John Kartch

Serious, Pro-Growth Tax Reform Must Contain 100 Percent Immediate Full Business Expensing

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch on Wednesday, August 24th, 2016, 12:12 PM PERMALINK


Clinton plan fails, retains complex depreciation schedules and offers no income tax rate reduction for anyone

Under the tax code, business owners cannot immediately expense the cost of purchasing equipment against their taxable income. Instead, they have to deduct, or “depreciate,” these costs over several years depending on the asset they purchase, as dictated by complex and arbitrary IRS tables.

These rules create needless complexity, and force business owners to make decisions based on tax, not management reasons. Any serious, pro-growth tax reform plan should eliminate depreciation in favor of 100 percent immediate full business expensing, as both the Donald Trump and House Republican plans call for.

With the existing depreciation schedules, business purchases are treated differently under the tax code, with no clear pattern or common theme. Businesses have two different systems of depreciation and investments can be depreciated over 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 20, 25, 27.5, 30, 35, 39, 40, or 50 years depending on the system used and the asset purchased.  

This creates a complex and confusing system for business owners that distorts business decisions, as the House Republican “Better Way” tax reform blueprint explains:

“For each asset, they must determine the period over which the asset may be depreciated or amortized and the method that must be used to determine the annual allowance with respect to the asset. For many assets, the cost must be spread over many years for tax purposes. This means that businesses are taxed today on the earnings they reinvest in growing their operations and can recover the cost of that investment only many years later.”

Not only would 100 percent immediate full business expensing eliminate needless complexity in our tax code, it would also lead to strong economic growth. According to research by the Tax Foundation, full business expensing would result in 5.4 percent higher long-term GDP, would create more than 1 million full time jobs, and would increase after-tax income by 5.3 percent.

There is clear rationale for policymakers to implement a cash flow system that allows businesses to immediately expense their purchases. This would make the tax code consistent and clear, and stop it from picking winners and losers.

Fortunately, plans released by the Donald Trump presidential campaign and by House Republicans led by Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) would both allow 100 percent immediate full business expensing.

The Hillary Clinton plan – a collection of tax increases on the American people topping $1 trillion over ten years – retains the old, job-killing regime of Byzantine depreciation schedules. The Clinton plan also calls for a complex capital gains tax hike, a Death Tax hike, and no income tax rate reduction for anyone.

The fact is, keeping the existing system of depreciation hurts economic growth and adds a confusing and unnecessary layer to the tax code. 100 percent immediate full business expensing should be in any serious pro-growth tax plan, Democrat or Republican.

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

See Also:

Norquist Statement on Clinton Tax Plan

Top Comments


Norquist Statement on Clinton Tax Plan

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch on Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016, 4:56 PM PERMALINK


The following statement can be attributed to Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform:

“The small business community is excited about the House GOP and Trump tax reform approach with its rate reduction combined with 100 percent, immediate full business expensing and elimination of the Death Tax. Hillary fails on all counts. She doesn’t do rate reduction. She doesn’t do 100 percent, immediate full business expensing. She doesn’t kill the Death Tax, she hikes it. She doesn’t do the powerful pro-growth approach of Trump and Paul Ryan. Hillary’s collection of tax increases – a $1 trillion net tax increase over ten years -- will make the code even more complex and even more burdensome.”

Americans for Tax Reform has documented all of Hillary’s proposed tax increases at its dedicated website, www.HighTaxHillary.com

See Also:

Full List of Hillary’s Planned Tax Hikes 

Hillary’s $250,000 Tax Pledge Flip Flop 

Clinton Tax Returns Show Death Tax Hypocrisy

Hillary is Painfully Clueless About the U.S. Corporate Income Tax Rate

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

Hey Hillary, the Tax Code is Already Steeply Progressive

Hillary is Open to a Carbon Tax, Says Campaign Chief

Democrat Platform Calls for Carbon Tax  

Hillary’s “Free Wifi” Plan is a $275 Billion Tax Hike

Bernie Sanders Slams Hillary’s Soda Tax: “This proposal clearly violates her pledge.” 

Footage Shows Hillary’s 25% Gun Tax Endorsement

Hillary Admits She Would Not Veto Middle Class Tax Hikes

 

Photo Credit: 
Anand Dhingra

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Hillary's $250,000 Tax Pledge Flip Flop

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch on Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016, 8:27 PM PERMALINK


A real pledge or a lie to get votes?

Hillary Clinton has endorsed several tax increases on 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.

After she endorsed the soda tax, Bernie Sanders called out Clinton’s violation of her pledge. As reported by NBC News, 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," he said.

Sanders also said:

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

It’s no wonder that when asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos if her pledge was a "rock-solid" promise, she slipped and said the pledge was merely a “goal.” In other words, she's going to raise taxes on middle income Americans.

During a July 31 CBS 60 Minutes interview, correspondent 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.

Photo Credit: 
Alex Campbell/Medill News Service

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Dominic Khan

Government has to maintain armed forces, fund research, provide security to the people etc. Those need to be funded using tax money. Weather to increase tax or to cut tax is based on how much money is needed for those services. The dumb ahole norquist cannot say tax should never be increased.

Now, do not try to argue that Obama's government is the biggest. It is in fact the smallest.


Hey Hillary, The Tax Code Is Already Steeply Progressive

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie, John Kartch on Monday, August 1st, 2016, 11:45 AM PERMALINK


Hillary’s “Buffett Rule” tax hike is a solution in search of a problem

With Warren Buffett today, Hillary Clinton will claim upper income earners do not pay their “fair share” of federal taxes. But the most recent government data shows the tax code is already steeply progressive. A Clinton “Buffett Rule” tax increase or similar gimmick is a solution in search of a problem. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office:

-The top one percent of households pay 38.3% of federal income taxes and 25.4% of total federal taxes.

- The top 20 percent of households pay 88% of federal income taxes and 69% of total federal taxes.

- The top one percent of households pay an average income tax rate of 23.6% while the middle quintile pays an average income tax rate of 2.6%.

- The top one percent of households pay an average total tax rate of 34% while the middle quintile pays an average total tax rate of over 12.8%.  

- The top 20 percent of households pay an average total tax rate of 26.3 percent while the middle quintile pays an average total tax rate of 12.8%.

The data is shown below:

See also: 

Photo Credit: 
Brett Weinstein

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Rousseau Welch

Wrong hand, Hillary; that should be the right hand.


“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.

ET

Tiny Tim and Hitlery = Kaine and Not Able

ET

Phony "Practicing Catholic" = Actual Incipid A-hole.


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?

Hillary Clinton has endorsed several tax increases on 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 that when asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos if her pledge was a "rock-solid" promise, she slipped and said the pledge was merely a “goal.” In other words, she's going to raise taxes on middle income Americans.

During a July 31 CBS 60 Minutes interview, correspondent 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

Wayne Burger

Can't stop a liar from lying ever.

Thunderhorse

How about collecting from Al Sharpton?


Hillary Defends Her 25% Gun Tax Endorsement


Posted by John Kartch on Sunday, June 5th, 2016, 1:34 PM PERMALINK


Today Hillary Clinton was given an opportunity to disavow her endorsement of a 25 percent national retail sales tax on guns. She refused to do so.

The refusal took place during an interview on ABC’s This Week, when host George Stephanopoulos played footage of Clinton’s 1993 gun tax endorsement and asked the candidate to respond. Clinton defended her position and did not retract her endorsement.

In passionate Senate testimony on Sept. 30, 1993, Clinton endorsed a new national 25 percent retail sales tax on guns. Americans for Tax Reform has released footage of Clinton’s visceral facial expressions which shows her nodding fiercely as she endorses the gun tax and as gun owners and dealers are described as “purveyors of violence.”

Clinton’s gun tax endorsement came in response to a question from then-Senator Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), who lamented the “accessibility that guns have in the country today.” He said to Hillary:

There are 276,000 gun dealers in America. There are more gun dealers in America than there are gas stations. That, to me, is a remarkable number and I think it is directly related to the accessibility that guns have in the country today. And if we simply put a 25 percent sales tax on the sale of a gun and raise the dealer’s fees from $30-$75 to $2,500, we would raise $600 million. That would be a tax directly on the purveyors of violence in terms of the sales of the means of violence.

Clinton gave her strong endorsement of the tax, saying, “I am all for that.” She concluded by saying, "I am speaking personally, but I feel very strongly about that."

Clinton’s 25 percent gun tax endorsement was widely reported at the time. Here is NBC Nightly News on Sept. 30, 1993:

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

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.

LISA MYERS: Hillary Clinton added that's only her personal opinion.

Senator BILL BRADLEY (Democrat, New Jersey): There is no more important personal endorsement in the country today, and I--I thank you very much.

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.

Here’s 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 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."

“Hillary wants to tax guns out of existence,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. George Stephanopoulos tossed Hillary Clinton a great big softball/lifeline. She could have stated on national television that she has changed her mind and now opposes the 25 percent sales tax on guns she praised in 1993. Hillary chose to stand by her taxing of guns.”

The video footage of Hillary's 25 percent gun tax endorsement is available here and at ATR’s dedicated website, www.HighTaxHillary.com

A gif of Hillary's facial expression as she endorses the 25 percent gun tax is below:

via GIPHY

 

Top Comments

Johnson puffer

Cars on public roads require insurance. I already pay a hefty fee to have my gun in limited public areas, and I carry insurance in the event that I need to use it to defend myself.

As well, cars are a privilege, not a right. This would be like needing insurance and a license to speak in public, and having the chance of it being revoked.

TheBulletproofPatriot

Please let me know when you're willing to pay your "free speech" insurance premium. Yes, it's protected under the first amendment, but your right to voice your opinion in public must also be "subject to responsible regulation."

This is a two-edged sword.

Belinda Keating

Does this mean that the secret service can no longer carry a gun? Since this effects tax payers and hard workers how is this tax going to work on illegal gun sales? gangs? and drugs all go hand in hand,but instead of hitting the root of the problem it;s much easier to hit the tax payers This is one of the reasons that I would never vote for her she is a liar and a fake and it shows


Documentation of Hillary's Endorsement of a 25% National Retail Sales Tax on Guns


Posted by John Kartch on Sunday, June 5th, 2016, 11:12 AM PERMALINK


In 1993 Senate testimony Hillary Clinton endorsed a new national 25% retail sales tax on guns. And video footage shows her nodding fiercely as gun owners and dealers are described as “purveyors of violence”

In passionate Senate testimony on Sept. 30, 1993, Hillary Clinton endorsed a new national 25% retail sales tax on guns. Americans for Tax Reform has released footage of Clinton’s visceral facial expressions which shows her nodding fiercely as she endorses the gun tax and as gun owners and dealers are described as “purveyors of violence.”

Clinton concluded her gun tax endorsement by saying, "I am speaking personally, but I feel very strongly about that."

The footage is available here and at ATR’s www.HighTaxHillary.com

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.

Here’s 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."

On 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."

via GIPHY

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


West Virginia: Are You Ready for Hillary's 25% Gun Tax?


Posted by John Kartch on Tuesday, May 10th, 2016, 12:40 PM PERMALINK


In 1993 Senate testimony Hillary Clinton endorsed a new national 25% retail sales tax on guns. She has never renounced her position. Video footage of her gun tax endorsement also shows her nodding fiercely as gun dealers are described as “purveyors of violence”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – West Virginia voters beware: Hillary Clinton is on record endorsing a new national 25% retail sales tax on guns. Video footage of Clinton's endorsement -- made in passionate Senate testimony on Sept. 30, 1993 -- shows her nodding fiercely as she endorses the 25% gun tax and as gun owners and dealers are described as “purveyors of violence.”

Clinton concluded her gun tax endorsement by saying, "I am speaking personally, but I feel very strongly about that."

The video footage, discovered by Americans for Tax Reform, is available here and at ATR’s www.HighTaxHillary.com

"Hillary has made it perfectly clear to the millions of gun owners in the United States: she doesn't like us, she doesn't trust us and she wants us to go away," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “The Second Amendment makes it difficult to legally ban guns, but Hillary has led the way to explaining you can achieve the same thing with high taxes.”

Clinton relentlessly attacks Bernie Sanders for his 1990s gun votes, bragging that she is to the left of Sanders on gun control. She has yet to face any recent media questioning of her gun tax endorsement, which was reported at the time by the Associated Press, New York Times, Washington Post, and NBC News.

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.

Here’s 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."

On 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."

Clinton’s gun tax endorsement is an especially potent threat considering the recent imposition of gun taxes in Seattle and the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Seattle’s $25 per gun sales tax – as well as a two to five cent tax per round of ammunition -- went into effect on Jan. 1, 2016 and has already forced one gun dealer out of the city. Last month, the Northern Mariana Islands enacted a $1,000 per gun tax.

“Hillary and the Left are now seeking to tax guns out of existence,” said Norquist.

Gun ownership is important to West Virginians regardless of party affiliation, and according to a new report from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms and ammunition industry employs 1,389 workers in the state.

via GIPHY

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Bush Family Nazis

"I'll Get You My Little Pretties....And Your Country Too!"


Bernie Slams Hillary’s Soda Tax: “This proposal clearly violates her pledge.”


Posted by John Kartch on Friday, April 22nd, 2016, 12:18 PM PERMALINK


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

Bernie Sanders called out Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s endorsement of a soda tax, noting the Clinton tax violates her pledge to the American people not to support any tax increase on Americans making less than $250,000 per year.

As reported by NBC News, 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," he said.

In a separate comment reported by The Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross, Sanders said:

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

Despite making a pledge to the American people that she will not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 Clinton said Wednesday that she is “very supportive” of a soda tax.

Clinton was speaking in Philadelphia and offered her tax hike endorsement out of the blue. She said:

“I’m very supportive of the mayor’s proposal to tax soda to get universal preschool for kids. I mean, we need universal preschool, and if that’s a way to do it, that’s how we should do it.”

Clinton used preschool as an excuse for her soda tax endorsement, and the threat to soda and pop drinkers nationwide is clear: Clinton’s official campaign plan calls for universal preschool for the entire country.

The specific soda tax endorsed by Clinton is three cents per ounce of soda.

“Hillary said she would cheerfully support tax hikes on low and middle income American who drink soft drinks,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “What taxes on low income Americans would she really oppose? Any?”

Further details about this and other Hillary Clinton tax hike endorsements can be found at Americans for Tax Reform’s dedicated website, www.HighTaxHillary.com

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Pages

hidden
×