The impending expiration of large portions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act at the end of 2025 presents federal policymakers with a significant opportunity to reform the federal tax code in the United States. Too often, political openings for pro-growth tax reform have instead been transformed into opportunities to introduce new tax cuts for those at the top of the income and wealth distribution. Proponents of these tax cuts usually defend their actions by invoking a now-widely discredited “trickle-down” theory of economic growth.

Despite strong state performance in job growth and employment, too many households in North Carolina are struggling to make ends meet and cope with the rising cost of living — especially those with young children. Widespread low incomes and elevated poverty rates are preventing families from meeting their needs, reaching their potential, and contributing their full talents to our communities. The prevalence of this financial hardship has direct consequences for the long-term well-being of children and our state’s economy.

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Representative Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) wrote to the CEOs of Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and General Mills, pressing their executives on the companies’ pattern of profiteering off consumers, both through “shrinkflation” and dodging taxes on the profits they made from that price gouging.

Every year, Idaho tax dollars are spent to ensure families receive a good education, live in safe communities, experience good health, and drive on safe roads. However, over the past four years, lawmakers have passed deep and costly tax cuts and reforms. These cuts were made in response to temporary budget surpluses that were largely driven by federal pandemic relief, but they have long term consequences. The changes to Idaho’s tax code —which are permanent and tilted toward wealthy households and corporations — weaken state revenues by growing amounts over time, limiting the state’s ability to maintain support for schools and other vital public services. The changes also made the state’s tax system more regressive, disproportionately burdening Idaho households with the lowest incomes.

Immigration has been a source of strength for the U.S. economy and has great potential to boost it even more, but the current U.S. immigration policy regime squanders too many of its potential benefits by depriving immigrants of their full rights as workers and granting employers too much power to manipulate the system. It is crystal clear that immigration expands U.S. gross domestic product and is good for growth. And immigration overall has led to better, not worse, wages and work opportunities for U.S.-born workers. Yet, it is also clear that when workers are denied full and equal labor and employment rights, as some immigrants are when their immigration status is used against them—it makes immigrant workers’ lives more precarious and can harm the people with whom they work side-by-side in the same industries.

Federal lawmakers will face several key fiscal policy deadlines in 2025. These deadlines include, but are not limited to, the federal government’s debt limit taking effect in January 2025; the end of the current spending caps on the federal government’s annual budget in September 2025; the sunsetting of enhanced health care marketplace subsidies, which provided an estimated $38.4 million to Granite Staters in 2023 to help them afford individual health coverage, at the end of 2025; and the expiration of key components of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) after December 2025.

Major tax policy changes enacted by Ohio lawmakers since Governor Taft’s 2005 State Budget Bill ask families with the lowest incomes to pay more, the wealthy to pay less, and the state to forgo the resources it needs to ensure the prosperity of its residents. Those are the conclusions of a new analysis conducted for Policy Matters by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).

Key provisions of the 2017 Trump tax law are scheduled to expire at the end of 2025. Given the law’s fundamental problems — its high cost, skew toward high-income people, and failure to produce the promised economic benefits — policymakers should take that opportunity to make a course correction in the nation’s revenue policies. This would mean adhering to three principles: ending the tax cuts for high-income households on schedule, raising more revenue, and making new investments that prioritize low- and moderate-income people and families.