Tax Credits, Deductions and Exemptions

More stories

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Plans Could Increase National Debt Twice as Much as Harris’s Proposal

    by

    A new analysis finds that Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump’s plans would both add to the deficit, but Mr. Trump’s proposals could create a fiscal hole twice as big.Former President Donald J. Trump’s economic proposals could inflame the nation’s debt burden while ultimately raising costs for a vast majority of Americans, according to a pair of new economic analyses that are among the most in-depth studies to date of the Republican nominee’s plans.The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that seeks lower deficits, found that Mr. Trump’s various plans could add as much as $15 trillion to the nation’s debt over a decade. That is nearly twice as much as the economic plans being proposed by Vice President Kamala Harris.And an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a liberal think tank, found that Mr. Trump’s tax and tariff plans would, on average, amount to a tax increase for every income group except the top 5 percent of highest-earning Americans.The two new studies differ in some respects. The budget group looked at the cost of both candidates’ tax and spending plans over 10 years, while the tax institute focused on what the impacts of Mr. Trump’s tax and tariff plans would be in 2026. But together they show that Mr. Trump’s agenda could be both costly and regressive by placing a greater burden on those making the least amount of money.Over the course of his campaign, Mr. Trump has floated a flurry of potentially far-reaching policies, including exempting certain forms of pay from taxes and levying broad tariffs on nearly all imports to the United States. He also wants to extend elements of the tax law he enacted in 2017 that are set to expire after next year.“It’s almost difficult to come up with a tax plan that would raise taxes on most Americans, but still increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars a year — and that’s what this does,” said Steve Wamhoff, the federal policy director at I.T.E.P.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    E.V. Tax Credits Are a Plus, but Flaws Remain, Study Finds

    by

    The Inflation Reduction Act was a compromise between competing priorities. Evaluating the law on the effectiveness of the $7,500 tax credit for E.V.s is tricky.A team of economists has taken on a central component of the Inflation Reduction Act: the $7,500 tax credit for U.S.-made electric vehicles.The challenge in evaluating it is that the policy has sometimes conflicting goals. One is getting people to buy electric vehicles to lower carbon emissions and slow climate change. The other is strengthening U.S. auto manufacturing by denying subsidies to foreign companies, even for better or cheaper electric vehicles.That’s why totaling those pluses and minuses is complex, but overall the researchers found that Americans have seen a two-to-one return on their investment in the new electric vehicle subsidies. That includes environmental benefits, but mostly reflects a shift of profits to the United States. Before the climate law, tax credits were mainly used to buy foreign-made cars.“What the I.R.A. did was swing the pendulum the other way, and heavily subsidized American carmakers,” said Felix Tintelnot, an associate professor of economics at Duke University who was a co-author of the paper.Those benefits were undermined, however, by a loophole allowing dealers to apply the subsidy to leases of foreign-made electric vehicles. The provision sends profits to non-American companies, and since those foreign-made vehicles are on average heavier and less efficient, they impose more environmental and road-safety costs.Also, the researchers estimated that for every additional electric vehicle the new tax credits put on the road, about three other electric vehicle buyers would have made the purchases even without a $7,500 credit. That dilutes the effectiveness of the subsidies, which are forecast to cost as much as $390 billion through 2031. “The I.R.A. was worth the money invested,” said Jonathan Smoke, the chief economist at Cox Automotive, which provided some of the data used in the analysis. “But in essence, my conclusion is that we could do better.”How the Environmental and Safety Costs of Gas- and Electric-Powered Cars Stack UpMeasuring the cost to society of carbon emissions from driving and manufacturing, local air pollutants and the danger of crashes, a new economic analysis finds that some gas-powered vehicles are less damaging than electric and hybrid vehicles.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    The five least and most costly gas- and electric-powered vehicles
    Averages are weighted by the number of each model registered within each powertrain category. Total costs subtract fiscal benefits from gas taxes and electricity bills.Source: Hunt Allcott, Stanford; Joseph Shapiro, U.C. Berkeley; Reigner Kane and Max Maydanchik, University of Chicago; and Felix Tintelnot, Duke UniversityBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Plans Could Increase U.S. Debt While Raising Costs for Most Americans

    by

    A new analysis estimates that the former president’s proposals could grow deficits by as much as $15 trillion over a decade.Former President Donald J. Trump’s economic proposals could inflame the nation’s debt burden while ultimately raising costs for a vast majority of Americans, according to a pair of new economic analyses that are among the most in-depth studies to date of the Republican nominee’s plans.The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that seeks lower deficits, found that Mr. Trump’s various plans could add as much as $15 trillion to the nation’s debt over a decade. That is nearly twice as much as the economic plans being proposed by Vice President Kamala Harris.And an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a liberal think tank, found that Mr. Trump’s tax and tariff plans would, on average, amount to a tax increase for every income group except the top 5 percent of highest-earning Americans.The two new studies differ in some respects. The budget group looked at the cost of both candidates’ tax and spending plans over 10 years, while the tax institute focused on what the impacts of Mr. Trump’s tax and tariff plans would be in 2026. But together they show that Mr. Trump’s agenda could be both costly and regressive by placing a greater burden on those making the least amount of money.Over the course of his campaign, Mr. Trump has floated a flurry of potentially far-reaching policies, including exempting certain forms of pay from taxes and levying broad tariffs on nearly all imports to the United States. He also wants to extend elements of the tax law he enacted in 2017 that are set to expire after next year.“It’s almost difficult to come up with a tax plan that would raise taxes on most Americans, but still increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars a year — and that’s what this does,” Steve Wamhoff, the federal policy director at I.T.E.P., said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Harris Economic Plan Focuses on Prices, a Key Vulnerability

    by

    Vice President Kamala Harris has been balancing the challenges of defending “Bidenomics” and charting her own course on the economy.As Vice President Kamala Harris unveiled her economic plans in recent weeks, former President Donald J. Trump has accused her of being a Marxist, a communist and a socialist.When they meet on Tuesday night for their only scheduled presidential debate, Ms. Harris will have the opportunity to rebut those claims and confront Mr. Trump about his record of managing the U.S. economy.She will also lay out her vision, which has been challenging as she tries to defend “Bidenomics” and demonstrate that she has a plan to chart a new course amid widespread economic discontent among many Americans who are struggling with high prices and other affordability issues.In a compressed presidential campaign, Ms. Harris indicated that she would continue many of President Biden’s policies, which aim to raise taxes on companies and punish them for price gouging, while also trying to strike a more business-friendly tone. In some cases, such as her embrace of ending taxation of tips, the vice president has even shown a willingness to adopt the policies put forward by Mr. Trump.How Ms. Harris would ultimately govern if elected will depend largely on the makeup of Congress, but her initial suite of proposals — from taxes to trade to child care — suggests that she would take the economy in a vastly different direction than her Republican opponent.Cost of LivingPerhaps Ms. Harris’s biggest political vulnerability is the run-up in prices that occurred during the Biden administration. Mr. Trump has repeatedly blamed the vice president for causing inflation to surge after the coronavirus pandemic, a phenomenon that stemmed from a mix of factors such as supply chain issues, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and repeated bursts of fiscal stimulus to keep families and businesses afloat. The higher cost of goods initially hurt Mr. Biden when he was running against Mr. Trump, and Ms. Harris is now facing many of the same concerns from Americans who are feeling negative about a relatively strong economy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Poverty Increased in 2023 as Prices Rose and Pandemic Aid Programs Expired

    by

    More faced hardship in the United States last year, the Census Bureau said, as inflation and the end of subsidies outweighed higher incomes.The nation’s poverty rate rose last year even as incomes improved, the government reported on Tuesday, reflecting higher prices and the expiration of the last pandemic relief programs.The share of Americans living in poverty as defined by the Census Bureau’s “supplemental” measure, which takes into account a broader range of benefits and expenses than the official poverty rate, rose to 12.9 percent in 2023, from 12.4 percent in 2022. The median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose to $80,610, finally regaining its prepandemic level.Poverty levels have risen anew in recent years after a wave of pandemic relief aid — and an exceptionally strong labor market that lifted the wages of many at the bottom of the pay spectrum — collided with the most rapid inflation in a generation.Stimulus checks, extra unemployment insurance and expanded tax credits for low-income families cut child poverty in half in 2021, to the lowest rate since record keeping began, in 1967. But the expiration of those supports, along with the jump in prices for food and other necessities, reversed the gains in 2022.“You need two kinds of strategies to keep poverty down: One is the economic strategy, and one is the investments in core programs and the safety net,” said Olivia Golden, interim executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy, a progressive advocacy group. “To me, the idea that policies have high stakes in terms of the lives of families and their material hardship is very vivid as you look over the last few years.”The income gains were particularly pronounced for low-wage households, rural households and men, with the gap between male and female earnings rising for the first time since 2003. Census officials say that may have been because of an increase in the labor force participation of Hispanic women, who tend to earn less.Poverty Rebounded Sharply in 2022 and 2023As pandemic aid expired and prices rose, the share of Americans living below the poverty threshold went back up.

    Data is the “supplemental” poverty rate, which accounts for taxes and subsidies. Gaps in data are due to changes in Census Bureau methodology.Source: Columbia Center on Poverty and Social Policy analysis of U.S. Census Bureau dataBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Harris and Trump Have Differing Plans to Solve Housing Crisis

    by

    The two presidential nominees are talking about their approaches for solving America’s affordability crisis. But would their plans work?America’s gaping shortage of affordable housing has rocketed to the top of voter worry lists and to the forefront of campaign promises, as both the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, and the Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump, promise to fix the problem if they are elected.Their two visions of how to solve America’s affordable housing shortage have little in common, and Ms. Harris’s plan is far more detailed. But they do share one quality: Both have drawn skepticism from outside economists.Ms. Harris is promising a cocktail of tax cuts meant to spur home construction — which several economists said could help create supply. But she is also floating a $25,000 benefit to help first-time buyers break into the market, which many economists worry could boost demand too much, pushing home prices even higher. And both sets of policies would need to pass in Congress, which would influence their design and feasibility.Mr. Trump’s plan is garnering even more doubt. He pledges to deport undocumented immigrants, which could cut back temporarily on housing demand but would also most likely cut into the construction work force and eventually limit new housing supply. His other ideas include lowering interest rates, something that he has no direct control over and that is poised to happen anyway.Economist misgivings about the housing market policy plans underline a somber reality. Few quick fixes are available for an affordable housing shortfall that has been more than 15 years in the making, one that is being worsened by demographic and societal trends. While ambitious promises may sound good in debates and television ads, actual policy attempts to fix the national housing shortfall are likely to prove messy and slow — even if they are sorely needed.Here’s what the candidates are proposing, and what experts say about those plans.Harris: Expand Supply Using Tax Credits.Ms. Harris is promising to increase housing supply by expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, providing incentives for state and local investment in housing and creating a $40 billion tax credit to make affordable projects economically feasible for builders.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Trump and Harris Embody a Stark Partisan Divide on Fighting Poverty

    by

    The two presidential candidates can both point to records of pushing poverty rates down, but their approaches could hardly be more different.Follow the latest updates on the Harris and Trump campaigns.The presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump presents the sharpest clash in antipoverty policy in at least a generation, and its outcome could shape the economic security of millions of low-income Americans.As the onset of the pandemic in early 2020 threatened to decimate the economy, Mr. Trump signed a large stimulus package that included substantial aid for the poor. When President Biden and Ms. Harris took office in 2021, their administration pushed more big aid expansions through Congress as part of their pandemic-recovery plan, driving the poverty rate still lower.But if the two candidates’ responses to that extraordinary period had elements in common, the lessons they took from it were very different.In the pandemic-era programs, now mostly expired or reduced, Ms. Harris and other Democrats found reinforcement of their faith in the government’s power to ameliorate hardship. If elected, she would seek to sustain or expand many of them, including subsidies for food, health care and housing, and revive a change to the child tax credit that essentially created a guaranteed income for families with children. Those policies helped temporarily cut the poverty rate by more than half from prepandemic levels.She backs a $15 federal minimum wage, which Republicans have fought, and is a vocal supporter of programs like subsidized child care and paid family leave meant to help balance work and family.Mr. Trump says little about his role in pandemic-era poverty programs, which many Republicans view as having been excessive and fraud-ridden. Instead, he touts his 2017 tax cuts, which he credits for boosting the economy and reducing poverty to a prepandemic low, and he has vowed to extend them when they expire next year. Most of the direct benefit from those cuts went to corporations and the wealthy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Care Policies Take Center Stage in Harris’s Economic Message

    by

    The Democratic nominee says she wants to make raising a family more affordable. But she has provided few details on her proposals.The “care economy” — a broad set of policies aimed at helping parents and other caregivers — was the great unfinished work of President Biden’s domestic agenda. Vice President Kamala Harris has made it a central aspect of her campaign to succeed him.Ms. Harris, the Democratic nominee, has spoken frequently on the campaign trail about making it more affordable to raise children. She chose a running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, whose signature policy accomplishments include the creation of a paid family leave program.In the first major economic speech of her campaign, she proposed restoring an expanded child tax credit and called for a new $6,000 benefit for parents of newborns. She also laid out policies that aim to reduce housing costs, such as providing up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance to first-time home buyers.In her speech accepting the Democratic nomination on Thursday, Ms. Harris said she would not let conservatives end programs like Head Start that “provide preschool and child care for our children.”But Ms. Harris has not yet offered specific proposals on child care, paid family leave or early childhood education. That has surprised some progressive policy experts, and brought flashbacks of the Biden administration’s inability to enact more sweeping policies.Mr. Biden also initially made the care economy a central piece of his domestic policy agenda, putting it alongside proposed investments in roads and bridges, domestic manufacturing and green energy. His aides often argued that care was a form of infrastructure — that affordable child care, like highways, was essential to a well-functioning economy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More