Taxes

In an opinion piece for The Boston Globe, Prof. Jonathan Gruber discusses Massachusetts’ Question 5, the proposed tax rebate rule that would mandate that taxes be returned to taxpayers each time the state’s revenues grow faster than wages and salaries. “Most economists believe a recession is coming but we can’t say when. The best way to plan is to have the savings to help us through, or to invest so that we are as strong as possible when it hits,” writes Gruber. “Question 5 chooses the third path — spending the money now, and letting the state suffer in the future.”  

Prof. Jonathan Gruber joins Edgar B. Herwick III, host of GBH’s “The Curiosity Desk” to discuss what factors into the U.S. Federal Reserve’s decision to raise interest rates for the first time since 2023. Federal Reserve members “are looking at things like tariffs, the tax on goods coming into this country. They’re looking at the war,” says Gruber. “We have, basically, these underlying forces driving inflation. In that case, the Fed has a mandate. The Fed’s job is to balance two forces: economic growth and inflation, and the way they balance them is by trying to keep inflation near a target of two percent.”  

Sloan Visiting Prof. Gilbert Metcalf joins Marketplace to discuss whether suspending the gas tax could help consumers with rising prices. Metcalf notes that halting the tax likely won’t help, as gas prices have already risen by 40% or higher in some parts of the country. He also notes pausing the tax would hurt the country’s deficit, explaining that “every dollar that we take away in gas tax revenue means that's another dollar we have to spend out of the general budget” for infrastructure. 

Prof. Jonathan Parker speaks with CNBC reporter Kate Dore about how larger tax refunds in 2026 could increase both consumer spending and inflation. “It could easily be inflationary,” says Parker.  

Prof. Jonathan Gruber speaks with Newsweek reporter Jasmine Laws about the increase in cigarette taxes in various states across the United States. “There is a large body of economic evidence that shows that higher taxes will reduce smoking – particularly among the young and the poor,” says Gruber. “The downside is that the poor will pay more for cigarettes, stretching their budgets, but that is largely offset by the fact that they will smoke less. If the revenues are used to fund smoking cessation efforts among the poor, which have shown to be effective, this is a great policy opportunity." 

Writing for The Boston Globe, President Emeritus L. Rafael Reif examines how the proposed endowment tax on colleges and universities will likely “raise the cost of a college education and hurt US competitiveness.” Reif notes that universities use income from their endowments to provide financial aid for students and support research. “Without financial aid, students from less wealthy backgrounds would not be able to attend the country’s great private universities,” writes Reif. “This would be not just a loss to them but also to the nation itself, which benefits when talented people from all backgrounds have the same opportunity to rise based on academic achievement.”

Writing for the Financial Times, Prof. Fiona Murray highlights the importance of developing a new approach to capital gains tax increases. “By focusing on the underlying behaviors we want to incentivize, we can structure taxes more effectively,” explains Murray. “When we provide tax breaks to companies for spending on R&D, we do it to spur behavior we know is good for the overall health of the economy.” 

Writing for The Boston Globe, Research Scientist James Aloisi, director of the MIT Transit Research Consortium, highlights the current difficulties facing transportation funding, arguing for congestion pricing as a “highly agile and strategic revenue tool.” "Congestion pricing is one of the most feasible approaches to replacing the gas tax," writes Aloisi, "and providing a stable, fair, and equitable approach to raising revenue for both transit and roadways."

Prof. David Autor speaks with New York Times reporter Jim Tankersley about the economic implications of President Biden’s decision to codify and escalate tariffs on Chinese goods. Autor’s “latest research warns of the economic perils of poorly designed trade policy, but it also explains why presidents might keep pursuing it,” explains Tankersley. 

Prof. Esther Duflo will present her research on poverty reduction and her “proposal for a global minimum tax on billionaires and increased corporate levies to G-20 finance chiefs,” reports Andrew Rosati for Bloomberg. “The plan calls for redistributing the revenues to low- and middle-income nations to compensate for lives lost due to a warming planet,” writes Rosati. “It also adds to growing calls to raise taxes on the world’s wealthiest to help its most needy.”

Writing for The Hill, Sloan Prof. Catherine Wolfram and UCLA Prof. Kimberly Clausing explore why they feel U.S. politicians should embrace carbon pricing. “2025 will be a big year for Congress to tackle longstanding fiscal issues and further climate policy efforts,” they write. “Before this can happen, politicians need to hear timely arguments backed by up-to-date evidence.”

Prof. Jonathan Gruber, MIT Innovation Fellow Brian Deese and Stanford doctoral student Ryan Cummings write for The New York Times about the health benefits of new weight-loss drugs and the risk they pose to American taxpayers. “The magnitude of potential benefit and potential cost — roughly $15,000 per year per person — posed by these drugs suggests that policymakers may have no alternative but to step in and bring their costs in line with their social benefits,” they write. “If policymakers succeed in doing so, we could build a model for drug price negotiation that enables an extraordinary medical breakthrough to improve both our health and our fiscal position.”

A study by MIT researchers shows that “workers have cost employers a 25% tax rate, while the rate of software and equipment has stood around 5%,” write Diego Areas Munhoz and Samantha Handler for Bloomberg. “This lopsidedness in tax code gives employers more reason to invest in automating goods like machines and computer software instead of workers.”

A new white paper by Prof. Daron Acemoglu and graduate student Andrea Mandera finds that the U.S. tax code incentivizes companies to invest in automation rather than employees, reports Peter Coy for Bloomberg. “Favorable taxation of capital leads to excessive automation,” explains Acemoglu.

Writing for Forbes, research affiliate Thomas Davenport examines the feasibility of robot taxation based on a debate at MIT Technology Review’s Emtech Next conference. “At some point we may need to replace the tax revenue from human jobs lost to automation,” writes Daveport. “If that day ever comes, I hope that the tax revenues issue is the most critical one we have to deal with.”