A second notable trend in 2019 is states raising revenue to address longstanding needs and states allocating their surpluses to invest in critical public priorities such as early childhood programs, education and other human services.

Continuing to build upon the momentum of previous years, states are taking steps to create and improve targeted tax breaks meant to lift their most in-need state residents up and out of poverty. Most notably, a range of states are exploring ways to restore, enhance or create state Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC). EITCs are an effective tool to help struggling families with low wages make ends meet and provide necessities for their children. The policy, designed to bolster the earnings of low-wage workers and offset some of the taxes they pay, allows struggling families to move toward meaningful economic…

Panel: In recent years, economists have been engaged in robust academic debate over the top marginal tax rate, with leading researchers estimating the optimal rate to be 73 percent or even higher. Yet despite widespread public support for raising the rate from its current level of 37 percent, many policymakers and media figures have demonstrated misunderstandings over what marginal tax rates are and how they work.

A recent headline tells us that bold tax plans proposed by lawmakers today reflect a “profound shift in public mood.” But, in fact, the public’s mood has not changed at all. Americans have long wanted progressive taxes but few, if any, lawmakers publicly backed this view. What’s happening now isn’t a shift in public opinion, rather it’s Washington finally catching up with the American people.

America has long needed a more equitable tax code that raises enough revenue to invest in building shared prosperity. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), enacted at the end of 2017, moved the federal tax code in the opposite direction, reducing revenue by $1.9 trillion over a decade, opening new loopholes, and providing its most significant benefits to the well-off. The law cut taxes on the wealthy directly by reducing their personal income taxes and estate taxes, and indirectly by reducing corporate taxes.

Progressive tax proposals are finally being discussed with the urgency and seriousness they deserve. Following Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s call for a much higher marginal tax rate for multi-millionaires and Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to introduce a wealth tax for those at the very top, Sen. Bernie Sanders has introduced a revised version of his proposal to reform the federal estate tax.

Even though income derived from capital gains receives a special lower tax rate and is therefore undertaxed, some proponents of lower taxes on the wealthy claim that capital gains are overtaxed due to the effects of inflation. But existing tax breaks for capital gains more than compensate for any problem related to inflation. Congress should repeal or restrict special tax provisions for capital gains rather than creating even more breaks.

Watch the video recording below for discussion on how ITEP’s distributional data can be part of an advocacy and communications strategy for securing state tax policies that raise enough revenue to fund various priorities. Outline includes a brief overview of findings from the sixth edition of Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States as well as insight from state advocates who use Who Pays? and other tax policy analyses research to pursue their legislative agendas.

Earlier today, several news organizations reported that Sen. Elizabeth Warren is set to formally propose a federal wealth tax. Immediately after, social media was atwitter with comments that ranged from praise to predictable outcries of how will the wealthy cope if forced to pay more in taxes.

A federal wealth tax on the richest 0.1 percent of Americans is a viable approach for Congress to raise revenue and is one of the few approaches that could truly address rising inequality. As this report explains, an annual federal tax of only 1 percent on the portion of any taxpayer’s net worth exceeding the threshold for belonging to the wealthiest 0.1 percent (likely to be about $32.2 million in 2020) could raise $1.3 trillion over a decade.

Wealth inequality is much greater than income inequality. The 1 percent of Americans with the highest incomes receive about a fifth of the total income in the United States.  In contrast, the top 1 percent of wealth holders in the United States own 42 percent of the nation’s wealth, according to estimates from University of California at Berkley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.

A federal wealth tax on the top 0.1 percent of households could raise significant tax revenue, curb growing economic inequality and help make the tax system fairer, a new report released today by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) finds.

A first-of-its-kind look at state excise taxes on legal cannabis sales finds that taxing the substance can be a meaningful source of state revenue but cautions that achieving sustainable revenues over time will be difficult under the price-based tax structures adopted in most states thus far.

State policy toward cannabis is evolving rapidly. While much of the debate around legalization has rightly focused on potential health and criminal justice impacts, legalization also has revenue implications for state and local governments that choose to regulate and tax cannabis sales. This report describes the various options for structuring state and local taxes on cannabis and identifies approaches currently in use. It also undertakes an in-depth exploration of state cannabis tax revenue performance and offers a glimpse into what may lie ahead for these taxes.

This year lawmakers in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont will all be debating the taxation of recreational cannabis. A new ITEP report reviews the track record of recreational cannabis taxes thus far and offers recommendations for structuring cannabis taxes to achieve stable revenue growth over the long haul.

Enacting Worldwide Combined Reporting or Complete Reporting in all states, this report calculates, would increase state tax revenue by $17.04 billion dollars. Of that total, $2.85 billion would be raised through domestic Combined Reporting improvements, and $14.19 billion would be raised by addressing offshore tax dodging (see Table 1). Enacting Combined Reporting and including known tax havens would result in $7.75 billion in annual tax revenue, $4.9 billion from income booked offshore.