Clear nonpartisan analysis of fiscal and tax policy enables policymakers and the public to weigh competing theories on how to end the country’s economic crisis. Urban Institute researchers evaluated key components of the stimulus package and analyzed the tax proposals in the president’s budget. Warning decisionmakers about the unsustainable fiscal course ahead, our experts propose ways to control deficits and reform the entitlement programs that drive up spending. Read more.
Clear nonpartisan analysis of fiscal and tax policy enables policymakers and the public to weigh competing theories on how to end the country’s economic crisis. Urban Institute researchers evaluated key components of the stimulus package and analyzed the tax proposals in the president’s budget. Warning decisionmakers about the unsustainable fiscal course ahead, our experts propose ways to control deficits and reform the entitlement programs that drive up spending. Read more.
Reform of the Social Security benefit structure should proceed on the basis of principles and goals related to adequacy, protections in old age, encouragement of work to protect the tax base on which programs like this depend, and equal justice under the law for those equally situated. Many features of current law violate basic principles of public finance without promoting other worthy goals in an effective or well-targeted manner. In his testimony before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, Gene Steuerle lays out how to go beyond the types of options put forward by many proposals under consideration to achieve such reform.
In a contribution to the New York Times' Room for Debate, Kim Rueben argues if the tax rate for marijuana is too high, people will continue to buy weed from the guy on the street. However, setting the tax rate too low leaves revenue on the table and use might boom.
This paper attempts to better understand rhetoric over the charitable contributions deduction, arguing that debate surrounding the deduction is ultimately a projection of more fundamental debates relating to the theme of government versus charity. The phrase "government versus charity" can mean government as opposed to charity or government in opposition to charity. The first sense contemplates the need to choose which of government versus charity should supply a given good or service. The second sense contemplates the ideal regulatory posture of government in relation to charity. Competing views over the charitable contributions deduction often reduce to competing views over these two issues.
The Heritage Foundation has repeatedly and misleadingly claimed that Urban Institute research shows most states would experience budget problems if they implemented the ACA's Medicaid expansion. In fact, every comprehensive fiscal analysis done at the state level has concluded that expansion would yield net state budget gains, with revenues and savings that exceed increased state costs. All states must pay for national health reform but only those that expand Medicaid will receive large, offsetting allotments of federal Medicaid dollars, with resulting economic activity, jobs, and state revenue. Solid research shows that Medicaid expansion saves lives and improves access to care.
Latest Research
