John Kartch

Good Riddance to Obamacare’s Tax Hikes

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie, John Kartch on Monday, November 14th, 2016, 10:54 AM PERMALINK


When it was signed into law six years ago, Obamacare imposed more than $1 trillion in tax hikes on the American people over a ten year period. There are seven Obamacare tax increases that directly hit Americans making less than $250,000, a violation of President Obama’s “firm pledge” not to raise any form of tax on such households.

Obama broke his promise to the American people. Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and Donald Trump can now abolish these taxes.  

The list of tax hikes is below -- the first seven directly hit Americans making less than $250,000:

Individual Mandate Non-Compliance Tax: Anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services -- must pay an income surtax to the IRS. In 2014, close to 7.5 million households paid this tax. Most make less than $250,000. The Obama administration uses the Orwellian phrase “shared responsibility payment” to describe this tax.   

Starting this year, the tax was a minimum of $695 for individuals, while families of four had to pay a minimum of $2,085.

 

Households w/ 1 Adult

 

Households w/ 2 Adults

Households w/ 2 Adults & 2 children

 

2.5% AGI/$695

 

2.5% AGI/$1390

2.5% AGI/$2085

A recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that repealing this tax would decrease spending by $311 billion over ten years.

Medicine Cabinet Tax on HSAs and FSAs: Since 2011 millions of Americans are no longer able to purchase over-the-counter medicines using pre-tax Flexible Spending Accounts or Health Savings Accounts dollars. Examples include cold, cough, and flu medicine, menstrual cramp relief medication, allergy medicines, and dozens of other common medicine cabinet health items. This tax costs FSA and HSA users $6.7 billion over ten years.

Flexible Spending Account Tax: The 30 - 35 million Americans who use a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs face an Obamacare-imposed cap of $2,500. This tax will hit Americans $32 billion over the next ten years.

Before Obamacare, the accounts were unlimited under federal law, though employers were allowed to set a cap. Now, parents looking to sock away extra money to pay for braces find themselves quickly hitting this new cap, meaning they have to pony up some or all of the cost with after-tax dollars. Needless to say, this tax especially impacts middle class families.

There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap is particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  Families with special needs children often use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at special needs schools can run thousands of dollars per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. This Obamacare tax increase limits the options available to these families.

Chronic Care Tax: This income tax increase directly targets middle class Americans with high medical bills. The tax hits 10 million households every year. Before Obamacare, Americans facing high medical expenses were allowed an income tax deduction to the extent that those expenses exceeded 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). Obamacare now imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Therefore, Obamacare not only makes it more difficult to claim this deduction, it widens the net of taxable income. This income tax increase will cost Americans $40 billion over the next ten years.

According to the IRS, approximately 10 million families took advantage of this tax deduction each year before Obamacare. Almost all were middle class: The average taxpayer claiming this deduction earned just over $53,000 annually in 2010. ATR estimates that the average income tax increase for the average family claiming this tax benefit is about $200 - $400 per year.

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike: This provision increases the tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Ten Percent Excise Tax on Indoor Tanning: The Obamacare 10 percent tanning tax has wiped out an estimated 10,000 tanning salons, many owned by women. This $800 million Obamacare tax increase was the first to go into effect (July 2010). This petty, burdensome, nanny-state tax affects both the business owner and the end user. Industry estimates show that 30 million Americans visit an indoor tanning facility in a given year, and over 50 percent of salon owners are women. There is no exception granted for those making less than $250,000 meaning it is yet another tax that violates Obama’s “firm pledge” not to raise “any form” of tax on Americans making less than this amount.

“Cadillac Tax” -- Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans: In 2020, a new 40 percent excise tax on employer provided health insurance plans is scheduled to kick in, on plans exceeding $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. According to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the Cadillac tax will hit 26 percent of employer provided plans and 42 percent of employer provided plans by 2028. Over time, this will decrease care and increase costs for millions of American families across the country. 

Employer Mandate Tax: This provision forces employers to pay a $2,000 tax per full time employee if they do not offer “qualifying” – as defined by the government -- health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Employer Mandate Tax raises taxes on businesses by $166.9 billion over the ten years.

Surtax on Investment Income: Obamacare created a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 for singles). This created a new top capital gains tax rate of 23.8% and increased taxes by $222.8 billion over ten years.

The capital gains tax hits income that has already been subjected to individual income taxes and is then reinvested in assets that spur new jobs, higher wages, and increased economic growth. Much of the “gains” associated with the capital gains tax is due to inflation and studies have shown that even supposedly modest increases in the capital gains tax have strong negative economic effects.

Payroll Tax Hike: Obamacare imposes an additional 0.9 percent payroll tax on individuals making $200,000 or couples making more than $250,000. This tax increase costs Americans $123 billion over ten years.

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers: This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax on all sales of medical devices. The tax applies even if the company has no profits in a given year. The tax was recently paused for tax years 2016 and 2017. It will cost Americans $20 billion by 2025.

Tax on Prescription Medicine: Obamacare imposed a tax on the producers of prescription medicine based on relative share of sales. This is a $29.6 billion tax hike over the next ten years.

Tax on Health Insurers: Annual tax on health insurance providers imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. This is a $130 billion tax hike over the next ten years.

Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”: This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. This costs taxpayers $5.8 billion over ten years.

Elimination of Deduction for Retiree Prescription Drug Coverage: The elimination of this deduction is a $1.8 billion tax hike over ten years.

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives: This deduction limitation is a $600 million tax hike over ten years.

Photo Credit: 
Kevin Spencer, http://bit.ly/2fr8ZJM

Top Comments

Wri8terofWrongs

Trump just better sign it.


State Tax Ballot Measure Roundup

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch, Laurens ten Cate on Wednesday, November 9th, 2016, 2:15 PM PERMALINK


Taxpayer Wins:

Washington state rejects carbon tax - Initiative 732 got rejected by a 58.5% to 41.5% margin. The initiative would have phased in a $25 per metric ton carbon tax over a period of two years. After reaching $25 it would have continued to increase by 3.5% plus the rate of inflation until the tax reached $100.

Colorado rejects payroll and income tax hike – By a 79.9% to 20.3% margin, Colorado voters rejected Amendment 69, a massive tax increase that would have imposed a 10% payroll tax and a 10% tax on all non-payroll income.

Oklahoma rejects 22 percent sales tax hike  -  State Question 779 got rejected by a 59.4% to 40.6% margin. State Question 779 would have hiked the sales tax by 22% (from 4.5% to 5.5%).

Oregon rejects business tax increase - By a 59.2% to 40.8% margin, Oregon voters rejected Measure 97 which would have implemented a 2.5% gross receipts tax on all corporate sales exceeding $25 million.

Colorado rejects tobacco tax increase - By a 53.7% to 46.3% margin, Colorado voters rejected Amendment 72, which would have increased the tobacco excise tax by $1.75 per 20-pack. Additionally, all other tobacco products excluding e-cigarettes would have been taxed at 62 percent of the manufacturer's list price.

Missouri rejects 23-cent cigarette tax increase - Missouri voters rejected Proposition A by 55.3% to 44.7% margin, which would have increased the cigarette tax by 23 cents per pack by 2021. Further, all other tobacco products would have been subject to an additional 5% sales tax.

Missouri rejects 60-cent cigarette tax increase  - By a 59.2% to 40.8% margin, Missouri voters rejected Constitutional Amendment 3, which would have raised the cigarette tax by 60 cents per 20-pack in 15 cent increments by 2020. Additionally, an 'equity assessment fee' of 67 cents per pack would have been imposed on manufacturers who did not sign the Tobacco Masters Settlement Agreement (TMSA) of 1998.

North Dakota rejects Tobacco Tax Increase - North Dakota voters rejected Initiated Statutory Measure 4 by 61.7% to 38.3%, which would have increased the state tobacco tax from 44 cents to $2.20 per pack. Also, it would have raised the tax on other tobacco products (including liquid nicotine and electronic vapor products) from 28 percent to 56 percent of the wholesale purchase price. 

Illinois safeguards gas tax funds – The Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment passed by a vote of 78.9% to 21.1%. The Amendment will prevent lawmakers from using transportation funds for projects other than their stated purpose.

New Jersey safeguards gas tax funds - By a 53.6% to 46.4% margin, New Jersey voters passed Public Question 2, which dedicates all gas tax revenue to transportation projects, so politicians will be unable to raid it for their pet purposes.

San Diego, California, rejects hotel room tax increase - By a 57% to 43% margin, San Diego voters rejected Measure C, which would have raised the city's effective hotel room tax by 60% (from 10.5% to 16.5%). The tax hike funds were to be funneled to the construction of a new stadium for the San Diego Chargers. 

Taxpayer Losses:

California extends income tax hike – California Proposition 55 passed by a vote of 62.1% to 37.9%, extending the “temporary” income tax rates hike approved by voters in 2012, on incomes exceeding $250,000 a year.

California passes Tobacco tax increase  - By a 62.9% to 37.1% margin, California voters passed Proposition 56, which increases the state cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack to a total of $2.87 per pack. This increase is also applied to all other tobacco-derived products including e-cigarettes.

Missouri extends sales tax – By a 80.1% to 19.9% margin, Missouri voters passed Amendment 1, which extends a 0.1 percent sales and use tax for another ten years.

Too Close to Call:

Maine Question 2 - Maine residents voted on Question 2, a 40% tax hike (from 7.15% to 10.15%) on household incomes exceeding $200,000 per year. At this point the result is too close to call.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo Credit: 
DonkeyHotey, http://bit.ly/2exvKYo

Top Comments


Tax Policy Center Data: Trump Tax Plan Beats Clinton with Higher Take-Home Pay for All Income Levels

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie, John Kartch on Monday, October 31st, 2016, 1:07 PM PERMALINK


Left of center group’s own numbers show after-tax income under Trump plan is higher than Clinton’s plan for all income levels

Donald Trump’s tax cut plan would increase after-tax income more than the Hillary Clinton’s tax plan regardless of income quintile, according to data published by the left-of-center Tax Policy Center.

As noted in the center-left Tax Policy Center’s data, the middle quintile of income earners would see a 1.8 percent increase in after tax-income under the Trump plan but would receive just 0.2 percent increase in after-tax income under the Clinton plan. The Trump tax cut in this income range is nine times the size of Clinton’s.

Clinton’s tax plan offers no income tax rate reduction for any American of any income level. No rate reduction for any business or any individual, regardless of size.


Data Source: Tax Policy Center

Clinton’s overall tax plan raises taxes by $1.4 trillion. Americans for Tax Reform is tracking all of Clinton’s tax hikes at www.HighTaxHillary.com

Photo Credit: 
Lorie Shaull, http://bit.ly/2e5NoCw

Top Comments


Norquist Letter Calls Out New York State Senators For Vote Against Property Rights

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch on Friday, October 21st, 2016, 10:06 AM PERMALINK


(UPDATE: The bill in question was unfortunately signed into law by Gov. Cuomo (D) today)

Today ATR President Grover Norquist sent a letter to Edward F. Cox, Chairman of the New York State Republican Party, and Michael R. Long, Chairman of the Conservative Party of New York, calling attention to a upstate Republicans and Conservatives who voted to restrict property rights.

The full text of the letter is below:

Oct. 21, 2016

Edward F. Cox
Chairman, New York State Republican Party

Michael R. Long
Chairman, Conservative Party of New York State

Dear Chairman Cox and Chairman Long,

I write to you today to call out Republican and Conservative state senators who unfortunately voted for S6340A, the downstate, heavy-handed, union-boss driven property rights restriction which recently arrived on Gov. Cuomo’s desk for his consideration by Oct. 29:

Sen. Terrence Murphy – District 40
Sen. Sue Serino – District 41
Sen. Joseph A. Griffo – District 47
Sen. Patty Ritchie – District 48
Sen. John A. DeFrancisco – District 50
Sen. Fred Akshar – District 52
Sen. Rich Funke – District 55
Sen. Joseph E. Robach – District 56
Sen. Catharine Young – District 57
Sen. Thomas F. O’Mara – District 58
Sen. Patrick M. Gallivan – District 59
Sen. Robert G. Ortt – District 62

This bill is an attack on the property rights and livelihood of all New Yorkers. It reeks of protectionism. I am bewildered as to why any Republican or Conservative would vote against the interests of their own constituents in order to please New York City Democrat leaders and downstate union bosses. Upstate Republicans and Conservatives were elected to protect their constituents from precisely such looting.

In a tough economy home sharing has provided a lifeline for people to pay their bills and make ends meet. It is especially beneficial to lower and middle income families and households. I would encourage the senators to spend some time with home sharing hosts and guests and learn this first hand. As NYU’s own Arun Sundararajan has written: “Peer-to-peer rental marketplaces have a disproportionately positive effect on lower-income consumers across almost every measure.”

This bill is also a case of the political class working against the interests of the people. Voters of all political persuasions want a light regulatory touch when it comes to the sharing economy, as shown by a recent Pew Research Center survey which found that even Democrats and liberals want politicians to leave them alone in this area of their lives. The authors note: “The clear preference for a light regulatory approach among partisans in all camps is striking.”

A vote in support of the bill is something one would expect from the likes of Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton. Clinton has threatened to “crack down” – her words – on the sharing economy if elected.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Republican and Conservative senators who stood their ground and voted against this special interest monstrosity:

Sen. George A. Amedore, Jr. – District 46
Sen. Kathleen A. Marchione – District 43
Sen. Michael H. Ranzenhofer – District 61
Sen. Hugh T. Farley – District 49
Sen. James L. Seward – District 51

Instead of passing hostile and economically destructive new laws that would drive home sharing underground, I encourage Republicans and Conservatives to consider the country’s best free market framework for short term rentals – Arizona’s SB 1350 – passed by the Republican-led legislature and signed into law by Gov. Doug Ducey (R). There is a clear movement in many other states toward the Arizona approach.

The State of New York has a choice: It can either be a leader in the emerging sharing economy or it can make itself a mausoleum dedicated to the political structures of the past.

Sincerely,

Grover G. Norquist

President, Americans for Tax Reform

 

Photo Credit: 
Open Grid Scheduler, http://bit.ly/2eAwWeg

Top Comments


Five Tax Takeaways from the Debate

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch, Laurens ten Cate on Thursday, October 20th, 2016, 10:46 AM PERMALINK


Five key tax points to consider from last night’s debate:

Hillary is open to a payroll tax on ALL Americans of any income level: Hillary mentioned her support for lifting the payroll tax cap. And back in January at an Iowa forum Hillary said she would sign a payroll tax hike on all Americans of all income levels. She said so in a high-profile venue but the press has not focused on it. Here’s the key video excerpt:

Moderator: “Democrats have introduced a plan [Family Act] that Senator Sanders supports that you’ve come out against because it is funded by a payroll tax. If that were to reach your desk as President, would you veto it in order to make good on your tax pledge?”

Hillary Clinton: “No. No.”

The payroll tax increase she green-lighted would hit all wages under $118,500. And last night, she green-lighted a payroll tax increase on those making above $118,500. Nobody at any income level is safe from her payroll tax desires.

Hillary has already admitted she would violate her $250,000 tax pledge: Hillary said: “I have said repeatedly throughout this campaign: I will not raise taxes on anyone making $250,000 or less.Americans for Tax Reform has debunked this claim multiple times already. Her own words (see payroll tax item above) and actions run contrary to her oft-repeated pledge. She has also endorsed a steep soda tax, which Bernie Sanders called her out on, saying: "Frankly, I am very surprised that Secretary Clinton would support this regressive tax after pledging not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. This proposal clearly violates her pledge.”

Clinton has also refused to support repeal of the seven tax hikes in Obamacare that directly hit Americans making less than $250,000.

Hillary’s gun taxes are a threat to the Second Amendment: During the discussion on the Supreme Court, Hillary slammed the Second Amendment community. Her hostility runs deep. She is on video strongly endorsing a 25% national gun tax and also endorsed a doubling of the existing federal excise tax on guns in 1993. These taxes are a direct threat to the Second Amendment. Anti-gun Democrats continue the push to impose gun taxes after doing so recently in Seattle and Illinois.

Hillary has no tax reform plan: There is overwhelming consensus among Republicans and Democrats agree that the tax code is way too complicated and that tax reform is required to simplify the IRS tax code. Hillary is an outlier. She has not offered a comprehensive tax reform plan and never speaks about the need for structural tax reform. The only thing she offers is tax hikes, and lots of them.

Hillary continues her dishonesty about the progressive nature of the tax code: Once again during the debate Hillary Clinton mentioned that she wants to: “have the wealthy pay their fair share.” She is once again being dishonest about the current tax structure in the United States of America. The tax code in the US is already steeply progressive. According to recent data from the CBO, the top 20 percent of households pay 88% of federal income taxes and 69% of total federal taxes.

Hillary Clinton continues her disingenuous comments about her tax plan and America’s tax plan. She will raise taxes on all Americans. Tax Policy Center recently released a report admitting that Clinton’s tax plan offers no income tax rate reduction for any American of any income level. No rate reduction for any business or any individual, regardless of size.

Clinton’s overall tax plan raises taxes by $1.4 trillion. Americans for Tax Reform is tracking all of Clinton’s tax hikes at www.HighTaxHillary.com

Photo Credit: 
Marc Nozell, http://bit.ly/2e4oFkt

Top Comments


Flashback: Hillary Said She Would Violate Her $250,000 Tax Pledge

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch on Wednesday, October 19th, 2016, 9:38 PM PERMALINK


Tonight Hillary Clinton tried to claim she won't raise any tax on any American making less than $250,000. But Hillary’s own statements indicate she will break this promise:

Payroll tax hike -- When asked if she would break her pledge by signing a payroll tax increase on all Americans if such legislation reached her desk, Clinton confirmed she would break the pledge. These remarks took place in Iowa at a major forum on Jan. 12, 2016. Here’s the key video excerpt:

Moderator: “Democrats have introduced a plan [Family Act] that Senator Sanders supports that you’ve come out against because it is funded by a payroll tax. If that were to reach your desk as President, would you veto it in order to make good on your tax pledge?”

Hillary Clinton: “No. No.”

The payroll tax increase she green-lighted would hit all wages under $118,500.

Yes, you read that correctly. The legislation the moderator referred to is the Family Act, which raises taxes on all wages under $118,500.

Soda tax hike -- Hillary endorsed a steep soda pop tax in Philadelphia. This will cost soda purchasers an extra $2.16 per 12-pack. Bernie Sanders called out Hillary’s violation of her middle class tax pledge. Sanders said:

"Frankly, I am very surprised that Secretary Clinton would support this regressive tax after pledging not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. This proposal clearly violates her pledge.”

Sanders also said:

“The mechanism here is fairly regressive. And that is, it will be increasing taxes on low-income and working people.”

Obamacare taxes: Clinton has endorsed Obamacare, which has at least seven direct tax hikes on Americans making less than $250,000: the Obamacare individual mandate tax, two tax hikes on flexible spending accounts, two tax hikes on health savings accounts, an income tax increase on Americans facing high medical bills in a given year, and a 10 percent indoor tanning tax which has wiped out thousands of small businesses (mostly owned by women) since its imposition in 2010.

Just a “goal” -- When asked by George Stephanopoulos in December 2015 if her tax pledge was “a rock solid read-my-lips promise” she did not reply with a “yes.”

Instead she replied that it was merely her “goal.” Here’s the exchange:

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.”

If she is serious about keeping the promise, the only acceptable answer to Stephanopoulos’ question is “Yes.” Instead she tipped her tax hike hand.

Also note Hillary’s reference to Bill Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s middle class tax pledges: both men broke their pledge upon taking office.

Photo Credit: 
brwn_yd_grl, http://bit.ly/2dAW0nA

Top Comments


Leaked Emails Show Team Hillary Worried About Her 25% Gun Tax Endorsement

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch on Thursday, October 13th, 2016, 2:08 PM PERMALINK


On Sept. 8, 2015, Americans for Tax Reform published documentation of Hillary Clinton’s 1993 endorsement of a new national 25% retail sales tax on guns. “I am all for that,” said Clinton of the tax as she testified before the Senate Finance Committee. 

As the story picked up steam in conservative media outlets, the Clinton campaign team began to worry.

On Oct. 4, 2015, Clinton advisor Mandy Grunwald emailed the team saying, “I also saw something about her supporting a 25% tax on gun sales back in 1993. I didn’t see q and a on either of these in the briefing.”

Later that day, campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri replied: “Being added today.”

It is unclear if the campaign team ever came up with talking points in an attempt to justify Clinton’s gun tax endorsement. The email thread either ended at that point, or any response has yet to be released by Wikileaks.

In the primary election, Clinton aggressively positioned herself to the left of Bernie Sanders on guns, and attacked Sanders relentlessly for his 1990s gun votes.

Hillary’s endorsement of the gun tax was reported at the time by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, NBC Nightly News and several other outlets.

As reported by the AP on Oct. 1, 1993:

Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., picked up Mrs. Clinton's support for his idea of slapping stiff taxes on ''purveyors of violence:'' a 25 percent sales tax on guns and $2,500 license fees for gun dealers.

''Speaking personally ... I'm all for that,'' said the first lady. But she stressed she was just speaking for herself.

''Well, let me say that there is no more important personal endorsement in the country today, and I thank you very much,'' said a pleased-as-punch Bradley.

And the Washington Post on Oct. 1, 1993:

"I'm all for it," she declared in a response to a suggestion by Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) that the Congress should impose a 25 percent sales tax on handguns to "tax directly the purveyors of violence."

The Sept. 30, 1993, NBC Nightly News reported the incident as follows:

“Others urge a hefty sales tax on guns, and much higher fees for gun dealers. Today, they got a powerful ally.

Ms. HILLARY CLINTON: I'm all for that. I just don't know what else we're going to do to try to figure out how to get some handle on this violence.”

The Bill Clinton White House made it clear that Hillary's 25 percent gun tax endorsement was hers and hers alone, as shown by the Oct. 1, 1993 White House press briefing transcript:

Q: "Do you know if the President supports the First Lady's endorsement of an idea yesterday by Senator Bradley that there be a 25 percent tax on the sale of guns in America?"

WH Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers: "Well, as you know, she was expressing her opinion."

On April 14, 2016, ATR released previously unseen video footage from a non-C-SPAN camera showing Hillary’s visceral facial expression during the moments she endorsed the gun tax and as gun owners and dealers were described as “purveyors of violence.”

On June 5, 2016, during an interview on ABC’s This Week hosted by George Stephanopoulos, Clinton had the video footage played to her and was given the opportunity to renounce her gun tax endorsement. She refused to do so. In fact, Clinton has never renounced the tax, and her aggressive anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment statements do nothing to indicate she’s changed her mind.

On Sept. 20, 2016, ATR noted yet another Clinton gun tax endorsement from 1993: a doubling of the existing federal excise tax on guns. In a closed-door meeting, she told the anti-gun Rep. Mel Reynolds (D-Ill.) that his bill to double the tax was a “great idea."

Clinton’s deeply held belief in higher taxes on the American people is documented at ATR’s dedicated website, www.HighTaxHillary.com

Photo Credit: 
UN Geneva, http://bit.ly/2ewkvUQ

Top Comments

Fletch

Those that buy guns to protect themselves are "purveyors of evil," and that tax would not affect the illegal guns purchased in Chicago by gangs that actually use them for evil.

Such a tax would not make a single American safer!

Plowboy87

About 243 years ago a tax on tea paved the way to #2A. #NeverHillary


Hillary’s Tax Plan Will Kill 697,000 Jobs

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch on Wednesday, October 12th, 2016, 4:32 PM PERMALINK


Tax Foundation report finds Clinton’s tax hike plan also reduces GDP by 2.6 percent and wages by 2.1 percent

Hillary Clinton’s tax hike plan will lead to 697,000 fewer jobs according to a new analysis by the Tax Foundation released today. The Clinton plan will also reduce GDP by 2.6 percent and wages by 2.1 percent.

The Tax Foundation report states:

The plan would increase marginal tax rates on individuals and businesses, which would lead to a 2.6 percent lower level of GDP. The smaller long-run economy would also lead to lower levels of wages and full-time equivalent jobs.

The report notes the Clinton plan will cause “reduced incentives to work, save, and invest”:

These projections are what we estimate would happen at the end of a ten-year period and are compared to the underlying baseline of what would occur absent any policy change. For example, the U.S. real GDP will grow by 19.2% from 2016-2025, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), if policy remains unchanged. We predict that the reduced incentives to work, save, and invest would reduce the end-of-period GDP by 2.6 percent below the level it would have been without the policy change.

The report, authored by Director of Federal Projects Kyle Pomerleau, also found that Clinton’s proposal for a crushing 65% Death Tax will “greatly reduce the incentive to save and invest.”

In contrast, the Trump tax cut plan creates between 1.8 and 2.2 million new jobs, increases GDP by between 6.9 percent and 8.2 percent, and increases wages by between 5.4 percent and 6.3 percent.

Clinton offers no income tax rate reduction for any individual or business. None. She also has refused to support serious structural reform of the U.S. tax code.

Clinton has endorsed and voted for a long list of tax increases during her career. Americans for Tax Reform is tracking Hillary’s tax hike record at a dedicated website, www.HighTaxHillary.com

Photo Credit: 
Sheila in Moonducks, http://bit.ly/2e27oah

Top Comments


Tax Policy Center: Trump Plan Gives Americans of All Income Levels Bigger Tax Cuts Than Hillary

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie, John Kartch on Tuesday, October 11th, 2016, 3:49 PM PERMALINK


Left of center group’s own numbers show after-tax income under Trump plan is higher than Clinton’s plan for all income levels

Donald Trump’s tax plan would increase after tax income more than the Hillary Clinton plan regardless of income, according to data published by the left-of-center Tax Policy Center.

As noted in the graphic compiled by the Wall Street Journal, the middle quintile of income earners would see a 1.8 percent increase in after tax-income under the Trump plan but would receive just 0.2 percent increase in after-tax income under the Clinton plan. The Trump tax cut in this income range is nine times the size of Clinton’s.

Clinton’s tax plan offers no income tax rate reduction for any American of any income level. No rate reduction for any business or any individual, regardless of size.

Clinton’s overall tax plan raises taxes by $1.4 trillion. Americans for Tax Reform is tracking all of Clinton’s tax hikes at www.HighTaxHillary.com

Photo Credit: 
brwn_yd_grl, http://bit.ly/2dIWG9Z

Top Comments


Hillary’s Soda Tax Approach Pushed by U.N.

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch on Tuesday, October 11th, 2016, 1:20 PM PERMALINK


U.N. report urges governments to impose excise taxes “aimed at raising the retail price by 20% or more” – in line with Hillary’s soda tax endorsement

Today the United Nations released a report urging governments to impose excise taxes on citizens who purchase soda, “aimed at raising the retail price by 20% or more.” The U.N. is taking the same approach as Hillary Clinton, who endorsed a steep soda tax while campaigning in Philadelphia on April 20, 2016.

Clinton said she was “very supportive” of the tax, which will raise the retail price of a 12-pack of soda pop by $2.16. The tax-induced price hike on a consumer buying a 12-pack is well over 20 percent. Clinton’s position is compliant with the U.N.’s aggressive global campaign to impose higher taxes on citizens.

As pointed out by Bernie Sanders, the Clinton soda tax endorsement came in violation of her oft-repeated promise not to support any tax on any American making less than $250,000.

Sanders called out Hillary’s violation of her middle class tax pledge:

"Frankly, I am very surprised that Secretary Clinton would support this regressive tax after pledging not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. This proposal clearly violates her pledge.”

Sanders also said:

“The mechanism here is fairly regressive. And that is, it will be increasing taxes on low-income and working people.”

The U.N. report uses the term “tax” 312 times.

“When Hillary Clinton endorsed the soda tax it was news because she exposed her promise to never ever tax anyone who earned less than $250,000 as a lie,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

“Now Hillary’s tax on middle income Americans is being embraced by the United Nations. If she’s elected, the U.N. will have a willing soda-tax-hike partner in Hillary Clinton.”

ATR is tracking all of Hillary’s tax hike proposals at www.HighTaxHillary.com

Photo Credit: 
Isriya Paireepairit, http://bit.ly/2dGUqBi

Top Comments


Pages

hidden
×