Yes, it’s bizarre. Not statutory incidence. Not economic incidence. But some new third special kind of incidence that just happens to confirm one’s priors.

Excellent thread. The cockadoo incidence assumption has always driven me nuts. Should be repudiated by public finance experts.

Looking forward to this discussion- great lineup of panelists: aei.org/events/federal…

2018-2021?

Includes CARES Act, but excludes phase-in of TCJA tax increases.

That's not how I would analyze the impact of the TCJA on effective tax rates.

More seriously, another issue with the '8%' stat is that it excludes a tax that fall heavily on that income: the corporate income tax.

It may be a slow news day when the story is that Kyle and Brendan Duke disagree on how much we should criticize the administration's tax stat.

Leftists expecting Biden to take the side of the student protesters must be truly out of touch with how the public feels about this. There are broad swaths of Dem voters who want them mopped up and tossed out on their asses. It's not a popular movement.

The point of writing is to communicate to others. Impenetrable jargon is bad writing.

Plus, use of jargon is good evidence you don't know a topic well. Much harder to communicate a complex idea in your own words than repeat what you saw in a text book.

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

I don't want to know what the 'No Bagels' thing is about.

He'll get back to it after he releases his healthcare plan.

I would not call raising tariffs 'inflationary'--it would be a *tax increase* after all--but raising them would directly or indirectly reduce the after-tax incomes of Americans.

Join us and American Enterprise Institute on 5/13 in DC for a deep dive into the US fiscal trajectory, its economic effects, and reform options. Our expert panels from academia, government, and industry will provide valuable insights.

Register here to attend in person or online!
aei.org/events/federal…

Not great, but it's been worse.

Not to be the baseline police, but this 'tax hike' is part of current law and will happen regardless of who is president--unless Congress stops it.

'We at Arnold Ventures view legislative efforts to deal with the 2025 expiration of the individual (i.e., non-corporate) provisions of the TCJA on two metrics: tax reform and fiscal sustainability.'

My piece in today's Financial Review explaining why negative gearing is neither a tax concession nor particularly impactful on house prices. Eliminating it would be an unprincipled hack that would distract from the fundamental tax reform we actually need.

afr.com/politics/feder…