Full List of Hillary’s Planned Tax Hikes

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch and Alexander Hendrie on Thursday, July 28th, 2016, 2:56 PM PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton has made clear she intends to dramatically raise taxes on the American people if elected. She has proposed an income tax increase, a business tax increase, a death tax increase, a capital gains tax increase, a tax on stock trading, an "Exit Tax" and more (see below). Her planned net tax increase on the American people is at least $1 trillion over ten years, based on her campaign’s own figures.

Hillary has endorsed many tax increases on that would hit middle income Americans, despite her pledge not to raise taxes on any American making less than $250,000. She has said she would be fine with a payroll tax hike on all Americans, she has endorsed a steep soda tax, endorsed a 25% national gun tax, and most recently, her campaign manager John Podesta said she would be open to a carbon tax. It’s no wonder she said her $250,000 tax pledge was merely a “goal.”

Hillary’s $1 trillion net tax increase consists of the following:

Income Tax Increase – $350 Billion: Clinton has proposed a $350 billion income tax hike in the form of a 28 percent cap on itemized deductions.

Business Tax Increase -- $275 Billion: Clinton has called for a tax hike of at least $275 billion through undefined business tax reform. According to the Clinton campaign document, “Hillary will fully pay for these [Infrastructure] investments through business tax reform.”

“Fairness” Tax Increase -- $400 Billion: According to her published plan, Clinton has called for a tax increase of “between $400 and $500 billion” by “restoring basic fairness to our tax code.” These proposals include a “fair share surcharge,” the taxing of carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and a hike in the Death Tax.

But there are even more Clinton tax hike proposals not included in the tally above. Her campaign has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals. The true Clinton net tax hike figure is likely much, much higher than $1 trillion.

For instance:

Capital Gains Tax Increase -- Clinton has proposed an increase in the capital gains tax to counter the “tyranny of today’s earnings report.” Her plan calls for an overly complex, byzantine capital gains tax regime with six brackets for those whose total taxable income puts them in the top 39.6 percent bracket. Her campaign has not said how much this will increase taxes.

Tax on Stock Trading -- Clinton has proposed a new, unquantified tax on stock trading. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Inevitably, costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts.

“Exit Tax” – Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposed a series of measures aimed at inversions including an “exit tax” – on income earned overseas. The term “exit tax” is used by the campaign itself. This proposal would completely fail to address the underlying causes behind inversions. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will raise $80 billion in tax revenue, but claims some of the $80 billion will be plowed into tax relief. It does not specify a dollar amount.

ATR is tracking Clinton’s tax record at its dedicated website, HighTaxHillary.com

See also: "Everyman" Tim Kaine Tried to Raise Taxes on Adult Beverages

Hillary Opens the Door to a Carbon Tax

Hillary's Soda Tax Endorsement Violates Middle Class Tax Pledge

Video Shows Hillary's 25% Gun Tax Endorsement

Democrat Platform Calls for Carbon Tax


More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Paul Knutson

Lets Make America Broke!


Obama officially made us a beggar nation. It has just not hit us completely yet


If Trump is elected, the criminal federal reserve will conveniently raise interest rates, crash the economy and blame it on Trump, white men, coal miners, veterans, kittens, etc., etc.... Who have I missed who'll get some blame here?

Hiked Obamacare Premiums to Dry Out Californian’s Bank Accounts

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Natalie De Vincenzi on Thursday, July 28th, 2016, 9:46 AM PERMALINK

Obamacare premium increases are now depleting the pockets of California’s health exchange participants faster than California is losing water. As of next year, Californians can expect their health premiums to increase an average of 13.2%. This hike is more than three times that of the last two years increase and is sure to have a devastating effect on more than one million Californians.

Increasing medical costs and expiring federal programs that help insurers offset costs are causing some of the nation’s largest insurers to either significantly raise their rates or pull out of exchanges. The nation’s largest insurer, UnitedHealth, has already announced that it is pulling out of Covered California after only one year in the exchange due to insurmountable losses.

Just as concerning, two of California’s largest insurers—Blue Shield of California and Anthem Inc.—will have the biggest premium increases. Blue Shield and Anthem are two of the top four insurers that control more than 90 percent of Covered California enrollment. Blue Shield’s premiums are set to rise by more than 19 percent, and Anthem’s by more than 16 percent. Their high enrollment rates and soon to be higher premium rates will surely affect a significant portion of California families and pose significant concern to them.

When Obama was touting his Obamacare law, he promised he would “cut the cost of a typical family's premium.” Clearly, this is not the case.

High premium rates aren’t the only problem with the Covered California exchange. Earlier this year, nearly 2000 pregnant women were dropped from Covered California due to “computer glitches”. This isn’t the first report of people inexplicably being dropped from the exchange—it has been an ongoing issue since its launch. Enrollment and tax-related errors have plagued the exchange, leaving some with an unforeseen bill or without coverage for months.

With the $1.1 billion California was granted by the federal government for its exchange, there is no excuse as to why the exchange should be “accidentally” dropping pregnant women or others without coverage. To top it off, the exchange currently faces an $80 million deficit.

The Covered California exchange is far from successful and is only indicative of the further failed Obamacare law. 

Photo Credit: 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

“Everyman” Tim Kaine Tried to Raise Taxes on Adult Beverages

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch on Wednesday, July 27th, 2016, 4:47 PM PERMALINK

Norquist: "If Kaine’s other tax hikes drove you to drink...he got you again.”

The DNC is attempting to fashion VP nominee Tim Kaine as an “everyman.” But what kind of everyman tries to make your adult beverages more expensive? That’s exactly what Kaine did as governor when he pushed an across the board tax hike on beverages sold in Virginia’s fully monopolized state-owned retail stores.

By law, Virginia residents and businesses must purchase distilled spirits from the monopoly Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) stores. Residents can’t even escape the regime by buying their beverages elsewhere, because Virginia only allows residents to bring home one gallon from another state.

Rather than reform the system, Kaine tried to squeeze more money out of hard working Virginians. He called for a two percent across the board markup, which would have raised the retail price for people shopping in ABC stores as well as those enjoying a beverage in a restaurant. Virginians would have had no choice but to pay the Kaine-imposed markup.

Kaine’s attempted $8 million beverage tax hike was part of his final budget proposal, released Dec. 18, 2009. Kaine’s same budget called for an income tax increase on all Virginians, even those households making $17,000 per year.

“Tim Kaine ran for governor promising not to raise taxes. Days after taking office he released a massive plan to hike taxes by $1 billion,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “Adding insult to injury Kaine wanted to hike the price of spirits. If Kaine’s other tax hikes drove you to drink...he got you again.”

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Cliché Guevara

Nice VP pick by Killary. Guess her handlers didn't tell her you never go full retard.

Killer Kadoogan

I'm personally opposed to calling someone a "retard", but I won't interfere with your right to do so.

Six Years Later Dodd-Frank Has Cost Almost $40 Billion

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Bradley Wyatt on Wednesday, July 27th, 2016, 12:35 PM PERMALINK

Last week the American Action Forum (AAF) released a new study on the higher costs and uncertain benefits associated with the Dodd Frank Act. Past six years ago and signed into law by President Obama, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) has reduced consumer choice, while driving consumer costs and the compliance burden higher.

The stated purpose of the Dodd-Frank Act was to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes. However, the Dodd-Frank Act has proven a failure on all accounts, as consumer choice, credit unions, and small banks are being phased out.

According to the AAF study, the Dodd-Frank Act has imposed more than $36 billion in final rule costs and 73 million hours of paperwork. AAF also found in recent research that the law had resulted in a 14.5 percent decline in revolving consumer credit. The law has added complexity and confusion for consumers and financial intuitions, which is detrimental to the housing market, work force, and free market in general.

 Even more alarming is the fact that not all provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act have been enacted, and there are still at least 61 rulemakings remaining within the Dodd-Frank Act. These rules, still in proposed form, are slated to be finalized soon and only add to the already massive compliance costs and burden. Combined, the Dodd-Frank Act rulemakings still yet to be finalized would add another $3.3 billion in additional costs and almost one million more hours of paperwork.

Additionally, ending the “Too Big to Fail” (TBTF) was a main stay behind the Dodd-Frank Act. However, it seems that the Dodd-Frank Act has yet to resolve any TBTF issues. Within the AAF study, it is noted that the top five banks among the nation’s large commercial intuitions have accounted for a majority of the market in 13 of 23 quarters since Dodd-Frank has been law. Using the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI), data reveals that in recent years Dodd-Frank has likely contributed to a more concentrated banking sector.

In response to these issues, House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) recently introduced the Financial CHOICE Act (FCA), which looks to rein in a myriad of onerous and costly regulations enacted under the Dodd-Frank Act. In introducing the Act, Chairman Hensarling hopes to give Americans new ability to achieve financial independence and raise their standards of living, while also promoting economic growth for the economy as a whole. 

With the sixth anniversary of Dodd-Frank approaching, more than $36 billion in costs and 73 million paperwork burden hours have been imposed. As agencies like CFPB and FHFA grow, it is clear that the regulatory burden will only continue harming consumer choice, and with over 61 regulations remaining, it is expected that costs will continue to rise.


Photo Credit: Antonio Campoy

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Hillary Open to Carbon Tax, Says Campaign Chief

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alex Hendrie and John Kartch on Tuesday, July 26th, 2016, 7:11 PM PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton is open to the idea of a carbon tax, Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta said Tuesday. Podesta’s remarks came shortly after the 2016 Democrat party platform was shown to formally endorse a carbon tax.

As reported by Politico Pro:

“Right now we’ve not proposed a carbon tax,” John Podesta told reporters here, after speaking at an event hosted by green groups. “We believe we can get the job done. But if Congress wants to come forward with one, we’ll take a look at it.”

Podesta is not the only Democrat plotting with Hillary Clinton to eventually impose a carbon tax. In June 2015, Senate honcho Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said a Hillary victory could pave the way for a carbon tax. He said:

“There's one sort of [value-added tax] Democrats might be for — and that's a carbon tax. So you might get a compromise along those lines.”

The 2016 Democrat Party platform carbon tax language states:

“Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean economy and help meet out climate goals.”

The move by Democrats to impose a carbon tax comes in clear contrast to the 2016 Republican Party platform opposition to any carbon tax:

“We oppose any carbon tax.”

Americans for Tax Reform is tracking all of Hillary’s tax hike positions at its dedicated website, www.HighTaxHillary.com

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Burgers, Fries and Taxes: Kerala Levies a Heavy Tax on Fast Food

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Brady Wilson on Tuesday, July 26th, 2016, 3:47 PM PERMALINK

Last week, the Indian state of Kerala implemented a tax on fast food that has been called the "fat tax."  The tax is levied at a rate of 14.5%.  While currently limited to one state, the policy sets a precedent that the rest may soon follow especially after seeing the revenue that the fat tax brings Kerala.  

The state is adding the tax for one reason: money.  Kerala is not looking to fight for the health of its citizens, it just sees the chance to squeeze more money from working people.

India claims that it is using the tax to combat obesity, yet the tax falls short of that objective.  The tax only applies to brands such as the major chains McDonald's, Burger King, Domino's, and KFC.  Thus, the tax aims to push citizens away from these businesses and toward local foods which as one cafe owner noted, "A lot of local food is more fatty and unhealthy."  A dietician echoed that thought, “Why just burgers and fries? Indian food is also laden with empty calories, which give no concrete nutrition.” The tax is not truly altering the dietary habits of Indians, it is targeting certain multinationals that the government does not approve of.  

Indian lawmakers pointed to past attempts at the fat tax as their inspiration for the policy.  However, they ignore that the tax was a resounding failure in Denmark, the one country where it was previously implemented.  In short, the Danish tax led to inflation, job loss, and cross-cross border shopping while requiring massive administrative costs to operate.  When the Danish saw the drawbacks coupled with a lack of success at combating obesity, they wisely disbanded the tax in less than a year.

In a study examining the Danish fat tax, the think-tank Institute of Economic Affairs concluded that the fiasco has created lessons for policy-makers considering that tax.  The study explained that the effects on calorie consumption and obesity will be minimal while the tax itself is regressive, inefficient, and unpopular.  Yet three years later, Kerala is ignoring the evidence from Denmark to create a ridiculous tax. 

Right now it is just a small state in southern India, but as other nations see Kerala’s tax, they will see another opportunity to add to their coffers.  Countries are already debating their version of the tax including in Italy while Barbados was forced to quash rumors of a fat tax that arose after Kerala’s new policy. 

Just as other states will copy this ridiculous tax, it begs the question, what else will governments tax?  One Indian newspaper quipped that next will be a skinny tax, or a sick tax, or maybe even a dumb tax to control the behavior of its people.

If the government truly wanted to help its people make a more healthy option, it should have launched an educational campaign to help its citizens make an informed decision.  Instead, the government is using a high tax to remove the ability to choose from its people while stealing money from hardworking citizens.  



Photo Credit: Zhao

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Democratic Platform Calls for Carbon Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Tuesday, July 26th, 2016, 10:56 AM PERMALINK

The 2016 Democratic Party platform endorses a carbon tax on the American people. The carbon tax language, added at the last minute, states:

“Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean economy and help meet out climate goals.”

The move by Democrats to impose a carbon tax comes in clear contrast to the 2016 Republican Party platform opposition to any carbon tax:

“We oppose any carbon tax.”

Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, predicts the Democrat call for a carbon tax will have electoral consequences: “When counting to 270 – the number of electoral votes needed to win the presidency – the Republicans may have already won the election in five short words: ‘We oppose any carbon tax.’ Note the overlap between new fracking states – Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Colorado – and the swing states to reach 270 for any candidate.”  


Photo credit: Jim Hutchison

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Take your tax and shove it up your Hillary.

John (magnum)

A lot of people have brought up the fact that they won't vote for Trump if he's the eventual nominee.

Lets put something in perspective.

Justice Scalia's seat is vacant. Ginsberg is 82 years old, Kennedy is 79, Breyer is 77, and Thomas is 67. Nowadays, the data shows that the average age of a Supreme Court retirement or death occurs after 75.

These are 5 vacancies that will likely come up over the next 4-8 years. The next President will have the power to potentially create a 7-2 Supreme Court skewed in their ideology.

Think about that... 7-2. If the next President appoints 5 young justices, it will guarantee control of the Supreme Court for an entire generation. And 7-2 decisions will hold up much more over time than 5-4 decisions which are seemed to be lacking in mandate.

Hillary has made it clear she will use the Supreme Court to go after the 2nd Amendment. She has literally said that the SupremeCourt was wrong in its Heller decision stating that the Court should overturn and remove the individual right to keep and bear arms. Period.

Everyone saying that they won't vote for one candidate or the other if they are the GOP nominee, please realize this. If Hillary Clinton wins and gets to make these appointments, you likely will never see another Conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for the rest of your life. Ever.

If you are a Conservative, a vote for anyone but the GOP nominee, whomever that will be, is a vote for Hillary Clinton.

Krazy Kent

....because that's why man-made global warming/cooling/climatechange or whatever they've named it this month was invented..
To bilk Americans out of more tax dollars. That's all it is, a scheme...and a made-up one at that.

Hillary’s Phony $250,000 Tax Pledge

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Toni-Anne Barry, John Kartch on Monday, July 25th, 2016, 2:17 PM PERMALINK

A real pledge or a lie to get votes?

During Sunday’s 60 Minutes interview of Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, interviewer Scott Pelley asked Clinton about her tax pledge:

Scott Pelley: “Who gets a tax increase? Who gets a tax cut?”

Hillary Clinton: “The middle class will not get a tax increase. That has been my pledge.”

Scott Pelley: “What does middle class mean?”

Hillary Clinton: “Well, we say below $250,000”

But when pressed on the issue on ABC’s This Week in Dec. 2015, Clinton balked and said her pledge was actually just a “goal”:

George Stephanopoulos: “You are also saying no tax increases at all on anyone earning $250,000. Is that a rock solid read-my-lips promise?”

Clinton: “Well, it certainly is my goal. And I’ve laid it out in this campaign. And it’s something that President Obama promised. It’s something my husband certainly tried to achieve. Because I want Americans to know that I get it.”

So, Clinton’s “pledge” is not real. She admitted as much.

“She’s up front saying ‘I’m going to lie my way into office,’” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

In addition to reducing her pledge to a mere “goal” Clinton referenced two presidents – Obama and Bill Clinton – who raised taxes on the very people they promised to spare.

As a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama made the same promise. Speaking in Dover, New Hampshire on Sept. 12, 2008, Obama said:

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” [Video]

In an address to a joint session of Congress on Feb. 24, 2009, President Obama restated the promise in forceful terms:

“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.” [Transcript] [Video]

But Obama broke that promise. He signed into law eight tax increases that directly hit Americans making less than $250,000 per year. There are seven tax increases in Obamacare that are in violation of his pledge, such as the individual mandate non-compliance tax; an income tax hike on those with high medical bills; tax hikes on flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts; and even a 10 percent “indoor tanning tax.” Combined, these tax increases target tens of millions of Americans.

Obama first broke his pledge on the sixteenth day of his presidency, when he raised taxes on cigarettes. At the time, the median income of smokers was less than $40,000. The Associated Press rightly called out Obama for the broken promise in a national piece titled “Promises, Promises: Obama Tax Pledge Up in Smoke.”

Hillary’s husband Bill raised the gas tax, steeply increasing the tax burden on millions of middle income Americans.

“Hillary told us that her pledge is just a tactic to try and win the election, not a principle with which to govern,” said Norquist.

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Tim Kaine Pushed for Income Tax Hikes on Families Making as Little as $17,000

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Toni-Anne Barry on Friday, July 22nd, 2016, 5:08 PM PERMALINK

As governor, Hillary’s High-Tax-Tim tried to hike taxes by billions of dollars

If prospective Hillary Clinton running mate Tim Kaine had his way, Virginia residents would be paying billions in higher taxes. As governor, Kaine sought to impose nearly $4 billion in higher taxes, including an income tax hike on families earning as little as $17,000 a year. He pushed for tax hikes on businesses and higher taxes on distilled spirits and cigarettes:

Income Tax Hike on Working Families: Kaine tried to Increase the bottom tax rate from 5.75% to 6.75%, directing affecting low income families earning as little as $17,000 annually.

Business Tax: Tax increase on businesses collecting sales tax bumping the state rate from 4% to 4.3% 

Alcohol Tax: Kaine pushed a 2% markup on distilled spirits.

Cigarette Tax: Kaine pushed a 60-cents per pack cigarette tax increase.

Kaine’s record in support of tax hikes makes him attractive to Hillary, who has proposed a series of tax increases totaling at least $1 trillion over 10 years.

To learn more about Kaine and Clinton’s tax hike records, visit ATR’s dedicated website, HighTaxHillary.com

Photo Credit: 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

EIA Study Reaffirms CPP's Impact on U.S. Economy

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Bradley Wyatt on Wednesday, July 20th, 2016, 1:16 PM PERMALINK

A new study released from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) discussed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan (CPP). Last August, the EPA released the final version of the CPP, which is projected to kill thousands of jobs, reduce GDP, and increase energy prices.

The EIA states that the CPP will mean higher prices for residential and commercial electricity, which translates over from the higher transmission and distribution costs. It is noted within the EIA study that electricity prices will increase with rising fuel costs and expenditures for electric transmission and distribution infrastructure. Also confirmed by this study is that residential and commercial electricity prices are significantly higher than industrial prices; this mainly reflects the higher costs of distribution services for residential and commercial customers.

In addition to the EIA study, multiple sources have stated that the EPA’s proposal of the CPP is harmful to economic growth and American families. The EPA’s proposal is the MOST expensive environmental regulation that has ever imposed on the electric power sector, costing at least $41 billion per year. This added expense will be especially harmful to low, middle, and fixed income families. The 60 million low and middle income households in America have witnessed a 22% decline in income and a 27% increase in energy costs; not to mention those who are dependent on Social Security, such as fixed-income seniors, are being hit the hardest by rising energy costs. Low and middle income households spend more than twice as much as high-income households for energy.

EIA projects that although energy consumption is projected to grow from 2015-2040, that higher energy prices could reduce the demand for energy. This is due to the fact that consumers will face higher energy costs if the EPA continues their over regulation. Consumers should not have to lose out on an abundance of affordable energy that America has to offer because of the Obama Administration’s and unelected bureaucrats “green” agenda. 

Charles McConnell, the former Obama Administration’s Department of Energy Fossil Fuel Director, recently told a congressional panel that the EPA’s plan of regulation is “ideological mumbo jumbo” and he states that it will NOT significantly affect global CO2 emissions. McConnell, now executive director of Rice University’s Energy and Environment Initiative, also explained that his ideology “is not against climate regulations, but against stupid regulations”, such as the Administration’s CPP plan.

A study from the Manhattan Institute points out the CPP will have no measurable impact on world climate. The study cites an EPA-sponsored climate model showing that the CPP will have an estimated impact of less than 0.01 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, which essentially is all cost and no benefit for U.S. consumers and businesses

Supporters of the EPA proposal ultimately argue that the U.S. must play a leadership role in reducing CO2 emissions. The EIA claims the initial impact of the CPP was to lower CO2 emissions; however, the EIA fails to mention the increase in CO2 emissions from emerging nations such as China, India, and Asian nations.  With the large amount of added expenses the CPP will burden consumers and businesses with; one would expect the CPP would have larger effects on domestic CO2 emissions.  Once again, we have failed leadership from our Administration that will only hurt, not help, American families and businesses.


Photo Credit: TexasGOPvote.com

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments