New York

If President Trump is indeed a deal maker, then he should dismantle Congress’s decision to rely on private debt collectors as a substitute for the Internal Revenue Service. This decision, championed for years by Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Chuck Schumer, D-New York, is a lousy deal for everyone--American taxpayers, the federal government--except private debt collectors.

This week marks the beginning of what is bound to be a wild year for state tax and budget debates. Essentially every state is already working to sort through the complicated ramifications of the federal tax cuts passed in December, including Kansas, Michigan, Montana, and New Jersey highlighted below. These and other states will have important decisions to make about how to incorporate, reject, or mitigate various aspects of the new federal law, and will need considerable resolve to improve state tax policy to be more fair and more adequate – even as federal taxes become less so.

Residents of California and New York pay a large amount of the nation’s federal personal income taxes relative to their share of the population. As illustrated by the table below, the final GOP-Trump tax bill expected to be approved this week would substantially increase the share of total federal personal income taxes (PIT) paid by both states. Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey would also see their share of federal PIT increase.

The final tax bill that Republicans in Congress are poised to approve would provide most of its benefits to high-income households and foreign investors while raising taxes on many low- and middle-income Americans. The bill would go into effect in 2018 but the provisions directly affecting families and individuals would all expire after 2025, with […]

The final Trump-GOP tax law provides most of its benefits to high-income households and foreign investors while raising taxes on many low- and middle-income Americans. The bill goes into effect in 2018 but the provisions directly affecting families and individuals all expire after 2025, with the exception of one provision that would raise their taxes. To get an idea of how the bill will affect Americans at different income levels in different years, this analysis focuses on the bill’s impacts in 2019 and 2027.

Nearly 30 years ago, Trump was well connected enough that he was able to go to Congress and testify about how tax changes affected his business. Ordinary working people are rarely lucky enough to talk about their personal experiences in front of a congressional committee. So if they want to make their views known about the catastrophe of 2017, it will have to be in election of 2018.

ITEP researchers have produced new reports and analyses that look at various pieces of the tax bill, including: the share of tax cuts that will go to foreign investors; how the plans would affect the number of taxpayers that take the mortgage interest deduction or write off charitable contributions, and remaining problems with the bill in spite of proposed compromises on state and local tax deductions.

As 2017 draws to close, Congress has yet to take legislative action to protect Dreamers. The young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, and are largely working or in school, were protected by President Obama’s 2012 executive action, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). But in September, President Trump announced that he would end DACA in March 2018. Instead of honoring the work authorizations and protection from deportation that currently shields more than 685,000 young people, President Trump punted their lives and livelihood to a woefully divided Congress which is expected to take up legislation…

Republicans in Congress are reported to be considering two versions of a change they claim would “improve” the current bills by making them more generous to residents of higher-taxed states. As illustrated by these estimates, the reality is that these proposals would make little difference on those states and taxpayers hit hardest.

The Senate tax bill, with or without either of the compromises that could be added to it, would shift personal income taxes away from Florida and Texas to states like California and New York, which are already paying a high share relative to their populations.

In the ongoing debate over major federal tax legislation, there is significant focus on how House and Senate bills would eliminate the deduction for state income tax payments and cap the deduction for property taxes at $10,000 per year. At the same time, tax writers have retained deductions for charitable gifts and mortgage interest with what appear to be comparatively minor changes, at least at first glance.

The House passed its “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” November 16th and the Senate passed its version December 2nd. Both bills would raise taxes on many low- and middle-income families in every state and provide the wealthiest Americans and foreign investors substantial tax cuts, while adding more than $1.4 trillion to the deficit over ten years. The graph below shows that both bills are skewed to the richest 1 percent of New York residents.

The House passed its “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” November 16th and the Senate passed its version December 2nd. Both bills would raise taxes on many low- and middle-income families in every state and provide the wealthiest Americans and foreign investors substantial tax cuts, while adding more than $1.4 trillion to the deficit over ten years. National and 50-State data available to download.

A new report from ITEP provides more details on the many breaks and loopholes for wealthy real estate investors like Trump and what a true tax reform would do to close them.

The centerpiece of the House and Senate tax plans is a major tax cut for profitable corporations that the American public does not want, and that will overwhelmingly benefit a small number of wealthy investors living in traditionally “blue” states. New ITEP research shows that poorer states such as West Virginia, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Tennessee would be largely left behind by a corporate tax cut, while the lion’s share of the benefits would remain with a relatively small number of wealthy investors who tend to be concentrated in larger cities near the nation’s coasts.

ITEP has analyzed each of the tax proposals advanced by the House and Senate in recent weeks. While some details have changed, the bottom line is the same: The plans would disproportionately benefit corporations and the wealthy. The Senate tax plan ITEP’s latest analysis examined the proposal that passed the Senate Finance Committee on Nov. […]