Tax Breaks

The Case for Helping Low-Income Families Save for College

Ed Policy — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:45:00 -0400

[Today, Higher Ed Watch is running a guest post from our colleagues in New America's College Savings Initiative responding to recent criticism of 529 college savings plans and their ability to benefit low- and moderate-income families. The author of this post is Mark Huelsman, a Program Associate with the College Savings Initiative, a joint project between New America and the Center for Social Development at Washington University in St. Louis.]

By Mark Huelsman

Recently, 529 college savings plans have come under criticism. Like many stakeholders in the economy, 529 plan owners have not been isolated from financial pain, and many critics have used recent market volatility and plan underperformance to call for reform. Others, however, have gone further and called for policymakers to abandon 529s in particular, and savings overall, as a plausible conduit to help families afford college. As New America's recently launched College Savings Initiative is charged with examining and improving 529 plans, we feel that it is important to respond to some of these arguments.

To their credit, many critics of these plans share our general goal -- to increase postsecondary access and affordability for low- and middle-income students. We simply differ over whether or not 529 plans provide a promising tool for helping students attend and complete college who could not otherwise afford to go.

Consider this: A recent Gallup survey from Sallie Mae indicates that, while 62% of parents are saving for college, only 32% of those making less than $35,000 have put any money aside for this purpose. Furthermore, half of those low-income families are saving even less (or in some cases not at all) in light of the recession. This is, quite obviously, cause for concern. But is encouraging savings -- and college savings plans as vehicles to do so -- really the answer? We believe so.

The general anti-529 argument, which has made the rounds in recent months, goes something like this: College prices have gone through the roof, to the point where many low- and middle-class families are being priced out altogether. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that many families have lost wealth in the market, including in 529 plans, which have a shorter time frame to recoup. As a result, we should scrap the savings model since it's overly risky. This wouldn't be a problem because, after all, low- and middle-income families don't have enough money to save in the first place and don't reap as much tax benefit from 529s. A better approach would be to simply increase spending on Pell Grants or other forms of federal aid, and at the same time, significantly increase subsidies for state universities to make college more affordable, and bolster attempts to control the price.

Unfortunately, this approach amounts to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

We recognize that, for most families, 529s will never hold enough to fund an entire education. Instead we see them as a significant part of a balanced financial plan - including grants, loans, scholarships, work study and other forms of aid. In this vein, we should certainly use all policy levers necessary - including increased student aid funding - to make college more affordable and accessible. It is the potential of the college savings plan, however, to incorporate progressive features, which we believe could have broad effects, both financial and behavioral.

College savings, at the very least, replace college debt that comes with interest to pay. This is critical because the less student loan debt families incur, the more money they have at their disposal - for a home, a retirement, or for emergency short-term savings.

Some have questioned whether 529s can even be considered "assets" like a house or a retirement fund, since the 529 is a means to an end, and homeownership/retirement is an end in itself. To that, we would point to the fact that many families have lost the home equity that was supposed to be "permanent" or, in some cases, the homes themselves. Yet we don't find it likely that many would argue that homeownership has become a bad idea. To be sure, responsible homeownership, as well as a retirement fund and, yes, an education, all have important roles to play in building wealth over the life course. And unlike a home, you can't foreclose on a college degree.

Still, one might ask: Why the emphasis on savings and assets, broadly? In other words, should policymakers instead focus on increasing earnings (of which increased savings will be a natural byproduct)? To that, there are several arguments.

First, two decades of research from the asset building field suggest that asset ownership is a useful tool in generating income for the populations we're discussing. Second, there is also evidence to suggest that, controlling for other factors, a parent's savings and net worth correlate with a child's educational attainment. As one example, a 2008 paper from the Center for Social Development on the topic can be found here; it finds that parents' liquid assets have significantly positive associations with years of schooling, high school graduation, and college attendance. Finally, college savings can make for savvier consumers. If families have more personal funds to spend on college, the likelihood increases that they will shop around for a better deal. If people start saving, they inevitably think about costs earlier, making them more conscious of price options. If policymakers can get families to save on a broader (or even universal) scale, it has the potential to create competition among major universities to give students more bang for their buck.

This is not to say that 529s, as currently structured, are perfect. Too many 529 administrators incorporated too much risk in their investments, which meant that so-called "conservative" investments were anything but. In general, there are a couple of ways to fix this without going so far as to dismiss the very idea of the investment plan. For instance, how about mandating that each state plan has a truly safe capital preservation option, such as an FDIC insured account, that a family can use as the tuition bills become larger on the horizon (like a number of states currently do)? Or in a down market, how about allowing families to change their mix of investments quarterly (as opposed to twice a year, which is now a temporary rule)? Or, if we want to stretch out the timeline for those families who have had the misfortune of losing money as college approaches, perhaps allow 529 monies to temporarily be used to pay off student loans.

Generally, these fixes all come with tradeoffs, and the implications of some remain unexamined, but the point remains that these investment vehicles could stand to be improved without being scrapped. The College Savings Initiative hopes to do so by conducting research on innovative 529 features such as matching deposits and seeding accounts, as well as studying policy options such as reforming higher education tax credits to better meet at-risk populations. Without the option of a 529, low-income families would lose yet another opportunity to reap the benefits of saving and investing, and move up the income ladder. Savings is certainly not a silver bullet, but we believe it is an essential part of any plan to address the college affordability crisis.

Trading HOPE for Opportunity

Ben Miller — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:30:00 -0500

Barack Obama's signature higher education campaign proposal was the creation of a new $4,000 fully refundable American Opportunity Tax Credit. Now with the former Illinois Senator in the White House, Congress is poised to implement a modified version of the credit as part of the stimulus package that is being fast-tracked this week.

Congress proposes that the new credit would temporarily replace the existing HOPE higher education tax credit, which was created during the Clinton administration. While it would be a marked improvement over existing tuition tax credits and deductions, the American Opportunity Tax Credit still has some flaws, especially with regard to targeting low-income students and interacting with other federal aid.

As outlined in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate versions of the stimulus bills, there are several ways the American Opportunity credit would be preferable to the HOPE credit:

Length of Eligibility: The new credit would be available for the first four years of higher education -- two years longer than is currently allowed by HOPE.
Deductible Amount: Students and parents would be able to take a deduction of up to $2,500 for tuition, fees, and qualified expenses -- $700 more than the maximum HOPE award.

Refundability: For the first time, filers would still receive some benefit from the credit, even if they have no tax liability. The House bill would make 40 percent, or $1,000, of the American Opportunity refundable, while the Senate bill would make 30 percent, or $750, refundable.
What can be deducted: Filers claiming the American Opportunity credit would be able to count course materials in their higher education spending. This is a change from both the HOPE and Lifetime Learning credits, neither of which can be used for higher education expenses beyond tuition and fees.
Income Caps: The American Opportunity credit would be available for individuals making up to $90,000 ($180,000 for joint filers). HOPE, by contrast, phases out completely at $60,000 for individuals ($120,000 for joint filers).

We are happy to see that Congress is considering including some refundable money and expanding the types of expenses that would be covered. Currently, low-income filers derive little to no benefit from the existing higher education tax credits because their tax liability is either small or nonexistent. Making the American Opportunity credit at least partially refundable would make some of these benefits available to less affluent individuals. Meanwhile, allowing filers to claim the credit for textbook and course material expenses should help financially needy students attending low-tuition schools who don't qualify for the full benefit now.

We remain unconvinced, however, that tuition tax credits are an efficient way to deliver limited student aid resources. They are ill-targeted and arrive long after tuition bills are due. They are very expensive too -- the Congressional Budget Office estimates the new credit will reduce federal revenues by $10 billion and increase government outlays by $3 billion just over the course of two years. In addition, they are very confusing -- a Government Accountability Office Report found that the presence of multiple, complex credits leads hundreds of thousands of filers to either take no credits or an incorrect one on their tax returns. The new tax credit does nothing to address these concerns.

Moreover, the American Opportunity Tax Credit would still be poorly coordinated with student grant aid. This leads to a situation where increases in assistance such as Pell Grants lower students' higher education expenses, in turn reducing the size of the tax credit for which they qualify. Both bills call for a study of this issue, but that is a far cry from taking real concrete steps to fix the problem.

The complexity issue certainly begs the question of why lawmakers are not using the American Opportunity credit to replace the HOPE and Lifetime Learning Credits. The savings from consolidation could be used to make the American Opportunity credit fully refundable -- improving targeting -- and possibly to increase the maximum award. Eligibility rules could be rewritten so that filers take a smaller award after the first four years of postsecondary education. It would be important, however, to make sure that students who can afford to attend only part-time or less, due to work and family commitments, are eligible for at least a partial credit, as is currently the case with the Lifetime credit.

The opportunity credit certainly is far from perfect, but it is an improvement over the current iterations of the HOPE and Lifetime Learning credits. As Congress moves forward, however, it should give more thought to the question of whether tuition tax credits are really the best way to help low income students who truly need a better opportunity.

Image used under a Creative Commons license by flickr user prognatis

10 Higher Ed Questions for Arne Duncan

Ed Policy — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:29:00 -0500

Education Secretary-Designate Arne Duncan will appear before the Senate Heath, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for his confirmation hearing on Tuesday morning. While Higher Ed Watch won't be there to grill Duncan, we do have some tough questions on higher education policy for the Chicago Public Schools chief. Feel free to suggest ones of your own.

(1) Do you believe that the federal student aid programs, as currently designed, are appropriately targeted and work both efficiently and effectively in expanding college access, or do you believe that the programs need to be overhauled to ensure that the doors of college remain open for low-income and working-class students?

(2) Do you expect the administration to continue supporting both the Direct and Guaranteed Student Loan Programs or instead push for a 100 percent Direct Lending model given research that shows this program is less costly to run?

(3) As currently designed, federal higher education tax credits disproportionately favor middle- and upper-income families and are largely unavailable to low-income families due to the fact that they are nonrefundable and have limitations on the costs that they cover (tuition and fees versus cost of attendance). Given that the federal student aid system was created to increase the enrollment rates of those who could not otherwise afford to attend, are tax credits an efficient way to deliver limited student aid resources? Has the administration given any thought to revamping the current tax credits so they are available to lower-income families? What steps do you anticipate taking to ensure that the President-elect's proposed American Opportunity Tax Credit is available to low-income students who may have trouble meeting the 100 hour service requirement due to family and work responsibilities?

(4) Over the last several years, the federal government has increasingly asked and expected families to save more for their children's college education, and more and more are doing so in 529 college savings plans. As currently designed, 529s disproportionately benefit higher-income families who can afford to save and who reap enormous tax benefits for doing so. Potentially building on some innovations in various states, what would you do to make 529s more progressive or more attractive to the millions of moderate- and middle-income families who find it hard to save for their children's education but very much want to?

(5) The College Cost Reduction and Access Act, signed into law in September 2007, included a new auction program to determine taxpayer subsidy levels paid to private lenders that make federal student loans. The auction program will apply to all federal Parent PLUS loans made in the 2009-2010 academic year and thereafter. Does the administration plan to implement the program as required under law, or will it seek changes to the program, or argue that it be postponed as some stakeholder interest groups have suggested?

(6) Studies have shown that a large percentage of students taking out private loans do not first exhaust their eligibility for cheaper federal student loan options. This can be extremely harmful to students, since private student loans almost always have much higher interest rates than federal loans and rarely provide repayment options that take into account income or public service. What do you think can be done to ensure that students first exhaust their cheaper federal student loan options before turning to private student loans?

(7) Private student loans currently enjoy a level of protection in bankruptcy court akin to unpaid taxes, child support, and government fines. In reality, they are more similar to a car or home loan, which is dischargeable during bankruptcy proceedings. This disparity in treatment creates an enormous burden for students who find themselves stuck with high-cost debt during tough financial times. Do you believe that more should be done to equalize the bankruptcy treatment of private student loans so that they are closer to other conventional types of consumer debt?

(8) Ever-increasing college prices are a major concern of American families. Some experts fear that college will be absolutely unaffordable for all but the most affluent within the next 25 years. Do you envision a proactive way for the federal government to do more to control college costs?

(9) According to budget officials at the Department, the Pell Grant program is facing a $4 to 5 billion shortfall in the coming year. Will attempting to close that gap prevent the administration from being able to fulfill its campaign promise to significantly increase the maximum Pell Grant?

(10) The Bush administration has been accused of turning a blind eye to allegations of corruption in the student loan industry. Will the Department of Education, under your leadership, make enforcement of student loan law and regulations a higher priority than it has been? How would you accomplish that?

Image used under a creative commons license from flickr user Obama-Biden Transition Project

Election 2008: A Taxing Decision for Obama

Ben Miller — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:00:00 -0500

On January 20, 2009, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) will be sworn in as the 44th president of the United States. Around the same time, millions of college students across the country will be beginning their spring semesters. And these classes will arrive with sizeable tuition bills. Obama has a plan for helping students tackle these costs -- a tax credit for students who perform community service. But the president-elect should take note. Tinkering with the tax code is a less than ideal way to promote college access and affordability.

The cornerstone of Obama's college plan is the American Opportunity Tax Credit. Worth $4,000 annually, it is available to all college students, regardless of income, so long as they complete 100 hours of public service during the academic year. The tax credit is fully refundable, meaning that if a student's tax liability is less than $4,000, they will have their tax bill paid off and then receive a rebate for any leftover credit amount.

On paper at least, the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) appears far better than existing higher education tax credits. This is especially true with respect to the Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits, which were championed by Obama's Democratic predecessor Bill Clinton. The Hope credit is worth up to $1,650 (100 percent of the first $1,100 spent on higher education and 50 percent of the next $1,100) for the first two years of postsecondary enrollment. The Lifetime credit, meanwhile, is worth up to $2,000 (20 percent of the first $10,000 spent on higher education) and may be taken so long as students are enrolled.

The primary problem with these tax credits are that they are not refundable, meaning that they are largely unavailable to the low-income students who need the government's help the most but don't pay taxes. In addition, operating on a percentage basis makes both of these credits confusing, and the Lifetime credit's high threshold means students with tuition bills under $10,000 will not be able to receive the full credit.

While Obama's proposal promises to cure the issue of refundability, there are still several unanswered questions about how it would work. First, would it cover only tuition expenses, or would it include other things, such as room and board and textbooks, that are currently excluded from Hope and Lifetime calculations? Second, would it replace the existing tax credits or simply be added on top of them? The mix of tax credits is already too confusing to students. A recent report by the Government Accountability Office found that almost 30 percent of filers claiming a higher education tax credit currently choose the wrong one, providing them with a smaller benefit than they are qualified to receive. Meanwhile, the report found that several hundred thousand eligible taxpayers don't claim the credits at all, perhaps in part because they don't realize that they are available.

There are also questions to be asked about how the community service requirement would be implemented. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) clearly doesn't have the capacity to ensure that all credit recipients are actually fulfilling the 100 hour requirement, which would leave it up to the Department of Education, individual schools, or the volunteer agencies to monitor. Also, what kind of supports would it contain for students who want to serve their communities but may be limited due to the need for childcare or immediate income to support their families?

A better option, albeit more difficult to pass, would be to enact a $4,000 grant program instead. This would also create an opportunity to better target funds, make it easier to control their cost, and ensure that they go to the neediest students. Under this model, Pell Grant eligible students could be rewarded for their service and states could potentially provide matching funds. Moreover, receiving the money as a grant means students wouldn't have to wait to file their taxes to receive funds. This is a major problem with existing tax credits, because students file for and receive them months after having to come up with the money to pay their tuition.

Admittedly, there are disadvantages to a grant program. Unlike tax changes, Congress would have to pay for the program with discretionary funding each year, subjecting it to the possibility of annual budget cuts. A yearly search for discretionary dollars will make it more difficult to enact the program and does not guarantee students will receive funds for a prolonged period of time. These are major challenges, but a grant program is still more attractive because it avoids the administrative difficulty of having the IRS track the community service requirement.

There are 74 days to go before Obama's inauguration. As he begins forming a transition team and fleshing out policy proposals we strongly urge him to think carefully about the implementation of the American Opportunity Tax Credit. At the very least, it should replace the existing Hope and Lifetime credits and include non-tuition and fee expenses. Ideally, however, the incoming administration would take an even bolder approach and consider an overhaul of the student aid system as a whole -- one that is better targeted and much simpler to understand and access.

(Image used under a Creative Commons license from Flickr user sinderphytik)

Creating a Progressive 529 Plan

Michael Dannenberg — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:20:00 -0400

Barack Obama wants to give families a refundable $4,000 tax credit for college if their children complete a required amount of community service. It's a fine, conventional Democratic idea. It could be a lot more powerful, though, if Obama coupled it with an old Republican favorite -- depositing his $4,000 credit into private accounts like the so-called 529 plans that so many upper-income families use to save for college.

There are already 12 higher education-related tax credits and deductions on the books, including the Clinton administration's HOPE and Lifetime Learning tax credits. To varying degrees they make college more affordable for those with taxable income who get over the hump of initially enrolling in school.

But the current education tax benefits are a mess of different eligibility standards, confusing forms, delayed delivery, and regressive rewards. One in four eligible families claims the wrong amount, according to the Government Accountability Office. And financial aid specialists agree none of them do a good job at promoting college access for those who otherwise wouldn't go.

The real "post-partisan" college affordability and college access policy is to simplify our higher education tax benefits and deposit those proposed $4,000 credits into a 529 college fund created in each individual child's name. Named after the relevant section of the tax code, 529 plans are tax-favored investment or savings accounts run by brokerage firms under contracts with the state.

A progressive 529 savings program could start with low-income eighth graders, if not younger students. That way, children would get the benefit of tax-deferred growth, college aspirations would go up, and progressive 529 college funds would act as a magnet for additional contributions from employers, religious groups, philanthropy, and others. Children who don't go straight to college would be able to tap their accounts later or pass it on to a dependent.

Under this proposal, as opposed to the current HOPE and Lifetime Learning credits, funds would be available to community-college and part-time students. Cash would be available immediately when college bills are due, and could be used to offset room, board, and textbook costs as well as tuition. Families wouldn't even have to file a tax return. And by folding in the existing HOPE and Lifetime credits, the plan's costs are minimized beneath what Obama has proposed.

There's precedent for progressive 529s. Eleven state 529 plans, including those in swing states like Colorado and Michigan, already have initial deposit, matching, and other features to encourage low-income families to take part.

Moreover, withdrawals are easily conditioned on good behavior, including proof of community service as per Obama's original plan. That's a good condition. Children who serve or work about 10 hours a week to pay for college take their studies more seriously, manage their time more effectively, and learn two important values: First, in this life, you don't get something for nothing; and second, each of us has a responsibility to others.

Washington could go further and condition its contributions to a state 529 plan on states maintaining their own spending on higher ed, in order to keep them from using the plans as an excuse to raise tuition. The federal government requires that states keep up their part to get K-12, transportation, and Medicaid funds - and Washington should do the same with higher education funding.

A bear market might seem a strange time to promote private accounts. But not only is the stock market strong over the long term, account funds can be invested in solid government bonds as a default. If a state wants to allow parents to invest in more aggressive securities, it can.

The key is for Democrats and Republicans to establish a universal platform for college savings, to encourage all students to take their studies seriously, and to break the political paradigm of government entitlement versus private responsibility. We can have both. And if every child has a college fund, we'll all win.

Michael Dannenberg, the founder of the New America Foundation's Education Policy Program and former editor of Higher Ed Watch, wrote this column for The Boston Globe. Dannenberg is now a senior fellow with New America.

Guest Post: Integrating Student Aid and Tax Benefits

Ed Policy — Tue, 20 May 2008 14:42:00 -0400

By Art Hauptman

Both Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) have made achieving greater college affordability a high profile issue in their Presidential campaigns. To reach this goal, the two Democratic candidates have proposed expanding Pell Grants and consolidating the current set of tax breaks for college into a single refundable tuition tax credit. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has thus far been strangely silent on the topic, despite its importance to so many millions of Americans.

The reach of the Democratic contenders' proposals does not match their rhetoric, however. To truly make college more affordable, the next President will need to push for a much fuller integration of student aid and tax provisions for higher education, as I suggested in my guest post last week.

Any effort to change the current system (or non-system) of student financial assistance should first recognize that federal higher education policy has two distinct goals. The first is to eliminate the chronic gaps in the rates at which students from low-income and high-income families (and between minority students and white students) enroll in and graduate from college. Call this the accessibility problem. The second big goal is to make college more affordable for millions of students from middle class and upper middle class families who have found the ever growing price of college to be a real strain on their budgets. Call this the affordability problem.

The differences in these goals can be readily seen in looking at the history and current array of student aid and tuition tax benefits. The federal student aid programs were created primarily to help improve accessibility for low income students, although over time, they have been used to address affordability issues as well. Starting in the 1990s, policymakers began creating tuition tax credits and various tax incentives for savings principally to address concerns about affordability for the middle and upper middle class, as well as for older students already in the work force going back to school to further their education.

In proposing to consolidate the existing tax breaks for college, and make them refundable for students whose families do not pay taxes, the Obama and Clinton campaigns are seeking to address the accessibility and affordability issues simultaneously. But in taking this approach, they will probably fall short of achieving either goal.

I make this prediction for a couple of important reasons. First, these proposals would undo key tax reforms of the last several decades by requiring millions of low-income Americans who don't now have to file tax returns to reenter the tax rolls in order to quality for the benefit.

More importantly, making tuition tax credits refundable will only make the current structure of student financial support in this country more redundant and less well targeted. By providing an overlap in benefits for some students, it would raise the government's costs significantly without solving the basic underlying problem that college tuition and other charges are going up much faster than many families' ability to pay them.

A Better Approach

A better approach would be to more fully integrate the tax system with student aid in several key ways. One form of integration would be to allow the government to use information from families' income tax forms to determine their eligibility for student aid. Both Obama and Clinton have endorsed this proposal, and it looks like Congress will adopt this change if and when it finally reauthorizes the Higher Education Act. This would be a welcome beginning of the end to the FAFSA and would greatly simplify the much too complex student aid application process.

What is also needed, however, is for Congress to permit students from families who are eligible for welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, and/or the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to be fully eligible for federal student aid. This would be in sharp contrast to the current system in which nontaxable forms of income such as welfare are used as a means to reduce student aid eligibility.

Making these students eligible for the maximum amount of federal financial aid available could yield much greater benefits for at-risk students than making tax credits refundable. This would particularly be so if policymakers are willing to make an important tradeoff: eliminating middle class and lifelong learner eligibility for Pell Grants and in-school interest subsidies in the federal student loan programs in exchange for a much expanded tuition tax credit. Congress could use the savings derived from making the eligibility changes in the Pell Grant program to significantly increase the maximum award for the lowest-income students. Meanwhile, the government could use the savings it would get from better targeting in-school interest payments to pay for the expansion in the tuition tax credit.

A further step in the direction of integration would be to use the 1040A income tax rules to calculate eligibility for Pell Grants for students whose families pay taxes. The income tax rules would then be used to calculate eligibility for both Pell Grants and tuition tax credits (as the amount of a nonrefundable tax credit actually received cannot exceed the amount of tax paid). Using the 1040A rules to calculate Pell Grant eligibility would also eliminate the current practice in the federal methodology that allows tax write-offs for business losses and other above-the-line deductions to increase middle class eligibility for Pell Grants.

These changes would clarify the federal role in helping a broad range of families pay for college. Pell Grants and federally subsidized loans would be used to improve accessibility. Unsubsidized loans and expanded tax benefits would be the principal vehicles for addressing affordability concerns.

In my next two blog items, I will discuss how a more aggressive federal early intervention strategy and finally the creation of a seamless student-centered loan system as key steps to achieving a well functioning federal student support system.

Art Hauptman is an independent consultant on higher education finance issues. His guest blog column will continue to appear each Tuesday in the month of May. Views expressed herein are his own and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the New America Foundation.

Wanting Your Cake and Eating It Too

Annette Nellen — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 01:00:00 -0400

On August 9, 2007, President Bush noted that he'd be ok with reducing corporate income taxes and simplifying the tax law. On that same day, he signed H.R. 2272 - America COMPETES Act and called for Congress to finish the work and make the R&D tax credit permanent.

He is not alone in this tendency to call for simplification and lower rates, while also calling for new tax breaks. In his remarks about corporate tax rates he observed that "it's much easier to get something in the code than get it out of the code." A very true statement!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070809-1.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070809-6.html

So, how do we simplify when we also want to use the tax law to solve all kinds of problems from health insurance to encouraging innovation?

Comments?

This post was originally published at http://21stcenturytaxation.blogspot.com.