Social_Policy

Over the past seventy years Congress has enacted dozens of tax and transfer programs, giving little if any attention to the marriage subsidies and penalties that they inadvertently impose. Although the programs affect both rich and poor Americans, the penalties fall most heavily on low- or moderate-income households with children.

One response to Hurricane Katrina was a very generous outpouring of concern and care by Americans throughout the country. Many of our contributions could be handled immediately only because a solid infrastructure of charities already existed. Our many charities are a tremendous source of strength of which we can and should be very proud. On a personal note, I have been involved with charities at almost every level: as a recipient, as a contributor, as a founder, and as a researcher who studies charitable giving and charitable organizations.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina there have been proposals both to cap gasoline prices (e.g. Hawaii) or to suspend the collection of state or federal gas taxes (e.g. Georgia) as a response to rising gas prices. Although retail gasoline prices have reached an all-time high, gasoline taxes are not to blame. Gasoline taxes (both federal and state) average 43 cents per gallon and have fallen in real terms. Gasoline prices and taxes do vary across regions but there is little correlation between tax rates and prices.

For nearly a decade, federal higher education subsidies have increasingly been delivered through the tax code rather than through direct spending programs such as grants, loan subsidies, and work study. This paper reviews the results of using new modules in the TRIM and Tax Policy Center microsimulation models to estimate the distributional impacts and expenditure and revenue effects of major federal higher education tax and spending policies.

The IRS does not administer well items for which it does not have information reporting. Extending information reporting to most charitable contributions would simplify life for most individual givers, improve compliance, and likely be better for the charitable sector as well. An improved information reporting for charitable contributions goes hand-in-hand with the continually improving systems of accounting that accompany the advances of information technology.

Some of the costliest tax expenditures the federal government allows go to subsidizing homeownership. In 2004, the total tax expenditure value of the mortgage interest deduction was $70.2 billion while the value for the real estate tax deduction was $19.3 billion. Fifty-four percent of these sums went to taxpayers at or above $100,000 of income and 72 percent went to taxpayers at or above $75,000.

Low-income working families face enormous challenges. Key among them is how to pay for decent child care. The federal income tax code subsidizes child care in several ways. The largest subsidy is the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC), a nonrefundable tax credit that offsets up to 35 percent of working parents' child care costs, subject to limits. Though not earmarked specifically for child care, the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC) provide more help to low-income working families.

Several pressures are combining to force lawmakers to seek a more permanent resolution to the estate tax issue. This article suggests a possible compromise that would enhance the ability of wealthy individuals to avoid paying tax to government and still pass on significant assets to their heirs-but only if they make substantial contributions to charity. The compromise includes giving a substantial credit against estate tax for charitable gifts.

Child care's costs can be too high for low-income working families. As of 2004, along with a federal credit for child care expenses, 27 states offered tax credits or deductions to offset these expenses. Thirteen states offered a refundable child care credit—at least for low-income families; twelve states, care credits that were non-refundable; and three states, a deduction of child care expenses (Maryland offered both a non-refundable credit and a deduction).

The way federal housing benefits are doled out suggests a U-shaped curve; subsidies are heaped on most households at higher incomes and some at very low incomes. Those in between get little. This brief describes revenue-neutral reforms that would level out the U-shaped curve and deliver ownership subsidies more equitably and efficiently to lower-to-middle-income households.