Soda Tax Pops Up Around the World

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Brady Wilson on Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016, 5:11 PM PERMALINK


Philadelphia made news recently when it became the second city in the U.S. to impose a tax on soda.  Such taxes are not just confined to the U.S. either: France, the UK, and Mexico all have a version of the tax.  South Africa and the Philippines are mulling similar taxes.  

The soda tax is just another example of politicians reaching into the wallets of working people.  Governments are targeting low income families who are most likely to consume sugary drinks.  The targets of the tax are the least able to afford the government’s greedy tax.  

Why do politicians push soda taxes? They want the money. Some politicians claim that adding a soda tax will increase healthy behavior, but there is little to no evidence.  In fact, there have been some studies that suggest consumers will take in more calories from other drinks than they would from soda.  Yet, even more ridiculous is that after the tax, Mexicans are drinking more sugary drinks than before.   

Although the soda tax has struggled to achieve its aims, it has had negative consequences.  First, the tax is regressive, hitting low income families the hardest.  In theory, the soda tax should decrease consumption, but what about the people who still continue to drink the beverages?  This isn’t just a hypothetical either.  In Mexico, low income families were the least likely to decrease their soda consumption as a result of the tax.  Those who can afford the tax the least are the ones forced to pay it.

Even the avowed socialist Bernie Sanders is opposed to the soda tax. “The mechanism here is fairly regressive. And that is, it will be increasing taxes on low income and working people,” he said.

Even more damning for the tax is the reality that the homes with an obese head of household were the group least affected by the increase in price.  The tax is meant to lower the consumption of sugary drinks, but it has failed to affect the group the tax targets.  Instead, the tax eats up the family’s resources meaning that less money can be spent on other groceries like fruits or vegetables. 

Furthermore, states are simply ignoring the clear evidence that does exist which is that taxes like this do not work.  In Denmark, the tax on foods and drinks high in fat was repealed within 15 months.  The state saw how the tax failed to help the people’s health and wisely scrapped the useless tax. Despite evidence showing the ineffectiveness of the tax, countries around the world are scrambling to add it. 

Countries typically point to the tax as a measure to combat rising obesity rates, yet recent attempts point in a new direction.  Instead of masking the tax in as a health policy, the Philadelphia tax was propped up as a measure to support education including prekindergarten, community schools, and rec centers.  Even under the guise of education, nearly 20% of the revenue from the soda tax will not be spent on these measures. This new path just shows what we’ve known all along, the soda tax is just another opportunity to steal revenue from the people.

 

Photo Credit

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

linstur

What if a soda tax works? What if it lowers the rates of Type 2 Diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay? Thus saving Medicaid billions? Billions that could be redirected to tax cuts? We all want lower taxes. So let's get smart. Let's support policies that will save us money. Tobacco taxes have caused a 50%+ drop in smoking and healthcare expenses will accordingly plummet. Like it or not, the US picks up 50% of health care costs through Medicaid and Medicare. Americans spend $140 billion (billion!) per year treating diseases directly related to sugar and soda consumption. We are subsidizing Pepsi. Like anyone, I like a nice cold Coke. But as a tax payer I don't want to pay to treat diseases from smoking or soda--I'd like my money back, thank you. Taxing soda could work beautifully at lowering consumption and tax payer funded medical expenses. At the very least it's a clawback--we are just getting our money back that we've been spending.


ATR Recognizes Taxpayer Protection Pledge Signers Ahead of Tennessee’s Congressional Primary

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alec DiFruscia on Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016, 4:55 PM PERMALINK


Today, Americans for Tax Reform recognizes the Tennessee incumbents and candidates who have taken the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to the American people ahead of Thursday’s primary.
The Taxpayer Protection Pledge is a written commitment to their constituents and the American public to oppose tax hikes.
 

Incumbents

  • Rep. Phil Roe (TN-01)
  • Rep. John Duncan (TN-02)
  • Rep. Chuck Fleischman (TN-03)
  • Rep. Scott DesJarlais (TN-04)
  • Rep. Diane Black (TN-06)
  • Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN-07)
  • Rep. Stephen Fincher (TN-08)*

 

Challengers

  • Yomi Faparusi (TN-04)
  • David Kustoff (TN-08)
  • Brian Kelsey (TN-08)
  • Mark Luttrell (TN-08)
  • Raymond Honeycutt (TN-08)

 

*Rep. Fincher is retiring at the end of his current term

 

Photo Credit: 
kidTruant

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


IRS to Team USA Medalists: Pay Up!

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Brady Wilson on Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016, 2:38 PM PERMALINK


American athletes still face taxation on Olympic medal rewards

The 554-member Team USA has descended upon Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to compete in the Olympic Games. As a reward for winning Gold, Silver, or Bronze, U.S. athletes receive a monetary reward. But the IRS still wants its share.   

The U.S. Olympic Committee recognizes its medalists with $25,000 for gold, $15,000 for silver, and $10,000 for bronze. But the IRS considers these amounts to be regular income, subject to taxation.

A gold medalist from Team USA could end up facing a tax bill of $9,900 per gold medal, $5,940 per silver medal, and $3,960 per bronze medal.

To be clear, these are the maximum possible tax amounts, and vary widely based on an individual’s tax circumstances and available deductions. Still, the athletes must reckon their medal winnings with the IRS code, a headache they can do without.

                                                Maximum Prize Tax             

Gold                                      $9,900                  

Silver                                    $5,940                  

Bronze                                  $3,960           

Americans for Tax Reform brought the issue to the public’s attention during the 2012 Olympics. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) took the lead and immediately introduced The Olympic Tax Elimination Act. The bill called for IRS code to be changed so that the gross income of U.S. medal winners “shall not include the value of any prize or award won by the taxpayer in athletic competition in the Olympic Games.” 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney also called for an end to the tax.

In March 2016, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) introduced a bill (S. 2650) to stop the IRS from taxing Team USA medalists. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent on July 12.

In the House, Congressman Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) introduced a similar bill called the TEAM Act (H.R. 2628).

Americans who wish to express their support for the House bill can do so through the petition here or sign below:

Photo Credit: 
sagriffin305

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Unbeliever

Taxes are stealing and a form of slavery.

Will setag

That's not really true .....insurance is mandatory both Health and auto and many others . It is mandatory by laws in many cases and all it is , is a form if legal extortion. People were offering business and the public protection at a cost during the 1920s ...it was illegal then...but then the government got involved and insurance became legal...there are fees mandatory by the states that are and should be illegal. Your comment is not entirely true. States extort money from people under the false lie if the good for the public. You need a permit to build a house and it cost thousands of dollars and is by laws supposed to be used entirely for a building inspection. As a former engineer I will tell you 99% of all homes are never ever insoected. It's extortion period.

RememberKathrynSteinle

Nobody makes you take out a loan or borrow money.


Happy Bday Clean Power Plan, Thanks for the Job Losses and Billions in Costs!

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016, 12:53 PM PERMALINK


Today marks exactly one year since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Obama Administration formally unveiled their coveted Clean Power Plan (CPP). While EPA bureaucrats and the Obama Administration tout the so-called “benefits” of the CPP, the truth is the rule has already begun destroying the livelihoods of thousands of hard-working Americans even before enactment. With the rule turning one today, it is only fitting to reflect on the CPP's journey to this point since it was first proposed.  

In February of this year, the CPP suffered a major blow when the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued a stay of the rule, meaning that the Obama Administration and EPA may not continue with enactment until all legal challenges have played out. 

The SCOTUS ruling reinforced what CPP opponents have been arguing since the rule was proposed: that the CPP exemplifies federal overreach; would be disastrous for states and the U.S. economy; and is premised on backwards and illogical legal grounds. Even President Obama’s legal mentor, Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe, has argued that the CPP “is a remarkable example of executive overreach and an administrative agency’s assertion of power beyond its statutory authority.”

Aside from the misleading and unlawful legal gymnastics the Obama Administration had to do just to propose the rule with a straight face, the CPP’s impact on the American economy is already being felt. Despite the fact that the CPP has not yet been enacted, in 2015 alone over 11,000 coal miners lost their jobs and a number of energy companies have filed for bankruptcy. Clearly Obama is comfortable with the state of things as long as his “green legacy” is preserved.

Even Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has expressed her support for the CPP and its impact on jobs and the economy. At a Town Hall in Ohio in April Clinton proudly stated that she is the only candidate with a policy to bring renewables “into coal country, because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” Apparently Clinton is not up to date on the news because such policies are already devastating American workers.

On top of the economic extermination already taking place as a result of the CPP, the projected economic impacts if the rule is actually enacted are even more drastic. The rule is projected to cause a 12 to 17 percent increase in electricity prices. Every state in the continental U.S. will see rate increases, with an estimated 44 states seeing double-digit rate increases, and 17 states facing price increase of over 20 percent.

The CPP is also slated to decrease household spending power between $64 and $79 billion, with annual compliance costs projected to reach up to $73 billion. Such impacts are economically unsustainable for many businesses and families. Sadly, the low-to-middle income Americans President Obama has claimed will benefit from the CPP will actually be those hardest hit by reduced income, job losses, and higher energy costs.

Thus as the Clean Power Plan turns one year old today, Americans should thank President Obama and the EPA for birthing this tremendously disastrous and unlawful regulation. Americans can also thank the President and his EPA lackeys for the CPP’s contributions to the American economy: thousands of jobs lost; bankruptcy; reduced U.S. economic output and household income; and skyrocketing energy costs.

Happy Birthday Clean Power Plan! Hope it’s your last!

 

Photo credit: Steve Jurvetson

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


14 States Sue to Stop EPA's Disastrous Methane Rule

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Bradley Wyatt on Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016, 11:50 AM PERMALINK


For 2016, the Obama Administration and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have once again put affordable and reliable energy production on the chopping block with new rules targeting methane emissions. In addition to the Clean Power Plan, Ozone Standard, and the Waters of the U.S. Rule, the Administration is once again using the EPA as a vehicle to impose costly and burdensome regulations on American consumers and the energy industry. The EPA’s own estimates show the Methane Rule will cost up to $200 million in 2020, and may reach as high as $500 million by year 2025.

This week 14 states filed lawsuits with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals asking the court to review the EPA’s Methane Rule, arguing that the rule is a “gross demonstration of federal overreach” and the Agency has exceeded it’s authority. The states that have filed suit include Texas, West Virginia, Michigan, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Kansas, Arizona, Alabama and Montana, as well as state agencies from Kentucky and North Carolina.

The Texas Attorney General’s office stated that the EPA did not consider the “steep” costs imposed on the energy industry. In addition to not considering the steep costs, EPA experts also failed to take into consideration that methane emissions from hydraulically fractured natural gas wells are down 79 percent from 11 years ago, even as gas production has increased 44 percent. Researchers estimate that less than 2 percent of methane is lost during natural gas production. Clearly this is a regulation in search of a problem.

In order for businesses, especially in the energy industry, to provide low cost services to the low and middle-income families that depend on them, the last thing government should do is over-regulate and overtax job creators, producers, and the energy industry.

Lawmakers need to realize that President Obama and the EPA’s Methane Rule has an underlying agenda that will harm more than help taxpayers, consumers, and the economy. President Obama’s “one-size fits all” style government regulatory regime must be reined in before further economic damage is done. 

 

Photo credit: Joe Crimmings

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


ATR Recognizes Taxpayer Protection Pledge Signers in Tuesday’s Primary

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alec DiFruscia on Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016, 1:17 PM PERMALINK


Americans for Tax Reform recognizes the incumbents and candidates who have taken the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to the American people ahead of today's primary. The Taxpayer Protection Pledge is a written commitment to their constituents and the American public to oppose tax hikes.

Photo Credit: 
John Williams

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


ATR Opposes Oroho-Sarlo Gas Tax Hike in New Jersey

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Paul Blair on Monday, August 1st, 2016, 5:39 PM PERMALINK


Proponents of big and unreformed government in the Garden State are demanding hundreds of millions of dollars in tax hikes as part of a proposal to fund the now-broke Transportation Trust Fund (TFF). The New Jersey State Senate was scheduled to hold its first series of votes in over a month today, including a vote on a proposal being pushed by Senators Steve Oroho (R-Sussex) Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), which would raise the gas tax by 23-cents per gallon.

This effort comes on the heels of an Assembly-passed plan, backed by Governor Chris Christie (R-N.J.), which would have raised the gas tax but been paired with a greater net tax reduction of the state sales tax. That plan would have reduced the state sales tax from 7 to 6 percent.

In the current fiscal year, the Oroho-Sarlo tax plan represents a $760 million tax increase.  Over ten years, this plan would result in between $3.9 and $4.5 billion in tax increases, assuming a phase-in of several tax cuts, including the estate tax repeal and an increase in tax exemptions for pension income.

For lawmakers who have signed it, voting for the Oroho-Sarlo tax plan would clearly constitute a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

Elements of the Oroho –Sarlo plan include:

Estate Tax Phase-Out

  • An immediate increase in the exemption of estate tax income, to $2 million;
  • An phased-in increase in the exemption of the estate tax income to the federal level of $5.45 million in 2 years;
  • An planned repeal of the estate tax entirely in the years following
  • If fully phased-in, this tax reduction would equal a $4.2 billion net tax cut over 10 years.

 

Exemption of Pension & Retirement Income from State Income Taxes

  • Five-year phase-in of an increase in the state exemption for pension and retirement income taxes from $100,000 to $150,000 annually;
  • If phased-in this tax reduction would result in $1 billion-$1.4 billion net tax cuts over 10 years.

 

Increase in Earned-Income Tax Credit

  • An increase in the Earned-Income Tax Credit (EITC) to 40% of the federal level.

 

Significant Increase in State Gas Tax

  • A 23-cent gas tax increase, which would bring the state gas tax to 37.5 cents-per-gallon;
  • This gas tax hike would make gas sold in New Jersey roughly the 7th highest taxed in the nation, and would rise with higher gas prices;
  • When implemented, this tax hike would result in an immediate $850 million gas tax hike, increasing to over $1 billion in new and higher taxes in annually and in perpetuity;
  • Tax hike breaks down as follows: 7% Petroleum Products Gross Receipts Tax, 10-cent-per-gallon PPGRT tax on motor fuel, and a 3-cent-per-gallon PPGRT diesel surcharge imposed at the wholesale level.

 

The fiscal note and table can be seen here. 

Americans for Tax Reform opposes the Oroho-Sarlo transportation tax hike and urges the legislature to consider reforms that drive down the cost of building and maintaining transportation infrastructure while working to protect taxpayers from further job-killing anti-competitive tax hikes like this. 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


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.


Hillary Opposes Lowering the Corporate Tax Rate, Says Top Advisor

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Friday, July 29th, 2016, 12:52 PM PERMALINK


Hillary Clinton would oppose lowering the corporate tax rate as President, a top advisor suggested. This position puts the campaign far outside the mainstream of both Democrats and Republicans including President Barack Obama and Speaker Paul Ryan who have called for lowering the 35 percent federal income tax rate to a more globally competitive rate.

As reported Thursday by PoliticoPro, Clinton advisor Neera Tanden suggested that Hillary would oppose any effort to lower the corporate income tax rate. Tanden argued that “the U.S. has been doing pretty well when it comes to competitiveness." 

Hillary’s refusal to endorse lower tax rates puts her at odds with her fellow Democrats that have called for lowering business tax rates. In past budget proposals, President Obama has called for lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent. Similarly, Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) proposed lowering the corporate tax rate to 24 percent in his tax reform plan.

The Trump tax plan calls for lowering the corporate rate to 15 percent, while the House Republican blueprint proposes lowering the rate to 20 percent. Like Clinton, other Democrat plans propose a net tax increase, while Republican plans all call for a net tax cut.


Chart by Strategas Research Partners using Tax Foundation and OECD data

Lowering the corporate tax rate has broad, bipartisan support because the U.S. has the highest rates in the developed world. At more than 39 percent, our business taxes far exceeds the developed average of 25 percent, not to mention competitors like Canada (26.3 percent), the United Kingdom (20 percent), and Ireland (12.5 percent).

As a result, our businesses cannot compete with those in the rest of the world. Close to 50 American businesses have left the country through an inversion in the past decade, according to data compiled by Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee.  America has also lost an additional $179 billion worth of assets through acquisitions by foreign competitors, according to a report by Ernst and Young.

American business tax rates have not changed since tax reform was passed 30 years ago in 1986.  At the time, we lowered our rate to 39 percent – below the developed average of 44 percent. Since then, other countries have cut their rates aggressively. 31 of the 34 OECD countries have reduced their corporate rates since 2000. Only the U.S. and Chile have higher corporate tax rates than they did in 2000.

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. 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. How much? The campaign doesn't say.

In all, Hillary has formally proposed $1 trillion net tax increase including a $350 billion income tax increase, a $275 billion business tax increase, and $400 billion in “fairness taxes.”

The campaign has also called for capital gains tax increases and a tax on stock trading. Her campaign has failed to release specific details on these proposals so the true Clinton net tax hike figure is likely much higher than $1 trillion.

 

See also: 

Full List of Hillary’s Planned Tax Hikes

"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

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

Photo Credit: 
Toms Norde

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

H.D. Rennerfeldt

MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE JOBLESS & HOMELESS!
This Shrill Harpy Harridan insists to help DESTROY
our economy for the One World Government of the
Communists behind the NEW WORLD ORDER of
installing a totalitarian oppressive regime.
Finish us off in what Obama began.
Cloward-Piven Strategies
& Alinsky's Rules for
Radicals
-


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 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.

Hillary’s formally proposed $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, as described in a Clinton campaign document.

“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 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 a byzantine capital gains tax regime with six rates. Her campaign has not put a dollar amount on this tax increase.

Tax on Stock Trading -- Clinton has proposed a new tax on stock trading. Costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Again, no dollar figure for this tax hike has been released by the Clinton campaign.

“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. 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. How much? The campaign doesn't say.

This proposal completely fails to address the underlying causes behind inversions: The U.S. 39% corporate tax rate (35% federal rate plus an average state rate of 4%) and our "worldwide" system of taxation, which imposes tax on all American earnings worldwide. The average corporate rate in the developed world is 25%. Thirty-one of thirty-four developed countries have cut their corporate tax rate since 2000. The U.S. has not. Hillary's plan moves in the wrong direction.

ATR is tracking Clinton’s full 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

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

 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Paul Knutson

Lets Make America Broke!

Treelea

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

Oger

If Trump is elected, the criminal federal reserve will conveniently raise interest rates, crash the economy and blame it on--

Trump's economic policies, white men, coal miners, veterans, Chic-fil-a, kittens, etc., etc....

Who have I missed who'll get some blame here?


hidden
×