“Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management

Showing 49 database articles primarily about Taxation

Currently filtering by:

Remove Taxation

Remove "primary topics only" restriction

Remove 'Database'

Show all 7,320 articles

For whatever topics you select (currently: Taxation):

Include articles that mention this topic 249

Only articles primarily about this topic 49

The Tax Elasticity of Capital Gains and Revenue-Maximizing Rates

Ole Agersnap National Bureau of Economic Research

Date Posted:: October 13, 2020
Is Database:: Database

Research by @OleAgersnap finds that the revenue-maximizing federal capital gains tax rate is btw 38-47%. A 5 percentage point increase in capital gains tax rates could generate $18-30bn in annual federal revenue.

Analysis of capital gains tax elasticity from 1980 to 2016 reveals that the revenue-maximizing federal capital gains tax rate is between 38-47%. The study finds that the elasticity of realizations with respect to capital gains tax rates is approximately -0.3 to -0.5 over a ten-year period, indicating that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. A 5 percentage point increase in capital gains tax rates could generate $18-30bn in annual federal revenue, significantly higher than estimates using an elasticity of -0.7. Current state capital gains tax rates average 4%, with a federal maximum of 23.8%, resulting in an effective keep rate of 75% on realized gains.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Analysis of capital gains tax elasticity over 1980–2016 estimates the revenue-maximizing federal capital gains tax rate at 38–47%, above the current federal maximum of 23.8%.
The study estimates the elasticity of realizations with respect to capital gains tax rates at roughly -0.3 to -0.5 over a ten-year period, indicating that capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
A 5 percentage point increase in capital gains tax rates could generate $18-30bn in annual federal revenue, higher than estimates using an elasticity of -0.7.

“…Our data, which range from 1980 to 2016, allow us to characterize responsiveness in a more recent period than most of the literature, and our event-study approach enables us to estimate effects over different time horizons and test for dynamic effects. We then build a simple framework to relate these state-level effects to a policy-relevant elasticity at the national level, which is the state-level realization response after removing migration effects and accounting for average state taxes and a minor aggregation adjustment term. We find that this policy-relevant elasticity of realizations with respect to capital gains tax rates over a ten year period is approximately -0.3 to -0.5 depending on the specification, and that the estimates are larger in absolute value in the short and medium run than in the long run….This paper uses an event study approach to estimate the effect of capital gains taxation on realizations at the state level, and then develops a framework for determining revenue-maximizing rates at the federal level. We find that the elasticity of revenues with respect to the tax rate over a ten-year period is -0.5 to -0.3,indicating that capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves, and that a 5 percentage point rate increase would yield $18 to $30 billion in annual federal tax revenue. Our long-run estimates yield revenue-maximizing capital gains tax rates of 38 to 47 percent….”

Their takeaway, “….We highlight three implications of these elasticity estimates. First, these estimates are well below an elasticity of one in absolute value, which indicates that capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves. We formallytest and reject the null of an elasticity of -1.0. Second, these estimates suggest thatraising capital gains tax rates by 5 percentage points (in the current regime with unlimited deferral and step-up-basis at death) would yield 18 to 30 billion in annual tax revenue, which is roughly twice the amount suggested based on recent estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), which according to Gravelle (2020) currently uses an elasticity of -0.7 to score proposals.1 Third, ourlong-run elasticity estimates correspond to point estimates for the revenue-maximizing capital gains tax rates of 38 to 47 percent….”

The Tax Elasticity of Capital Gains and Revenue-Maximizing Rates: Extended Excerpt Image 1

Ole Agersnap and Owen Zidar, "The Tax Elasticity of Capital Gains and Revenue-Maximizing Rates," National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2020, https://www.nber.org/papers/w27705

Current state of capital gains taxes, “…Table 1 provides summary statistics. On average, state capital gains tax rates are 4 percent, but they range from 0 to 15 percent in our sample. Figure 1 plots the maximum federal tax rate over time. The current maximum capital gains tax rate is 23.8 percent. Combining both tax rates and accounting for interactions and phase-outs results in an effective keep rate of 75 percent on average, indicating that a dollar of realized capital gains amounts to 75 cents after taxes….”

Worth noting from Owen Zidar (Capitalists in the Twenty-First Century) looks at the impact of changes in treatment of capital gains on the state level to estimate a the revenue-maximizing rates for federal level. They estimate a Federal “…revenue-maximizing capital gains tax rates of 38 to 47 percent…”

Ed Comment: I’m amazed people publish this stuff. It’s embarrassing. As if anyone has a clue. First, I find it hard to believe that they can make any credible measure of the slow and gradual long-term effects of taxes rather than just conflating intermediate-term effects, which are lesser became things change slowly, with long-term effects. Second, I don’t see how cross-state tax rate differences reveals much. If the inherent payoffs are higher in California despite higher taxes then there will gradually be relatively more risk-taking there than elsewhere. but if you apply that rate to Kansas, which has inherently lower payoffs, there will be gradually less. In large part, the rates are different because inherent payoffs allow them to be. Do they consider that? And lastly, is the purpose/definition of optimal taxation to maximize tax revenues? No. Obviously, it should be to maximize welfare. So what have they proven other than that they are fools? But I liked “Capitalists in the Twenty-First Century.”

The Impact of Tariffs on the Cost of Capital in the US

Kyle Pomerleau, Thomas Brosy, Robert McClelland and John Wong American Enterprise Institute

Date Posted:: October 7, 2026
Is Database:: Database

The IEEPA tariffs through January 2026 raised equipment’s user cost of capital 9%, from 17.7% to 19.3%. With depreciation unchanged, the required pre-tax net return rose 1.6pp, 4.3% to 5.9%, a tax at purchase that expensing cannot eliminate.

The standard Hall-Jorgenson user cost of capital framework defines the minimum gross required return on an additional unit of capital. The service price of capital (SS) is the minimum pretax gross return required on a new investment; the minimum pretax net return (ρrho) equals SS minus economic depreciation. Consider imported equipment requiring a 25% gross return: 20% to cover depreciation and 5% shareholders’ demanded return. A 10% tariff raises the cost of capital to 27.5%. [Thus the minimum pretax net return—the hurdle rate—rises from 5% to 7.5%]. For equipment, tariffs raise the cost of capital 9%, from 17.7% to 19.3%: 86% of the burden is direct, 14% indirect. 100% bonus depreciation reduced the equipment METR from 19.1% to 4.1%; tariffs raised it to 30.3%, more than offsetting the tax cut.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Tariffs in force before the February 20, 2026 Supreme Court ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump raised the economy-wide marginal effective tax rate on new US investment by 4.2 points, from 12.8 percent to 17.0 percent, and the cost of capital by 2.7 percent, the AEI authors estimate.
Equipment bore the largest estimated burden, with its marginal effective tax rate rising 26.1 points from 4.1 percent to 30.3 percent and its cost of capital up 9.0 percent, while mainframes and PCs saw a 26.6 percent cost-of-capital increase.
The estimated 4.2 point tariff-driven increase in the marginal effective tax rate offset the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s 3.5 point reduction, leaving a net 0.8 point rise economy-wide and an 11.1 point net increase for equipment.

Ongoing State Tax Revenue Implications of the 2026 California Billionaire Tax Act

Jared Walczak California Tax Foundation

Date Posted:: April 28, 2026
Is Database:: Database

Walczak estimates the 2026 California Billionaire Tax Act would reduce annual state tax revenues by ~$3.53B to $4.49B due to billionaire departures and associated spillovers. The NPV of these ongoing losses would be several times the wealth tax revenue.

This paper estimates ongoing annual reductions in state tax revenue under scenarios based on announced and anticipated billionaire departures. The analysis considers direct impacts on individual income and, to a much lesser extent, sales tax collections, along with spillover effects. We identify 212 California billionaires using the Forbes billionaire list and classify each based on whether their wealth is primarily held in publicly traded equity, a privately held operating business, financial fund management, or a diversified mix of sources. We use classification-specific assumptions of income loss subject to a given billionaire’s departure, assuming that only 5% of public founders’ income will remain California source after a departure, compared to 55 percent for private operating business owners, 35% for financial management, and 15% for diversified wealth. Under our primary scenarios, the wealth tax yields ongoing reductions of $3.53 billion to $4.49 billion per year in income, sales, and other tax collections. Calculations based exclusively on the nine publicly identified billionaire emigres yield $2.77 billion in recurring revenue loss and can be regarded as a lower bound. Actual out-migration almost certainly already exceeds that which has been publicly reported, and continued departures should be expected should the initiative advance.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

The authors estimate the 2026 California Billionaire Tax Act would cut state income, sales, and other tax collections by $3.53 billion to $4.49 billion per year under their primary billionaire-departure scenarios.
Limiting the calculation to the nine publicly identified billionaire emigres yields $2.77 billion in recurring revenue loss, which the authors regard as a lower bound.
The analysis classifies 212 California billionaires from the Forbes billionaire list and assumes post-departure California-source income of 5% for public founders, 55% for private operating business owners, 35% for financial management, and 15% for diversified wealth.

Massachusetts Loses Billions in Income After Millionaire Tax

Greg Ryan Bloomberg

Date Posted:: March 20, 2026
Is Database:: Database
Is Important:: Important

Net outflows of adjusted gross income from Massachusetts increased 8% y/y in 2023 to $4.2B, after a 4% surtax on income over $1mm took effect. Top earners leaving the state were responsible for 70% of the outflow.

Residents exiting Massachusetts took a net of $4.2 billion in adjusted gross income with them in 2023, one of the largest totals in the country, after a tax on millionaires took effect. The amount was an 8% year-over-year increase, according to Internal Revenue Service data, even as the total number of taxpayers leaving the state slowed. This was the first year that residents were subject to a 4% surtax on incomes over $1 million after voters approved the levy in 2022 to fund schools and transportation. Despite the tax’s implementation, the number of residents moving out of Massachusetts who reported income of $200,000 or more — the top bracket tracked in the IRS data — fell year-over-year. Net outflows from Massachusetts long predate the millionaires tax, especially to Florida and New Hampshire, its northern neighbor, which has no tax on wages or capital gains. Total lost income was also higher in 2021 than 2023. The state’s millionaires-tax collections have increased every year since 2023 and so far in fiscal 2026 have jumped 19% year-over-year to $1.3 billion.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Residents leaving Massachusetts took a net $4.2 billion in adjusted gross income with them in 2023, an 8% year-over-year increase and one of the largest totals in the country, according to Internal Revenue Service data.
The number of Massachusetts out-migrants reporting income of $200,000 or more, the top bracket tracked in IRS data, fell year-over-year in 2023, the first year of the voter-approved 4% surtax on incomes above $1 million.
Massachusetts millionaires-tax collections have risen every year since 2023 and are up 19% year-over-year to $1.3 billion so far in fiscal 2026, while net outflows to Florida and New Hampshire predate the surtax.

Who Is Paying for the 2025 U.S. Tariffs?

Mary Amiti, Chris Flanagan, Sebastian Heise, and David Weinstein Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Date Posted:: February 13, 2026
Is Database:: Database
Is Important:: Important

A FRBNY analysis finds that ~90% of tariffs’ economic burden was borne by American firms and consumers in the first 8 months of 2025. Between January and November, however, that incidence declined 8pp as firms reorganised supply chains.

94% of the tariff incidence was borne by the U.S. in the first eight months of 2025. This result means that a 10% tariff caused only a 0.6 percentage point decline in foreign export prices. The tariff pass-through into import prices has declined in the latter part of the year. That is, a larger share of the tariff incidence was borne by foreign exporters by the end of the year. In November, a 10% tariff was associated with a 1.4 percent decline in foreign export prices, suggesting an 86% pass-through to U.S. import prices. Given that the average tariff in December was 13% our results imply that U.S. import prices for goods subject to the average tariff increased by 11% (13 times 0.86) more than those for goods not subject to tariffs. These higher import prices caused firms to reorganize supply chains.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

U.S. buyers bore 94% of the 2025 tariff incidence during the first eight months of the year, with a 10% tariff associated with only a 0.6 percentage point decline in foreign export prices.
Tariff pass-through into U.S. import prices declined later in 2025: in November a 10% tariff was associated with a 1.4% decline in foreign export prices, suggesting 86% pass-through.
With the average tariff at 13% in December, the results imply U.S. import prices for tariffed goods rose 11% more than for untariffed goods, prices that led firms to reorganize supply chains.

Supply and The Mam

Michael Cembalest J.P. Morgan

Date Posted:: February 5, 2026
Is Database:: Database

At ~15%, NYC has the highest combined city-state personal tax rate in the US, and the top marginal corporate income tax rate at 17.4%. The city also has the highest industrial, retail and multifamily property taxes per square foot of 10 major cities.

NYC has the highest combined city-state personal tax rate in the US and the highest all-in corporate income tax rate at 17.4% (state plus city plus MTA surcharge). According to the [Citizens Budget Commission], New York State is the highest tax jurisdiction in the US based on tax collections per capita and #2 on tax collections per $1,000 of personal income. NYC has the highest industrial, retail and multifamily property taxes per square foot of ten major cities.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

New York City carries the highest all-in corporate income tax rate in the US at 17.4%, combining state and city taxes plus the MTA surcharge, along with the highest combined city-state personal tax rate.
The Citizens Budget Commission ranks New York State as the highest tax jurisdiction in the US by tax collections per capita and #2 by tax collections per $1,000 of personal income.
New York City has the highest industrial, retail, and multifamily property taxes per square foot among ten major cities.

Laffer Curves Are Flat

Rachel Moore, Brandon Pecoraro and David Splinter Joint Committee on Taxation

Date Posted:: January 28, 2026
Is Database:: Database
Is Important:: Important

JCT calculations suggest that properly constructed individual income tax Laffer curves are flat over wide ranges. Modeling shifting across business types and interactions btw various taxes under 2022 law, they find revenue is ~ constant for top rates btw 37% and 55%.

Laffer curves estimated with more realistic taxes are flatter, suggesting less potential revenue gains from top rate increases and a lower revenue-maximizing top rate. Standard simplifications miss meaningful behavioral margins such as shifting across tax bases and sectors. Interactions between federal individual income taxes and other taxes produce even flatter Laffer curves and smaller revenue gains from higher top rates. Panel A of Figure 2 shows how federal individual income tax revenues change as the top tax rate varies along the x-axis. With a broad base, total income enters the tax function as a single base, applying the top rate to all income even though much of it qualifies for lower preferential tax rates. With a narrow base, only wage income enters the tax function, which fails to apply the top tax rate to any capital income. The true tax base lies between the narrow and the broad base. The Laffer curve estimated using the tax calculator and true base reaches a more modest peak (only 1.3% more tax revenue) at a top tax rate of 47%. Notably, this additional federal income tax revenue is only about 0.1% of GDP. Relative to both the narrow and broad bases, the true base implies smaller potential revenue gains and a lower revenue-maximizing top tax rate.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

A Laffer curve estimated with a tax calculator and the true tax base peaks at a top rate of 47%, yielding only 1.3% more federal individual income tax revenue, about 0.1% of GDP.
The true tax base lies between a narrow base covering only wage income and a broad base applying the top rate to all income, and it implies smaller potential revenue gains and a lower revenue-maximizing top rate than either.
Standard simplifications omit behavioral margins such as shifting across tax bases and sectors, and interactions between federal individual income taxes and other taxes produce flatter Laffer curves with smaller revenue gains from higher top rates.

Research by @OleAgersnap finds that the revenue-maximizing federal capital gains tax rate is btw 38-47%. A 5 percentage point increase in capital gains tax rates could generate $18-30bn in annual federal revenue.

How high can capital gains tax rates go before revenue falls?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

The IEEPA tariffs through January 2026 raised equipment’s user cost of capital 9%, from 17.7% to 19.3%. With depreciation unchanged, the required pre-tax net return rose 1.6pp, 4.3% to 5.9%, a tax at purchase that expensing cannot eliminate.

Do tariffs raise the effective tax rate on new investment?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Walczak estimates the 2026 California Billionaire Tax Act would reduce annual state tax revenues by ~$3.53B to $4.49B due to billionaire departures and associated spillovers. The NPV of these ongoing losses would be several times the wealth tax revenue.

How much state tax revenue would billionaire departures cost annually?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Net outflows of adjusted gross income from Massachusetts increased 8% y/y in 2023 to $4.2B, after a 4% surtax on income over $1mm took effect. Top earners leaving the state were responsible for 70% of the outflow.

Does a millionaire surtax accelerate income leaving the state?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

A FRBNY analysis finds that ~90% of tariffs’ economic burden was borne by American firms and consumers in the first 8 months of 2025. Between January and November, however, that incidence declined 8pp as firms reorganised supply chains.

Are U.S. buyers bearing most of the cost of tariffs?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

At ~15%, NYC has the highest combined city-state personal tax rate in the US, and the top marginal corporate income tax rate at 17.4%. The city also has the highest industrial, retail and multifamily property taxes per square foot of 10 major cities.

Does New York City impose the highest taxes among major US cities?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

JCT calculations suggest that properly constructed individual income tax Laffer curves are flat over wide ranges. Modeling shifting across business types and interactions btw various taxes under 2022 law, they find revenue is ~ constant for top rates btw 37% and 55%.

How much revenue would raising top tax rates actually generate?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI