Tax Reform ATR believes that all consumed income should be taxed one time, at one low and flat rate. Link
Groups who advocated for the IRS to prepare tax returns sure look foolish these days: http://t.co/oKvpIofu7Y
taxreformer
"We don't need the federal government mandating additional taxes..." -@MarshaBlackburn on MFA: http://t.co/lAuLJtr5t3 #NoNetTax
taxreformer
Health insurers and businesses are already feeling the iron-clad grip of regulations in #Obamacare: http://t.co/J6dfnKqFYZ
taxreformer
Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell Signs Largest Tax Hike in Virginia History into Law http://t.co/Qd6KOFfaPv
taxreformer
Under #Obamacare, mothers have had a tougher time purchasing non-prescription, over-the-counter medicine: http://t.co/dJuaGAT9LE
taxreformer
9 out of 20 #Obamacare tax hikes have not even been implemented yet: http://t.co/opFkyf1guJ
taxreformer
.@GroverNorquist on MFA: "[The Senate] didn't ask all of the questions that needed to be asked": http://t.co/wXfkIR2Ca9 #NoNetTax
taxreformer
"When architects of #Obamacare are worried about it creating a trainwreck, you know something's gone terribly wrong": http://t.co/J6dfnKqFYZ
taxreformer
Conservative and Free Market Groups Applaud Move to Delay a Vote on Gina McCarthy: http://t.co/lNQYmJAB12 #EPA
taxreformer
The #Obamacare train wreck will derail the American economy: http://t.co/opFkyf1guJ
taxreformer
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) pushed back today on a Heritage Foundation study that found a net fiscal cost of $6.3 trillion associated with S.744, the immigration reform bill pending in the United States Senate. The primary flaw in this analysis is that it considers only costs and ignores benefits. But even the cost estimate itself is vastly overblown.
Among the study’s flaws:
ATR’s Josh Culling issued the following statement:
“The Heritage Foundation is a treasured ally in the conservative movement and a pillar of the conservative policy community. However, this study is every bit as flawed as its 2007 iteration.
“This static analysis takes into account none of the universally-accepted economic benefits of immigration, choosing only to focus on costs. But the costs estimates are unfairly inflated. The authors count overall household costs, which often includes benefits paid to native-born, low-income American spouses and children of immigrants. Those costs would exist regardless of the immigration status of one’s partner; this is an indictment of our current welfare state, not proposed immigration reforms.
“ATR has worked tirelessly to reform our unsustainable entitlements, and will continue to do so. We should not put a pro-growth reform of our broken immigration system on hold while we do so. In fact, America should welcome more legal immigrants to pay into the system without receiving benefits and boost the economy while we work toward sustainable reform.
“Lawmakers and the American public should rely on an accurate accounting of immigration reform’s costs and benefits. Unfortunately, this study inaccurately reflects only one side of the ledger. Even the establishment Congressional Budget Office, which Heritage, ATR, and others have excoriated for employing only static models, will take economic growth into account when it scores the bill. I had hoped the same of the conservative movement’s happy warrior for dynamic scoring, the Heritage Foundation.”
To follow Joshua Culling's RSS feed click here. To follow them on Twitter, their handle is @joshuaculling