<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.newamerica.net" xmlns:dc="
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Fiscal Policy: All Articles and Books</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/issues/5/articles</link>
 <description>Articles View for Key Issues Aggregation Pages</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Why the State Budget Never Adds Up</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/why_state_budget_never_adds_7465</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he wants more than a balanced budget this year. He wants budget reform too.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
For a state that has already laced itself into straitjackets of spending mandates and formulas, Schwarzenegger proposes new constitutional chains: a combined rainy-day fund and spending limit, to be added on top of the rainy-day fund and spending limit that voters have already approved separately. His implicit message: The Legislature and I have chosen badly, so please restrict our ability to choose again.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
As any parent knows, you can&#039;t instill individual responsibility in children by depriving them of the opportunity to choose. The same&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/why_state_budget_never_adds_7465&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/mark_paul/recent_work">Mark Paul</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/42">Los Angeles Times</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/26">New America in California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:58:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7465 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Taxing Some Services Could Help if It&#039;s Fair and Simple</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/taxing_some_services_could_help_if_its_fair_and_simple_7461</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
California State Board of Equalization Chair Judy Chu believes it is time to address our deficit and modernize our sales tax by applying it to services. Her call to modernize our sales tax would be a good start in addressing an underlying cause of our budget problems.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Taxing services is not an outlandish idea. Most states already tax more types of services than does California.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Taxing services is also not a bad idea. Lifestyle changes have led us to spend less on goods subject to California sales tax and more on non-taxable services. For example, two-earner households have greater needs for laundry&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/taxing_some_services_could_help_if_its_fair_and_simple_7461&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/annette_nellen/recent_work">Annette Nellen</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/51">San Jose Mercury News</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/26">New America in California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/consumption_tax">Consumption Tax</category>
 <pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 06:39:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7461 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Not Flat</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/not_flat_7439</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
PL 86-272 provides that if the only in-state activities a business has is the solicitation of orders for tangible personal property that is approved and filled from outside the state, the state may not impose a net income tax on the business. States set the rules, within due process and commerce clause constraints of the U.S. Constitution, for businesses that sell services or intangibles.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
States tend to take broad approaches. A 2007 Illinois Department of Revenue ruling notes that &amp;quot;as a general rule, the Department interprets the concept of nexus as broadly as possible (No. IT 07-0033&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/not_flat_7439&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/annette_nellen/recent_work">Annette Nellen</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1105">AICPA Corporate Taxation Insider</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/26">New America in California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/corporate_taxes">Corporate Taxes</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:04:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7439 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Time To End Waste At the Pentagon</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/time_end_waste_pentagon_7367</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
As Congress prepares to consider the annual Department of Defense authorization bill and other military spending legislation totaling more than $700 billion, the need for more aggressive scrutiny is abundantly clear. At a time when we have a $9.3 trillion national debt and large unmet social needs, oversight of these enormous and ever-increasing sums has failed to keep up.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The Pentagon’s procurement and budgeting processes are rife with problems. For example, the Government Accountability Office has identified $295 billion in cost overruns on 72 major weapons systems, even as the Pentagon can’t balance its books or keep track of its vast&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/time_end_waste_pentagon_7367&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/william_d_hartung/recent_work">William D. Hartung</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/895">The Politico</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1038">Arms and Security Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:54:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7367 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Betting On the Lottery</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/betting_lottery_7322</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Californians could be forgiven for worrying that an important state asset -- the state lottery -- is in grave danger. In recent weeks, a rhetorical barrage, bordering on the hysterical, has been directed at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger&#039;s proposal to borrow against future lottery receipts to help close a $15.2-billion budget gap.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The Contra Costa Times darkly suggested that the governor&#039;s idea would mortgage the lottery&#039;s future and &amp;quot;saddle future generations with irresponsible debt.&amp;quot; The top Democrat in the state Senate, Don Perata of Oakland, called it &amp;quot;the worst kind of market speculation.&amp;quot; Some Republicans have claimed that the proposal is a&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/betting_lottery_7322&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/joe_mathews/recent_work">Joe Mathews</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/42">Los Angeles Times</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/26">New America in California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/2">Education</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <pubDate>Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:43:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7322 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Trouble at the Pentagon</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/trouble_pentagon_7298</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The Pentagon is in crisis: The war in Iraq is entering its fifth hot summer. And while U.S. troop casualties are down, the light at the end of the occupation tunnel is no closer and no brighter.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Headaches mount on the home front as well. The head of the Air Force was recently embarrassed and forced from the cockpit. Billions of dollars have been misplaced or misspent. Huge cost overruns bedevil weapons contractors. And, private contractors have formed a cubicle mercenary force, outnumbering uniformed personnel and federal employees in many DoD agencies.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The Government Accountability Office has issued&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/trouble_pentagon_7298&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/frida_berrigan/recent_work">Frida Berrigan</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1055">Foreign Policy in Focus</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/14">American Strategy Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1038">Arms and Security Initiative</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/7">Foreign Policy</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:03:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7298 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Thirty Years After Prop 13, California Voters Supported Tax Increases In Tuesday’s Election</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/thirty_years_after_prop_13_california_voters_supported_tax_increases_tuesday_s_election_7266</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Voting just three days before the 30th anniversary of the passage of Proposition 13, the landmark Jarvis-Gann initiative that cut property taxes and triggered a tax revolt across the country, voters in the primary election approved dozens of tax increases in local communities around the state.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
By my count from semi-official election results available the day after the election, they passed 26 of 32 proposals to issue school and community college bonds; each of these measures, which raise local property taxes to repay the bonds, required a super-majority (55 percent) vote for passage. They approved 13 of 24 proposals to create&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/thirty_years_after_prop_13_california_voters_supported_tax_increases_tuesday_s_election_7266&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/mark_paul/recent_work">Mark Paul</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/930">California Progress Report</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/26">New America in California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/demographics">Demographics</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:27:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7266 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Battle Of the Budget Slide Shows</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/battle_budget_slide_shows_7227</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&amp;quot;Saving our future requires tough choices today&amp;quot; may be a banal sentiment, but it&#039;s not an easy one to challenge. That is the headline on the &amp;quot;Fiscal Wake-Up Tour,&amp;quot; a slide show created by David M. Walker, formerly head of the Government Accountability Office. In hopes that it will be to the long-term budget deficit what Al Gore&#039;s &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; slide show has been to climate change, Pete Peterson has set aside a billion dollars out of his recent windfall from the Blackstone Group to fund Walker&#039;s national tour and like endeavors.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Walker, Peterson, and groups like the Concord Coalition&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/battle_budget_slide_shows_7227&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/mark_schmitt/recent_work">Mark Schmitt</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/82">The American Prospect</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/4">Health Policy</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 02:14:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7227 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Making a Transaction and Savings Account a Certainty, Just Like Taxes</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/making_transaction_and_savings_account_certainty_just_taxes_7211</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
 In the Feb. 20 issue of Paybefore Update, my colleague, Melissa Koide, discussed a proposal to use prepaid cards to deliver tax refunds through a unique alliance of government and industry, Viewpoints: A Convergence of Opportunities: Delivering Prepaid Accounts at Tax Time (February 2008). We believe the prepaid sector can and should play a major role in working with government to provide an &amp;quot;assets and transactions account&amp;quot; (ATA), a low-cost, high-value transaction account that facilitates savings for financially underserved consumers. The ATA would be opened when a tax filer&#039;s refund is deposited at a regulated financial institution&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/making_transaction_and_savings_account_certainty_just_taxes_7211&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/alejandra_lopez_fernandini/recent_work">Alejandra Lopez-Fernandini</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1228">PayBefore.com</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/15">Asset Building Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1001">Financial Services and Education Project</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/8">Ownership &amp;amp; Assets</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 15:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>adminn</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7211 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Gross Receipts Taxes</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/gross_receipts_taxes_7240</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
In recent years, concern over declining corporate tax collections, aggressive tax planning and state revenue needs have led a few states to consider and even enact a gross receipts tax (GRT) on companies that do businesses within its borders. On the surface, a GRT is simple since it allows no deductions. The broad base allows for a very low rate that can make the tax more palatable. Further, all businesses are typically subject to the GRT, with the result that all businesses contribute something to state coffers.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Yet, many oppose the GRT because of its inherent flaws, one being that it&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/gross_receipts_taxes_7240&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/annette_nellen/recent_work">Annette Nellen</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1105">AICPA Corporate Taxation Insider</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/26">New America in California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/corporate_taxes">Corporate Taxes</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 10:34:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7240 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Goodbye State Tax Deduction</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/goodbye_state_tax_deduction_7243</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The 1984 Treasury Department report (PDF) that laid the foundation for the base broadening and rate reductions of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, called for complete repeal of the itemized deduction for state and local taxes. Citing similar reasons, the 2005 final report of the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform also called for repeal. Yet, there are also proposals to make permanent the ability to deduct either state income or sales tax (for example, HR 3592, 110th Congress).
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Below we’ll get some background on the state and local tax deduction and then&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/goodbye_state_tax_deduction_7243&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/annette_nellen/recent_work">Annette Nellen</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1236">The AICPA Tax Insider</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/26">New America in California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/consumption_tax">Consumption Tax</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/tax_expenditures">Tax Expenditures</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 00:52:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7243 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Gross Receipts Taxes</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/gross_receipts_taxes_7246</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Recent tax reform efforts in Ohio, Texas and Michigan have led to an increase in the number of states imposing gross receipts taxes (GRT). Let&#039;s take a closer look at GRT and some important legal issues surrounding it.
&lt;/p&gt;
Overview
&lt;p&gt;
The Multistate Tax Compact defines a GRT as &amp;quot;a tax, other than a sales tax, which is imposed on or measured by the gross volume of business, in terms of gross receipts or in other terms, and in the determination of which no deduction is allowed which would constitute the tax an income tax&amp;quot; (Article II (PDF)).
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
In 2005, Ohio enacted a&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/gross_receipts_taxes_7246&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/annette_nellen/recent_work">Annette Nellen</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1105">AICPA Corporate Taxation Insider</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/26">New America in California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/corporate_taxes">Corporate Taxes</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 06:21:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7246 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Throw Out the Tax Code</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/throw_out_tax_code_7063</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Politicians don&#039;t like to talk about taxes except to brag about cutting them. But with California&#039;s widening budget deficit threatening deep cuts in education and other public services, it&#039;s difficult to avoid discussions about raising taxes.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Unfortunately, what&#039;s likely to be lost in the upcoming partisan melee over whether new taxes are needed to close the $16-billion gap is an equally important tax issue -- California&#039;s aging and often unfair tax system needs to be overhauled.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The goal of tax reform should be twofold. One is to generate a more reliable revenue stream. The other is to make the tax&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/throw_out_tax_code_7063&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/mark_paul/recent_work">Mark Paul</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/42">Los Angeles Times</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/26">New America in California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1">Economic Growth</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/consumption_tax">Consumption Tax</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/corporate_taxes">Corporate Taxes</category>
 <pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:25:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7063 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Don&#039;t Spend Your Tax Rebate!</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/dont_spend_your_tax_rebate_7016</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The IRS was so confident in the legendary observation of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. that “taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society” they chiseled it above the entrance to their Washington D.C. headquarters. Still each year Tax Day makes incumbent politicians uneasy -- especially at times when recession fears mount and fall elections loom. This year this perilous combination spurred them on to take prompt and bipartisan action. Who wants to be accused of sending families their tax bill as economic growth slows and hardship spreads?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The bipartisan prescription to jumpstart the economy was to deliver over $100&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/dont_spend_your_tax_rebate_7016&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/reid_cramer/recent_work">Reid Cramer</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/772">The American Prospect Online</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/15">Asset Building Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1">Economic Growth</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/8">Ownership &amp;amp; Assets</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:41:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7016 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Arnold vs. Arnold</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/arnold_vs_arnold_7011</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Education cuts and reform campaigns can be the drinking and driving of California politics. Each carries certain risks when pursued separately. Combined, they can be deadly.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
This is a truth that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has found hard to accept. Three years ago, just as he launched his breakneck drive to win voter approval of budget and political reforms, he decided to withhold part of a mandated increase in education funding from his 2005-06 budget proposal. The delay in Proposition 98 funding soon consumed the public attention that Schwarzenegger wanted directed toward his reform proposals. His favorability rating dropped more than 20&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/arnold_vs_arnold_7011&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/joe_mathews/recent_work">Joe Mathews</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/42">Los Angeles Times</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/26">New America in California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/2">Education</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/9">Political Reform</category>
 <pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7011 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>New Taxes And Tax Policy</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/new_taxes_and_tax_policy_7248</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
In recent years, there have been enactments and proposals for a variety of new taxes at both the U.S. state and local levels. A key impetus for these changes is the need for more revenue to fund state and local governments. While existing taxes could be increased to generate revenue, other sources have been considered for a variety of reasons. This article looks at a few recent examples and how they stack up under the principles of good tax policy.
&lt;/p&gt;

Examples
&lt;p&gt;
Sources of new tax revenue are sometimes tied to activities that lawmakers believe may have some type of adverse social policy&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/new_taxes_and_tax_policy_7248&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/annette_nellen/recent_work">Annette Nellen</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1236">The AICPA Tax Insider</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/26">New America in California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/consumption_tax">Consumption Tax</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:54:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7248 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>The 50th Anniversary Of Public Law 86-272</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/50th_anniversary_public_law_86_272_7249</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Public Law 86-272, addressing circumstances under which a multistate business may owe state income taxes, was enacted as a stopgap measure on September 14, 1959. For the past several years, efforts to reform this law have raised issues similar to those of 1959. This article provides a brief history and the issues surrounding PL 86-272 and poses the question -- when the 50th anniversary milestone is reached, will PL 86-272 be in its historic form or a new form (and what might that be)?
&lt;/p&gt;

1959 Supreme Court Decision
&lt;p&gt;
In February 1959, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Northwestern Cement v.&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/50th_anniversary_public_law_86_272_7249&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/annette_nellen/recent_work">Annette Nellen</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1105">AICPA Corporate Taxation Insider</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/26">New America in California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/corporate_taxes">Corporate Taxes</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:29:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">7249 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Don&#039;t Link School Spending To Oil Companies&#039; Profits</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/dont_link_school_spending_oil_companies_profits_6934</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Last week, a bill was proposed by a majority of Assemly Democrats to impose extra taxes on oil companies to help prevent pink slips for teachers. A March 12 vote, mostly along party lines, failed to garner the required two-thirds majority for passage of a tax increase.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
But Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez has said he does not plan to give up on the idea.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Despite the importance of not laying off teachers, failure to pass was a good result. The bill, ABX3 9, is not the solution for keeping teachers employed or solving California&#039;s budget problems.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Budget problems cannot be solved with taxes&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/dont_link_school_spending_oil_companies_profits_6934&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/annette_nellen/recent_work">Annette Nellen</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/51">San Jose Mercury News</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/26">New America in California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/2">Education</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/corporate_taxes">Corporate Taxes</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:33:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6934 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Total Tax Credit</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/total_tax_credit_6918</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The Social Security payroll tax hurts working Americans -- and it’s getting worse. Because the tax (a flat levy of 15.3 percent, combining the nominal employer portion with the nominal employee portion) applies to income only up to $97,500 (with a scheduled increase to $102,000 this year), it is inherently, grossly regressive, falling far more heavily on working Americans than on the rich. At the same time, as a result of rising pre-tax wage inequality, the payroll tax system is growing dramatically more regressive. In 1983, 90 percent of wages and salaries were subject to payroll taxation; today, thanks to&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/total_tax_credit_6918&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/michael_lind/recent_work">Michael Lind</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/664">Democracy: A Journal of Ideas</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/social_security">Social Security</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/tax_expenditures">Tax Expenditures</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6918 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>What&#039;s Your Tax System IQ?</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/whats_your_tax_system_iq_6896</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
While tax season tests our technical tax knowledge daily, here is an opportunity to take a break and test your knowledge about our federal tax system.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Answers to this quiz can be found at the bottom of this article. 
&lt;/p&gt;

Questions


	IRS tax revenue collections for fiscal year 2006 were approximately $______ trillion. 
	The individual income tax was the largest portion of these tax collections, representing ___% of the total. 
	For 2005, _____ million individual tax returns were filed showing combined taxable income of $_____ trillion. 
	
		108; 2.8 
		124; 3.5 
		134; 5.1 
		149; 6.8 
	
	
	For&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2008/whats_your_tax_system_iq_6896&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/annette_nellen/recent_work">Annette Nellen</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1236">The AICPA Tax Insider</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/25">The Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/26">New America in California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/5">Fiscal Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/tax_expenditures">Tax Expenditures</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Ron Tang</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6896 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
