
Plus: A listener asks about the absurdity of Social Security entitlements.
Johnson could lose the speakership for the same reasons Kevin McCarthy lost it just five months ago. Who will be next?
An obvious, tepid reform was greeted with shrill partisan screeching.
The president wants to raise the rate from 21 percent to 28 percent, despite it being well-established that this is the most economically-destructive method to raise government funds.
The government needs to cut back on spending—and on the promises to special interests that fuel the spending.
The credits cost the state over $1.3 billion per year with a 19 percent return on investment. Lawmakers' proposals will do little to change that.
And why the Congressional Budget Office does a poor job of making those estimates.
The reality raises questions about the kind of future we want to leave for the next generation.
His speech in Davos challenged the growing worldwide trend of increased government involvement in economic affairs.
They will either reduce the ability to spend money or to cut taxes.
That's bad news for Americans.
Lawmakers can take small steps that are uncontroversial and bipartisan to jumpstart the fiscal stability process.
Plus: A listener asks the editors to consider the libertarian argument against shopping local.
A fiscal commission might be a good idea, but it's also the ultimate expression of Congress' irresponsibility.
The Copenhagen Consensus has long championed a cost-benefit approach for addressing the world's most critical environmental problems.
In the last 50 years, when the budget process has been in place, Congress has managed only four times to pass a budget on time.
Years ago, when interest rates were low, calls for the federal government to exercise fiscal restraint were dismissed. That was unwise.
It's a maneuver that makes little fiscal, philosophical, or political sense, but thankfully it also seems unlikely to work.
Higher rates lead to more debt, and more debt begets higher rates, and on and on. Get the picture?