chuckcbpp.bsky.social

news.bloomberglaw.comRaise the Corporate Tax Rate to Stem AI-Related Economic InequityOpinion: AI’s economic impacts may include more inequity and job dislocations and losses. A higher corporate rate would raise substantial revenue from the wealthy without stifling innovation or growth...

New: Even before the rise of AI, the case for raising the corporate tax rate was compelling. Now, I think it’s overwhelming. news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and...

moores.samaltman.comMoore's Law for EverythingWe need to design a system that embraces this technological future and taxes the assets that will make up most of the value in that world–companies and land–in order to fairly distribute some of the c...

Also, even key tech leaders recognize that the current tilt in tax treatment in favor of capital over paychecks makes no sense in an AI economy. moores.samaltman.com?isPin=false

While the potential economic upsides of AI are immense, so are the potential economic downsides. Tax policy needs to help us prepare for those risks. news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and...

New: Even before the rise of AI, the case for raising the corporate tax rate was compelling. Now, I think it’s overwhelming. news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and...

Research suggests that nearly all of the corporate tax falls on excess profits. Market concentration implications of foundation models: The Invisible Hand of ChatGPT | Brookings

hamiltonproject.orgTaking on tax: Toward progressive revenue-raising business tax reform - The Hamilton ProjectHamilton Project director Aviva Aron-Dine discusses three new Hamilton Project proposals that offer ideas to raise revenue from business tax reform.

A higher corporate rate of say 30% wouldn’t rebuild our revenue base by itself, but it could anchor a broader tax-reform package, eg. restricting interest deductibility given expensing, deter profit shifting, higher rates for pass-throughs www.hamiltonproject.org/publication/...

New: Even before the rise of AI, the case for raising the corporate tax rate was compelling. Now, I think it’s overwhelming. news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and...

cbpp.orgPolicymakers Should Raise Corporate Tax Rates as Alternative to Harmful and Regressive TariffsPolicymakers should abandon the Administration’s economically harmful and regressive tariffs and pursue more efficient and equitable revenue-raising policies.

The corporate tax would be a relatively efficient way to raise revenue because a large and growing share of the corporate tax base consists of “excess profits” or “rents” www.cbpp.org/research/fed...

Excess profits are rising, in part, because of declining competition and increasing concentration among corporations, a trend that AI may reinforce.

New: Even before the rise of AI, the case for raising the corporate tax rate was compelling. Now, I think it’s overwhelming. news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and...

A progressive tax on capital that raises lots of $ -- Bingo – raise the corporate tax rate.

There’s lots of room to raise it after Trump and Rs cut it below what even corporate lobbyists were asking for and it failed to deliver on their promises:

New: Even before the rise of AI, the case for raising the corporate tax rate was compelling. Now, I think it’s overwhelming. news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and...

After taxes and transfers, our country is the most unequal among our wealthy peers. And, AI could increase inequality, i.e. the revenue we need to raise should be progressive.

The labor share of national income has been falling for decades and now many economists warn widespread AI adoption could cause even more income to flow to capital owners – and, therefore, so should taxes.

New: Even before the rise of AI, the case for raising the corporate tax rate was compelling. Now, I think it’s overwhelming. news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and...

nber.orgWage Insurance for Displaced WorkersFounded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, an...

Our UI system, even before AI, needed extensive updating. Policymakers should also take a fresh look at wage insurance, which has been used successfully on a small scale to help some workers facing globalization-related job losses. www.nber.org/papers/w32464

In 2025, federal revenue was 17.2% of GDP, the same as in 1963 (before Medicaid and Medicare were even enacted). As a result, despite a growing economy, the deficit last year exceeded $1.75 trillion. We need more revenue.

New: Even before the rise of AI, the case for raising the corporate tax rate was compelling. Now, I think it’s overwhelming. news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and...

On so many levels, we are not ready for AI, including fiscally. We already had large budget and investments deficits. Trump made them worse by taking away food assistance and healthcare. With AI now in the mix, it could lead to labor market disruption

nytimes.comOpinion | Bernie Moreno and Elizabeth Warren: Our Plan to Save Social SecurityTo save the program, we need to eliminate the payroll tax cap.

Senators Warren and Moreno recently proposed a plan to lift the Social Security wage cap to help avoid benefit cuts and reduce its financing gap. This is a serious bipartisan proposal and fixing Social Security will likely require bipartisan compromise. www.nytimes.com/2026/06/23/o...

Senators Warren and Moreno themselves recognized the need to not just rely on taxing the very wealthiest. They rightly didn’t exempt earnings between the current cap and a new cap from Social Security taxes (i.e. their proposal has no “donut hole”).

Kudos to Senators Warren and Moreno for coming together to work on a serious bipartisan proposal, and for helping start a serious bipartisan conversation.

nytimes.comOpinion | Bernie Moreno and Elizabeth Warren: Our Plan to Save Social SecurityTo save the program, we need to eliminate the payroll tax cap.

There’s no question there are also other progressive taxes on capital income & corporations, which could help fund these kinds of investments.

But it’s also arguable that it could be more politically viable to raise taxes more broadly in the Social Security context, which could allow some of the revenue from the highest earners from raising the cap to be left for other purposes.

nytimes.comOpinion | Bernie Moreno and Elizabeth Warren: Our Plan to Save Social SecurityTo save the program, we need to eliminate the payroll tax cap.

Critics have pointed out the opportunity costs that policymakers need to wrestle with, & they have a point. We have many needs - too many ppl can’t afford food, rent, and health care & we need to invest in bldg blocks of our economy like educ, science, & clean energy.

Raising the wage cap all the way up the earnings scale and using it for Social Security solvency means that this revenue won’t be available for these other needs.

nytimes.comOpinion | Bernie Moreno and Elizabeth Warren: Our Plan to Save Social SecurityTo save the program, we need to eliminate the payroll tax cap.

It is also sound policy, if supplemented with policies to limit tax avoidance by preventing the wealthy from shifting their earned income to lower-taxed sources.

While granting it was smaller, it seems worth highlighting there’s precedent for this approach: in 1994, policymakers eliminated the Medicare tax wage cap, which was once the same as Social Security’s.

nytimes.comOpinion | Bernie Moreno and Elizabeth Warren: Our Plan to Save Social SecurityTo save the program, we need to eliminate the payroll tax cap.

One might expect fiscal hawks to welcome a serious proposal that could close more than half of Social Security’s financing gap while reducing the overall deficit.

Instead, some have criticized that it does not solve the entire solvency problem on its own. But it’s unlikely that any one policy change will be the full solution; getting more than halfway there would be a good start.

House Republicans proposed another reckless cut in the IRS budget. The proposed 9% cut would take the IRS budget to 44% below its 2010 level. This gutting of the IRS is a betrayal of honest taxpayers. It should be rejected out of hand

Fewer sophisticated auditors means that fewer wealthy people will be audited. See below how audits of wealthy people plummeted since 2010 when Republicans began their latest round of gutting the IRS.

Going fwd, the Trump Admin plans to dramatically cut the number of audits Biden planned. Today House Republicans take a step toward that by proposing a destructive $1.4B enforcement cut. Congress should not signal that tax cheats can proceed w limited oversight.

Fewer sophisticated auditors means that fewer wealthy people will be audited. See below how audits of wealthy people plummeted since 2010 when Republicans began their latest round of gutting the IRS.

Currently, *the IRS has fewer auditors than it has had since the 1950s* – not a typo! – because Republicans have previously gutted the enforcement budget.

washingtonpost.comDemocrat’s plan would eliminate federal income taxes for half of U.S. workersSen. Chris Van Hollen’s tax relief plan could benefit tens of millions of middle-class workers, with a focus on those making at or below a living wage.

The Van Hollen-Beyer et al tax cut bill was released today so just re-upping our prior thread and adding a few tweets with numbers now that more details are available:

chuckcbpp.bsky.social@chuckcbpp.bsky.social

The latest Democratic affordability proposal–this one from Senator Van Hollen– was previewed in the Washington Post by @jeffstein.bsky.social this morning. While we don’t have all the details, it seems like a case of good intentions but some problematic results www.washingtonpost.com/business/202...

For example, a married couple with 2 kids & income at $50k gets $780, while a couple without kids & income at $50k gets $1,780. A married couple with no kids & income at $92k gets over $6,000.

Most troubling: Looking at the poorest 40% of kids of tax filers, 3 in 4 get $0 from the proposal (prelim estimate). This is challenging given that low-inc fams have been hit hard by the Trump tariffs and tend to already face the most pressing affordability challenges.

The Van Hollen-Beyer et al tax cut bill was released today so just re-upping our prior thread and adding a few tweets with numbers now that more details are available:

chuckcbpp.bsky.social@chuckcbpp.bsky.social

Problem 1: People w/ larger affordability challenges get less (or nothing): a single worker making $20k, far below their $46k cost of living income target, only gets $390. A person w/ inc at the $46k target gets $3,340. (It’s good that ppl with high incomes don’t benefit.)