“President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) into law on July 4. One measure buried deep in the 870-page law imposes a 1 percent tax on remittances—the money that people send to friends and relatives in their home countries. The 1 percent tax applies to all remittance senders in the United States, though not to transfers sent from bank accounts and U.S.-issued debit or credit cards.
The Center for Global Development (CGD), an economic research think tank, suggests that remittances could drop by 1.6 percent “if the new tax raises costs by 1 percent.” Analyzing the potential impact on remittances sent by migrants in the U.S., the CGD finds that Central American countries will “suffer the greatest loss relative to their gross national income (GNI).” El Salvador is projected to lose 0.6 percent of its GNI, Honduras 0.55 percent, and Jamaica 0.42 percent.”
“”Californians pay an additional 72.4 cents per gallon at the pump attributable to state and local taxes and fees, which is the highest in the nation,” according to the California Tax Foundation.”
…
“”the state’s cap-and-trade program affects gasoline prices because it requires fuel suppliers to purchase permits that cover the greenhouse gases emitted when the fuel is burned. We estimate that this currently adds 23 cents per gallon to the price of gasoline.””
…
“California has effectively walled its market off from fuel produced elsewhere. They write that, despite bordering other states from which fuel could theoretically flow to satisfy demand and lower prices, California policies have made the state an “island” because of “capacity constraints on California’s pipelines and the state’s stringent environmental fuel standards, which effectively require fuel to be refined in-state and limit the ability to import fuel from other regions.””
“Special tax breaks for venture capitalists, Alaskan fisheries, spaceports, private schools, rum makers and others — together costing tens of billions of dollars — quietly caught a ride on Republicans’ sprawling domestic policy megabill.”
“The sprawling measure — which at its core was really one big, beautiful tax extender — was never about those tax rates or Medicaid or the deficit. The underlying legislation was no bill at all, but a referendum on Trump. And that left congressional Republicans a binary choice that also had nothing to do with the policy therein: They could salute the president and vote yes and or vote no and risk their careers in a primary.”
“For decades, Republicans have extolled the virtues of removing loopholes and carveouts from the tax code, arguing it would make the system fairer and more efficient, while allowing for lower overall tax rates.”
…
“Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill is not an exercise in tax simplification.
Instead, it began with a push to extend the party’s 2017 tax cuts — which despite some streamlining also introduced some complexity — and piled more on top, in line with a slew of presidential campaign promises. Add in a heavy dose of congressional politics, and the result was a sprawling and quirky piece of legislation that is distinctively Trumpy: lower taxes and a bigger pile of tax breaks.”
…
“several economists I spoke with worried it is the worst of all combinations: increasing the debt to pay for tax breaks that lead to neither growth nor other economically useful outcomes.”
“”Americans are continuing to leave high-tax, high-cost-of-living states in favor of lower-tax, lower-cost alternatives. Of the 26 states whose overall state and local tax burdens per capita were below the national average in 2022 (the most recent year of data available), 18 experienced net inbound interstate migration in FY 2024,” Katherine Loughead wrote last week for the Tax Foundation. “Meanwhile, of the 25 states and DC with tax burdens per capita at or above the national average, 17 of those jurisdictions experienced net outbound domestic migration.””
“Extending the individual income tax portions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) is supposed to be a good thing, right? After all, who doesn’t love lower taxes? However, data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that, without accompanying spending cuts, these tax cuts are going to cost the government.
If the cuts continue, it’s possible that “the positive effects of lower taxes would be counteracted by the negative effects of higher debt,” according to a Tuesday report from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).
“Despite claims that tax cuts pay for themselves,” the CRFB adds, “analyses from across the political spectrum have found that the economic effects of extending the expiring parts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) would offset 1 to 14 percent of the revenue loss – falling well short of the 100 percent needed to pay for itself.”
While the tax cuts would create an economic boost in the short term, increasing gross domestic product (GDP) by around 0.3 percent in 2027 and 2028, the CRFB predicts that the cuts will actually lower projected GDP by 0.08 percent by 2034. Further, the CBO’s data shows that continuing TCJA tax cuts are likely to lead to increasing interest rates over the next decade.
While continuing the cuts “would produce about $90 billion of positive revenue feedback,” according to the CRFB, “those higher interest rates would add $150 billion to the debt, more than counteracting the revenue gains.””
“The rationale behind capping the SALT deduction was that it would disproportionally benefit high-income earners in high-tax states—and it did. In effect, the federal government was subsidizing the tax-and-spend policies of these states by shielding residents from the full impact of local tax increases. If California raised its taxes, the SALT deduction softened the blow for taxpayers.”
…
“raising the cap on SALT deductions would ease pressure on blue states to simplify or lower their tax rates. Consider that California’s top marginal rate is a whopping 13.3 percent. When combined with a top federal rate of 37 percent, Golden State residents are approaching a Sweden-level tax rate. Meanwhile, seven states impose no state income tax at all. This dynamic highlights the beauty of the American political system—the states compete for talent and resources. Over time, high-tax states will lose capital, and low-tax states will benefit.
It’s difficult to oppose any proposal that lowers taxes, but an exception applies here. Raising the SALT cap would only reward high-tax states for their fiscal irresponsibility while undermining the competitive pressures that drive reform. Cities like Nashville, Austin, and Miami are thriving as new hubs of innovation precisely because they’ve embraced freedom and pro-growth policies. They’ve earned their success—and that’s the lesson high-tax states need to learn.”
“exempting tips from income taxes would increase the deficit, create some weird economic incentives, and unfairly cut taxes for a small subset of workers while not doing much to help the majority of Americans or grow the economy.”
…
“Alex Muresianu, a senior policy analyst at The Tax Foundation, spells out in detail why that’s the case. He compares two hypothetical low-income service sector workers: a cashier and a waitress, both of whom earn $34,000 annually. Under the current tax code, both have the same baseline tax liability (roughly $2,000) even though about half of the waitress’s earnings are via tips.
If those tips are exempted from income taxes, the cashier still owes that $2,000. The waitress, meanwhile, owes just $600.
Harris should have to explain why she thinks it’s fair to ask some low-income workers to pay tax bills that will be two or three times higher than other workers who earn the same amount—because that’s what she is proposing here.”