Harrison Searles

View Hi-Res Image

Harrison Searles

  • MA Fellow

Harrison Searles is a second year MA student in the Department of Economics at George Mason University. Harrison graduated from the University of Massachusetts Amherst with a BA in Economics and Philosophy. He has attended Acton Institute’s Acton University and FEE’s Advanced Austrian Economics seminar. Additionally, he was the founding member and Secretary of the UMass Libertarian Club, and a member of the Undergraduate Economics Club.

Policy Briefs

The Tax Exclusion for Retirement and Pension Plans

Jeremy Horpedahl, Harrison Searles | Sep 17, 2013
The US federal tax code contains a number of provisions designed to encourage individuals to save for retirement. These provisions allow individuals to avoid or defer taxes if they choose to set aside a portion of their income for future consumption. When all of these provisions are combined, they are the second largest “tax expenditure” category as defined by the Joint Committee on Taxation. The exclusion of retirement savings from taxation causes some economic distortions, which we will discuss in this paper. However, unlike some other tax expenditures, there is a strong economic rationale for not taxing savings. Higher rates of investment lead to higher rates of economic growth, and it may be sound policy for the tax code to encourage this behavior, even after considering the economic costs. Excluding retirement income from taxation may also make the tax system more efficient, even though most other tax expenditures reduce efficiency.

The Tax Exemption of Employer-Provided Health Insurance

Jeremy Horpedahl, Harrison Searles | Sep 10, 2013
The exclusion of employer-provided health insurance from taxation lowers federal tax revenue significantly. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the federal government missed out on over $170 billion in income tax revenue and another $108 billion in payroll tax revenue in fiscal year 2012 due to the exclusion.1 Over the next five fiscal years, the federal government would collect around $1 trillion in income tax revenue if employer-provided health benefits were taxed, plus another $600 billion payroll tax revenue. Given the large deficits that the federal government continues to accumulate, this exclusion is a tempting source of new revenue. But closing this loophole would also mean a significant tax increase on all working Americans that currently receive health insurance from their employer.

The Home Mortgage Interest Deduction

Jeremy Horpedahl, Harrison Searles | Jan 08, 2013
The home mortgage interest deduction is the largest explicit tax deduction for households in the federal income tax code. Politicians have been reluctant to even consider removing this deduction, believing it to be one that provides significant benefits to middle-class taxpayers and encourages homeownership. These benefits are greatly over- stated: most taxpayers do not benefit from this deduction at all or receive a very small benefit. The only taxpayers who do receive a large benefit are those in the upper income brackets. Taxpayers and the entire economy would be better served by removing the mortgage interest deduction and lowering marginal tax rates to offset the change.

Research Areas

' '