Chapter 22 · pp. 691–716 ·
William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, David R. Burton
What this chapter is about
This chapter is about tax and money. It wants two income tax rates instead of many. It wants the tax on firms cut. It wants to undo tax rises from a recent law. It also wants it to take a bigger vote in Congress to raise taxes at all.
The document says “should”Who acts: Treasury, CongressHow: legislationp. 696 in the PDF
What the document says
“The Treasury should work with Congress to simplify the tax code by enacting a simple two-rate individual tax system of 15 percent and 30 percent that eliminates most deductions, credits and exclusions.”
The chapter says the 30 percent bracket should begin at or near the Social Security wage base, so that income and payroll tax together act as a nearly flat tax on wage income above the standard deduction. It separately asks that capital gains and qualified dividends be taxed at 15 percent, that capital expenditure be expensed immediately and that capital gains be indexed for inflation.
What the document actually says
“The Treasury should work with Congress to simplify the tax code by enacting a simple two-rate individual tax system of 15 percent and 30 percent that eliminates most deductions, credits and exclusions.”
That sentence, in plain words
Replace the tax bands with just two. One at 15 percent and one at 30. Drop most write-offs.
What this is about
Income tax now has several bands. The book wants only two. Most special write-offs would go. A higher earner would pay 30 percent.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. No indexed action replaces the bracket structure with two rates. The 2025 tax law (PL 119-21) makes the existing reduced rates permanent in section 70101 and adds new deductions for tips, overtime and car loan interest, so it settles the current structure rather than collapsing it to 15 and 30 percent. None of the candidates here reaches individual rates at all. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 696 in the PDF
What the document says
“The corporate income tax rate should be reduced to 18 percent.”
The chapter calls the corporate income tax the most damaging tax in the system and says its primary economic burden falls on workers because capital is more mobile than labor.
What the document actually says
“The corporate income tax rate should be reduced to 18 percent.”
That sentence, in plain words
Cut the tax on company profits to 18 percent.
What this is about
Firms pay tax on their profits. The book says that tax hurts workers most. It wants the rate cut to 18 percent.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. No indexed action changes the corporate income tax rate. The 2025 tax law (PL 119-21) rewrites much of business taxation, including full expensing and the international rules, but it carries no rate change, and none of the candidates here reaches the rate. The nearest, memo-2025-02043, concerns the OECD global minimum tax rather than the domestic rate. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 696 in the PDF
What the document says
“intermediate tax reform should repeal all tax increases that were passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act”
The chapter names the book minimum tax, the stock buyback excise tax, the coal excise tax, the reinstated Superfund tax, and excise taxes on drug manufacturers tied to Medicare price controls. It separately asks for full repeal of the subsidies in the same law, including what it describes as dozens of credits and tax breaks for green energy companies.
What the document actually says
“intermediate tax reform should repeal all tax increases that were passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act”
That sentence, in plain words
Undo the tax rises in that law. Undo its green energy breaks too.
What this is about
A 2022 law raised some taxes. It also gave breaks to green energy firms. The book wants both undone.
EO 14315 of July 7, 2025 states a policy of building on the repeal of green energy tax credits in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and directs the Secretary of the Treasury, within 45 days of that act, to strictly enforce the termination of the clean electricity production and investment credits under sections 45Y and 48E for wind and solar facilities, including by issuing guidance so that beginning of construction rules are not circumvented, and to implement the foreign entity of concern restrictions. Where the fit breaks down: the order repeals nothing itself, and it reaches only the subsidy side. Every tax increase the chapter names is left in place, including the book minimum tax, the stock buyback excise tax, the coal excise tax, the reinstated Superfund tax and the excise taxes on drug manufacturers. The statutory terminations the order enforces sit in sections 70501 to 70515 of PL 119-21, which end a range of clean vehicle, efficiency and clean energy credits but not all of them.
In plain English
An order of July 7, 2025 tells the Treasury to strictly enforce the end of wind and solar tax credits. It builds on credit cuts made in the 2025 tax law. But the order repeals nothing on its own. It touches only credits, so the tax hikes the chapter lists, such as the stock buyback tax, all stay.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 696 in the PDF
What the document says
“All taxpayers should be allowed to contribute up to $15,000 (adjusted for inflation) of post-tax earnings into Universal Savings”
The chapter proposes accounts holding up to $15,000 a year of post-tax earnings, indexed for inflation, whose gains would be untaxed and withdrawable at any time, and which would be flexible enough to hold investments such as a closely held business.
What the document actually says
“All taxpayers should be allowed to contribute up to $15,000 (adjusted for inflation) of post-tax earnings into Universal Savings”
That sentence, in plain words
Let anyone put up to $15,000 a year into a savings account. It would come from pay already taxed.
What this is about
You pay tax on money you earn. Then tax again on what it earns. The book wants an account where the second tax does not apply.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. EO 14403 directs the Treasury to build TrumpIRA.gov by January 1, 2027, a website listing individual retirement accounts that meet stated cost and quality criteria and explaining the Federal Saver's Match enacted in the SECURE 2.0 Act. It creates no new kind of account. The account the chapter describes is not an individual retirement account: it would take up to $15,000 a year of post-tax earnings from any taxpayer, leave the gains untaxed and allow withdrawal at any time. The nearest new account in the record, the Trump account created by section 70204 of PL 119-21, is for children under 18, capped at $5,000 a year, taxed like an individual retirement account, and closed to withdrawals until the year the child turns 18. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 697 in the PDF
What the document says
“The estate and gift tax should be reduced to no higher than 20 percent”
The chapter also asks that the 2017 law's temporary rise in the exemption, from $5.5 million to $12.9 million adjusted for inflation, be made permanent. It groups this with proposals to raise the business loss limitation to at least $500,000, allow full carryforward of net operating losses, and eliminate the net investment income surtax and the base erosion anti-abuse tax.
What the document actually says
“The estate and gift tax should be reduced to no higher than 20 percent”
That sentence, in plain words
Cut the tax on money left when someone dies. Take it to 20 percent at most.
What this is about
When a rich person dies, some of the estate is taxed. The book says that rate should fall. It also wants more of an estate left untaxed.
Section 70106 of the 2025 tax law strikes $5,000,000 from the estate and gift tax exemption in section 2010(c)(3) and inserts $15,000,000, moves the inflation measuring year to 2025, and strikes the subparagraph that would have ended the higher exemption after 2025, so the increase no longer expires. It applies to deaths and gifts after December 31, 2025. Where the fit breaks down: the chapter also asks that the tax itself be cut to no higher than 20 percent, and the law leaves the rate schedule untouched. This section reaches only the exemption, not the other items the chapter groups with the request.
In plain English
The 2025 tax law raises the amount an estate can pass on tax free. It goes from $5 million to $15 million, and that rise no longer ends. But the chapter also asked that the tax rate drop to 20 percent or less. The law leaves the rates alone.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 697 in the PDF
What the document says
“The individual state and local tax deduction, which was temporarily capped at $10,000, should be fully repealed.”
The chapter groups this with permanently repealing deductions the 2017 law temporarily suspended, naming the bicycle commuting exclusion, non-military moving expenses and miscellaneous itemized deductions, and with repealing deductions for educational expenses and special business preferences.
What the document actually says
“The individual state and local tax deduction, which was temporarily capped at $10,000, should be fully repealed.”
That sentence, in plain words
You can deduct state and local tax from your federal bill. That should end.
What this is about
People can subtract state taxes from their federal tax. A recent law limited that to $10,000. The book wants it removed entirely.
Section 70120 of the 2025 tax law acts on the same deduction and goes the other way. It replaces the flat $10,000 cap with an applicable limitation amount of $40,000 for 2025, $40,400 for 2026 and 1 percent more each year through 2029, reduced by 30 cents for each dollar of income above a threshold starting at $500,000 but never below $10,000, and returning to $10,000 for years after 2029. The deduction is widened for five years rather than repealed. Where the fit breaks down: full repeal, which is what the chapter asks, is not done here or anywhere else in the record. Section 70110 of the same law does terminate miscellaneous itemized deductions other than educator expenses, which is one of the items the chapter groups with this request.
In plain English
The chapter asked that the state and local tax deduction be wiped out. The 2025 tax law went the other way. It raised the cap from $10,000 to $40,000 for 2025, with small rises through 2029. The cap drops back to $10,000 after that, and the deduction is never repealed.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, TreasuryHow: legislationp. 697 in the PDF
What the document says
“the next Administration should set a meaningful cap (no higher than $12,000 per year per full-time equivalent employee—and preferably lower) on untaxed benefits”
The chapter frames this as reducing the tax bias against wages relative to benefits. It says benefit expenses other than tax-deferred retirement contributions should count toward the limit, including shared benefits such as employee gym facilities, that the cap should not be indexed to inflation, and that employers should be denied deductions for health insurance and other benefits provided to dependents aged 23 or older.
What the document actually says
“the next Administration should set a meaningful cap (no higher than $12,000 per year per full-time equivalent employee—and preferably lower) on untaxed benefits”
That sentence, in plain words
Set a limit on tax-free job perks. No more than $12,000 a year per worker.
What this is about
Some job perks are not taxed, like health cover. The book says that favors perks over pay. It wants a cap on how much can go untaxed.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed caps the deduction an employer may take for untaxed employee benefits or sets any per employee limit. None of the candidates is on the subject: they are a return to in-person work memorandum, an H-2B visa cap rule, a drug pricing order, a student loan rule and a litigation record. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, TreasuryHow: legislationp. 698 in the PDF
What the document says
“Treasury should support legislation instituting a three-fifths vote threshold in the U.S. House and the Senate to raise income or corporate tax rates”
The chapter describes this as creating a wall of protection for the new rate structure and notes that many states have such a requirement.
What the document actually says
“Treasury should support legislation instituting a three-fifths vote threshold in the U.S. House and the Senate to raise income or corporate tax rates”
That sentence, in plain words
Make it harder to raise taxes. Three fifths of each house would have to agree.
What this is about
Congress raises taxes by a simple majority now. The book wants three fifths to be needed. That would make a rise much harder.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed sets a three-fifths vote threshold for raising income or corporate tax rates, and no such bill appears among the laws indexed here. A threshold of that kind would take a change to each chamber's rules or to the Constitution. The nearest candidate, PL 119-78, is Congress disapproving a District of Columbia tax act under the Home Rule Act, which is a vote on one local law rather than a rule about future votes. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, CongressHow: legislationp. 698 in the PDF
What the document says
“The U.S. should end its financial support and withdraw from the OECD.”
The chapter argues that tax competition between states and countries is a positive force for liberty and limited government, that the push for a global minimum corporate tax is an attempt to create a global tax cartel, and that the United States should not outsource its tax policy to international organizations. It notes that the United States provides about one-fifth of the organization's funding.
What the document actually says
“The U.S. should end its financial support and withdraw from the OECD.”
That sentence, in plain words
Stop paying into the OECD. Then leave it.
What this is about
The OECD is a club of rich countries. It has pushed a shared minimum tax on firms. The book says America should stop funding it and leave.
The memorandum of January 20, 2025 directs the Secretary of the Treasury and the United States Permanent Representative to the OECD to notify the organization that any commitment the previous administration made on the Global Tax Deal has no force or effect in the United States without an act of Congress, and directs Treasury and the Trade Representative to develop options against foreign tax rules that reach American companies extraterritorially. That answers the chapter's objection to a global minimum tax set outside Congress. Where the fit breaks down: the United States remains a member of the OECD and keeps funding it. The memorandum neither withdraws nor ends financial support, and memo-2026-00976, which lists the organizations the United States is to leave, does not include the OECD.
In plain English
The memo tells two officials to write to the group behind the global tax deal. They must say the deal has no force here without a vote by Congress. It also calls for options against foreign tax rules that reach American firms. But the country stays in the group and keeps paying dues. A later list of bodies to leave does not include it.
The document says “should”Who acts: Treasury, CongressHow: legislationp. 699 in the PDF
What the document says
“This massive increase in the scope and breadth of information reporting should be unequivocally opposed.”
The proposal in question would require reporting on business and personal accounts with more than $600, with banks collecting taxpayer identification numbers and filing a revised form for all affected payees.
What the document actually says
“This massive increase in the scope and breadth of information reporting should be unequivocally opposed.”
That sentence, in plain words
One plan would report far more bank accounts. The book says fight it flat out.
What this is about
A plan would have banks report many more accounts to the tax office. It would start at $600. The book is firmly against it.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The reporting requirement the chapter opposes, covering accounts holding more than $600, was a proposal that was never enacted, so there is nothing in the record repealing it and nothing enacting it. None of the candidates concerns information reporting at all: rule-2026-06947 bars bank regulators from using reputation risk against a customer, and rule-2025-15350 is a sanctions general license. The nearest thing in the record is PL 119-5, which disapproves an Internal Revenue Service rule on gross proceeds reporting by digital asset brokers, a different and much narrower reporting rule. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “is necessary”Who acts: President, CongressHow: legislationp. 699 in the PDF
What the document says
“there is a need to increase the number of Presidential appointments subject to Senate confirmation, and not subject to Senate confirmation, at the IRS”
The chapter names the Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement, the Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support, the National Taxpayer Advocate and the Commissioner of the Wage and Investment division among the posts it would change, and asks for an oversight board of private sector IT experts with authority to conduct contemporaneous oversight.
What the document actually says
“there is a need to increase the number of Presidential appointments subject to Senate confirmation, and not subject to Senate confirmation, at the IRS”
That sentence, in plain words
The tax office needs more posts filled by the president.
What this is about
Most tax office bosses are career staff. The book wants more of them picked by the president. It says that would make the agency answer for its work.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed creates presidential appointments at the Internal Revenue Service or an oversight board of private sector information technology experts. The nearest candidates are government wide civil service actions: EO 14356 requires a strategic hiring committee to approve filling any vacant position, and rule-2025-11576 lengthens probationary periods. Both change how career staff are hired and kept, which is not the same as converting a career post into a presidential appointment. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 700 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress should provide the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate with greater resources”
The chapter says legal protections for taxpayer rights and privacy remain inadequate, and asks that interest on overpayments match interest on underpayments rather than the government receiving a higher rate, that the time limit for suing over improper collection be extended, that the Tax Court's jurisdiction be expanded, and that the penalty structure be rationalized with the most punitive penalties reduced.
What the document actually says
“Congress should provide the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate with greater resources”
That sentence, in plain words
Give the office that helps taxpayers more money to work with.
What this is about
One office helps people the tax agency has treated wrongly. The book says it needs more staff and money.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed adds resources to the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate, matches the interest rate on overpayments to the rate on underpayments, extends the time to sue over improper collection, or expands the Tax Court's jurisdiction. The candidates are unrelated to the subject. The nearest enacted law on taxpayer rights is the Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act, which requires a math error notice to describe the error in plain language, to show an itemized computation and to display the abatement deadline, but it says nothing about the Advocate or about any of the other changes asked for here. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, and David R. Burton, “Department of the Treasury,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 691-716. https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
This page
“Department of the Treasury,” Project 2025, chapter 22. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/chapter-22/ (retrieved October 7, 2026).
Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.
What This Page Covers, and What It Leaves Out
The chapter's tax proposals, both what it calls intermediate reform and its structural proposals, plus its recommendations on the IRS, taxpayer rights and international tax.
The chapter's treatment of financial sanctions, terrorism financing, the mint and the bureau of engraving, and its extended discussion of fundamental tax reform options such as a consumption base.
The chapter distinguishes intermediate reform from fundamental reform and says the Administration should do the first and then pursue the second. Proposals here are the intermediate ones unless the entry says otherwise.
