List of Hillary Tax Hikes
Trillion dollar tax hike – Hillary’s tax hike proposals will raise taxes on the American people by over $1,000,000,000,000 over the next ten years, based on her campaign’s own numbers.
Payroll Tax Hike – Hillary said she would not veto a payroll tax increase on all Americans should such a bill reach her desk. She said she would set her middle class tax pledge aside. This took place Jan. 12 in Iowa, and it’s on video:
Moderator: “Democrats have introduced a plan 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.”
Soda Tax Hike – Hillary endorsed a steep new 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:
"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.”
25% National Gun Tax – Hillary endorsed a new national 25% retail sales tax on guns. “I am all for that,” she told the Senate in 1993. On June 5, 2016 she was asked about her gun tax endorsement by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week. She acknowledged her gun tax endorsement and did not disavow it, saying she wanted the gun tax money to pay for Hillarycare. If you have any doubts about her strong desire to impose a new gun tax, watch her face in the video.
Doubling of federal excise tax on guns -- Hillary also endorsed a doubling of the existing federal excise tax on guns.
65% Death Tax – Hillary is now pushing a 65% Death Tax. And her own finances are arranged to shield herself from death taxes.
Capital Gains Tax Hike – Hillary has proposed the most complex and Byzantine capital gains tax regime in American history, with ten different rates. She raises the top capital gains tax rate from 23.8% to 43.4%.
No Corporate Income Tax Rate Relief for Anyone – Hillary offers no income tax rate reduction for any business. The USA has the highest corporate income tax in the world, which kills jobs and makes us less competitive. Even Bill Clinton understands the need to cut the corporate rate.
No Personal Income Tax Rate Relief for Anyone – Hillary offers no income tax rate reduction for any American.
Carbon Tax – Hillary’s campaign has opened the door to a carbon tax if she wins the White House. Democrat Senate Leader Chuck Schumer is also fantasizing about a carbon tax under Hillary, and a carbon tax is part of the official 2016 Democrat party platform.
To learn more about Hillary’s tax hike plan, visit ATR’s dedicated website, www.HighTaxHillary.com
The Government Would be A Lousy Negotiator Over Drug Prices
The price of life-saving and life-preserving prescription medicines has been subject to intense scrutiny recently. Some have even used this negative attention as an excuse to call for the government to forcefully lower the price of drugs by giving bureaucrats greater authority to set market prices. However, these proposals demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issue.
The fact is, government “negotiation” over drug prices would not deliver the benefits that supporters claim. While they may reduce the upfront cost of medicines, it would likely increase long-term costs and would replace an existing system that already reduces costs with one that hampers innovation and reduces choice. The simple fact is, the government would be a terrible negotiator over the price of medicines.
Prices Are Already Negotiated Down: When it comes to the price of prescription drugs, it is not a choice between government negotiation and nothing. The free market already works to reduce costs, and by giving negotiators an incentive to provide the lowest prices possible, while balancing access to care.
Under this system, pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) exist as the middleman between pharmacies, consumers, and manufacturers. They negotiate with these stakeholders to provide medicines at a lower price, a practice that will save up to 30 percent, or $654 billion over the next ten years, including $257 billion for Medicare part B.
Granting the government new power, will replace, rather than add to these savings. As noted in a study by PwC, PBMs act as a private sector alternative to price controls by putting downward pressure on low healthcare prices and therefore, they achieve what the government cannot.
While much was made of the recent announcement that the price of the EpiPen would increase from $150 to $600 for a pack of two, this price is negotiated down by close to 50 percent even though the product has no competition in the market.
These savings occurs across the prescription drug market. In total, the average out-of-pocket cost for employer provided prescription drugs decreased from $167 in 2009 to just $144 in 2014.
When the Government Negotiates, It Does So Poorly: The concern that government negotiation would back fire isn’t hypothetical – there are already case studies that prove this point. On one hand, prescription drugs administered through the Veterans Affairs agency are set by the government. On the other, Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage utilizes free market competition to put downward pressure on prices and maximize access. The performances of each program are stark.
Despite (or because of) not relying on government negotiation over prices, Medicare Part D works efficiently as it can instead focus on promoting competition amongst different providers. Different plans can compete based on the goal of maximizing access and minimizing coverage.
As this allows individuals to better select a plan that meets their needs, there is a 90 percent satisfaction rate and the program spends 45 percent less than initial projections, while monthly premiums are half of the projected amount. Even as spending remains low, the program covers a wide range of prescription medicines.
In contrast, VA address prescription drug coverage with a “one-size fits all” government run approach. This has led to VA covering as little as 40 percent of commonly used medicines, forcing close to one in four enrollees to purchase supplemental care.
While the VA “negotiates” prices, it inevitably must say no if the price it deems the price too high. As a result, it is very selective about what it covers and veterans are frequently locked out of accessing newer life-saving medicines, resulting in worse health outcomes, and higher long-term costs to the system.
It’s the Job of the Free Market, not Government to Set Prices: While forcefully reducing the costs of medicine may succeed in reducing the upfront costs of drugs, over the long term it is an incredibly destructive policy. By forcing lower prices, the government creates a disincentive to innovate because there are less profits available to finance the next generation of life-saving and life-improving prescription medicines. In turn, this results in higher long-term healthcare costs because illnesses need to be treated in a reactive, not proactive way.
Already, development is a timely and expensive process. It costs an average of $2.6 billion and more than a decade of research time for each new medicine that hits the market. Only ten percent of drugs that begin preclinical testing ever make it to market, so prices are in part set by these extensive development costs.
While drug costs may seem high in isolation, it is only half the story as they also led to substantial savings over the long term, as noted by a recent study released by Frank R. Lichtenberg of the Montreal Economic Institute. Lichtenberg estimated that current savings to the healthcare system totaled almost a billion dollars more than overall spending on new medicines today, close to three decades since the period of medical innovation analyzed.
Unintended Consequences come with Arizona Proposition 206
Arizona Proposition 206 would increase the minimum wage to $12 by 2020.
Raising the minimum wage sounds like a great idea but ends up harming many people and can lead to negatives effects that outweigh the benefits. When the minimum wage is increased, the cost of labor is higher and businesses can’t afford to pay as many employees.
If the minimum wage is increased, jobs are going to be harder to come across. Studies have shown that a $1 increase in the minimum wage leads to a 1.48% increase in unemployment Specific to Arizona, it has been estimated that 75,000 Arizonians won’t get hired if the minimum wage is raised too sharply.
Indeed, restaurants are replacing people by turning to cheaper alternatives like kiosks, computer screens, and other technological replacements. Wendy’s announced plans in May to install self-service ordering kiosks at its restaurants because of growing labor costs associate with rising minimum wages. Other fast food restaurants, like McDonalds, are testing self-service ordering kiosks.
Unfortunately, this primarily targets people who have little work experience. Usually, younger kids coming out of college fill minimum wage jobs to gain valuable work experience. If businesses have to cut labor cost, entry-level and minimum wage positions will be one of the first things impacted.
Minimum Wage increases could force businesses to provide goods and services at higher prices to offset increases in labor cost. Even employees who don’t earn substantially more than minimum wage don’t get the benefits from the increase in minimum wage but bear the cost when prices rise. Plus the minimum wage increase could be offset by the increases in prices and lifestyle.
Arizona would be better served under the current minimum wage law. Proposition 206 aims to raise the minimum wage to $10 in 2017, $10.50 in 2018, $11.00 in 2019, and $12 in 2020. Starting in 2021, the measure would increase the minimum wage with the cost of living. While Proposition 206 claims to artificially raise minimum wage, current minimum wage merely increase in accordance with the inflation rate and Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Making Proposition 206 worse for the economy, it guarantees 40 hours of annual paid sick time to employees of large businesses and 24 hours to those of small businesses. Reducing workplace and contract flexibility drives up costs for business operations, which could lead to a loss in jobs. This will be especially problematic for small businesses.
There are too many examples of the negative effects that raising the minimum wage can have on an economy, let’s not add Arizona to the list. Voters in Arizona should make the right decision on November 8th: oppose Prop 206.
Top Comments
The Last Time the Cubs Won the World Series, These Taxes Didn’t Exist
The Cubs have just won the World Series! Well that hasn’t been said in a long time, 108 years to be exact. 108 years ago the Ottoman Empire existed, there was no such thing as sliced bread, and there were only 46 states in the US. A lot has changed in 108 years. In 1908 the government didn’t find liberty in taxing Americans for almost everything they bought, money they earned, and money they saved for their children. Let’s look back and see what the government has been up to since 1908.
The last time the Cubs won a World Series in 1908:
· A federal income tax was invalidated and ruled unconstitutional by a decision from the Supreme Court in 1894. On July 2, 1909 the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution was passed and was ratified in 191 creating a federal income tax. In 1909, the highest income tax bracket was 7% . Today, it is a whopping 39.6%.
· No Death Tax existed. The Revenue Act of 1916 created an Estate Tax that contains many features of our modern day system. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 created a unified gift and estate tax stating, “single, graduated rate of tax imposed on both lifetime gifts and testamentary dispositions.” 14 states, and DC, impose and estate tax with the highest rate at 20%.
· No state sales tax existed. In 1921 West Virginia became the first state to enact a sales tax opening the gates for 45 more states, and DC, to create a sales tax. The state sales tax in the US ranges from 1-10%.
While the Cubs haven’t had many wins since 1908, the government has. Looking back 108 years has taught us a lesson; taxes don’t shrink. The government keeps expanding and putting the burden of their mistakes on the taxpayers. For the government, the expansion of taxes has been the best thing since sliced bread.
Top Comments
CFPB Now Subject to Executive Orders Requiring Cost Benefit Analysis
Last month the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), was unconstitutional. Until this ruling the CFPB was able to act independently and impose dozens of burdensome regulations upon small businesses and American consumers with no oversight. This ruling not only strips the agency of its autonomy by making it an agency within the executive branch, but it also subjects the CFPB to extensive oversight.
In the aftermath of this decision Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), Chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, sent a letter to CFPB director Richard Cordray, notifying him that this ruling requires the agency to comply with all executive orders. Most importantly the CFPB must now follow orders requiring agencies to “ensure the benefits of their proposed regulations outweigh the costs”.
Specifically, the CFPB will now have to adhere to Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton in 1993, which mandates federal agencies “promulgate only such regulations as are required by law…or made necessary by compelling public need.” The order sets out basic elements agencies must consider when issuing rules, which most importantly include an evaluation of the benefits and costs of the proposed rules and identifiable alternatives.
Without oversight the CFPB was able to pass new rules and regulations affecting millions of Americans at a rate 2.5 times faster than any other government agency. Some of these rules not only made it harder for Americans to access credit, but also resulted in over $2.5 billion in costs. In the 5 years since the CFPB was created it has issued nearly 50 rules, each harming numerous Americans and small business.
The court’s decision ensures more accountability and transparency from an agency that enjoyed “significantly more unilateral power than any single member of any other independent agency”. By forcing it to adhere to executive orders, the agency must now ensure that any future rules benefit the American people instead of burdening them as it has in the past. This is a critical first step in reforming the regulatory regime that bureaucrats in Washington have imposed upon the American people for nearly a decade.
Photo Credit: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Top Comments
Show Notes: The Hypocrisy of the Death Tax
In episode 65 of The Grover Norquist Show, ATR President Grover Norquist discusses the liberal hypocrisy of the death tax. Liberals tax you left and right, and then when you die, they make sure they hit you one final time. In Hillary Clinton’s tax hike plan, she proposed a death tax rate that would hit 65%, and in turn, devastate families across America.
But there is hope on the horizon. Only 15 states still have death taxes, and the Republican tax plan in House proposed scrapping the tax all together. Click here or listen to the podcast below.
Top Comments
Iceland's Center-Right Independence Party Secures an Election Victory
In what can be seen as a victory for center-right groups across the world, especially in Europe, Iceland’s Independence Party came out on top in this week’s elections with nearly 30% of the vote. The second-highest vote total went to the Left-Green Party, which received about 16% of the vote.
One of the newest parties to enter the fray was the Pirate Party, a radical, left-leaning group formed of anarchists and hackers. The party was founded in 2012 and gained prominence with its push to repeal the government’s blasphemy laws. With the release of the Panama Papers in April of this year, the party gained greater recognition by leading massive protests against the government.
The Pirate Party promotes itself as anti-corruption, and focuses on political and social issues rather than economic. Indeed, little was said by the party about how to solve the economic problems of the country. Instead, some of the main issues for this party are anti-intellectual property. They advocate for lessening protections under copyright and patent laws to promote free and open knowledge on the Internet. This is not surprising coming from a group of former hackers, but their surge in Iceland sets a dangerous precedent for future elections.
While the Pirate Party ran on a platform mentioning little about solving economic issues, the Independence Party promised to grow Iceland’s economy through free market principles, lower taxes, and limited government intervention. The Independence Party, formed all the way back in 1929, has been a dominant and consistent force in Icelandic politics. Indeed, the party has won every election until 2009, meaning every Prime Minister until then has come from this party.
At the end of the day, the main issue in the election seemed to be the economy. After the 2008 financial collapse, Iceland’s economy is still very vulnerable, and voters recognized that fact when they went to the polls. According to Skafti Harðarson, Chairman of the Iceland Taxpayers Association, the voters sent a clear message as “the majority voted for a continuation of stability, lower taxes and less government intervention.”
Indeed, the idea of stability resonated well with Iceland’s economy, as it rallied after the election results were announced. With the Independence Party securing first place, the crown currency hit an 8-year high and government bonds received a boost. This growth gives further credibility to the party’s message that it can provide the stable economy needed to carry Iceland through the next several years.
After the election results were made official, the current Prime Minister submitted his resignation to the President. His party, the Progressive Party, lost nearly 13 percentage points of support from the previous election. The Progressive Party will join with the Independence Party to try to form a center-right coalition government, but with a Prime Minister from the Independence Party. If all goes as planned, the leader of the Independence Party, Bjarni Benediktsson, will likely emerge as the next Prime Minister.
Even though the Independence Party has the support of the Progressive Party, they still do not have enough seats to form a coalition government. Currently, these center-right groups are 3 seats short of a majority, while the leftist groups trying to form a coalition government lack 5 seats.
When forming a coalition government after this election, Mr. Harðarson notes that “getting a majority together may prove tricky as it will take a minimum of three parties to work together to create a majority.” This means one of the current coalitions will have to pull in another party receiving seats to form a functioning government.
Without a majority coalition, the President of Iceland decides who has the mandate to govern and officially form a coalition. With a clear majority, the President gave the mandate to govern to the Independence Party this week. This is a clear victory for free-market principles and lower taxes in Iceland.
Top Comments
ATR Submits Comment Opposing Regulation To Increase Death Tax Burden
Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist today submitted a comment opposing the proposed Treasury regulation that would increase the Death Tax. The proposed regulation would increase the tax burden for many family-owned businesses at a time when opposition to the Death Tax is as strong as ever.
Currently, there are two valuation discounts available to those hit by the Death Tax—a lack of control discount and a lack of marketability discount. The proposed regulations would restrict the use of these discounts in a way that would increase the scope of the tax.
At its core, the Death Tax is widely unpopular, and yet the administration continues to widen the Death Tax burden. The Death Tax is not fair, is bad for economic growth, and is opposed by the majority of the American people and members of Congress. Congress can stop increases in the Death Tax by passing the Protect Family Farms and Businesses Act, S. 3436, sponsored by Marco Rubio (R-FL), and its counterpart H.R. 6100, sponsored by Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH). See the comments here or below.
November 1, 2016
The Honorable Jacob J. Lew
United States Treasury Secretary
United States Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20220
Re: Estate, Gift, and Generation-Skipping Transfer Taxes: Restrictions on Liquidation of an Interest – REG-163113-02
Dear Secretary Lew:
I write in opposition to the proposed regulation restricting the use of two Death Tax valuation discounts under Section 2704 of the Internal Revenue Code. The proposed changes widen the scope of the Death tax to make it much more difficult for families to claim these two important provisions. As a result, the rule would increase the Death Tax for many families.
The Death Tax hurts economic growth, is unpopular with the American people, and its repeal is supported by a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives. I urge you to side with the will of the American people and withdraw this regulation.
Families hit with the Death Tax are allowed two discounts when determining the value of their estate: a lack of control discount and a lack of marketability discount. A lack of control discount can be claimed when a family holds a minority ownership stake in an asset, resulting in the asset holding less value on the open market. A lack of marketability discount applies when an asset held by the family cannot easily be liquidated because of market barriers.
At a basic level, Americans know that the Death Tax is not fair. It is a tax you pay on savings you have already paid taxes on at least once, and potentially more than once. Those who are hit hardest generally are first and second generation small business owners, because the truly wealthy can avoid the tax through an army of accountants, attorneys, and charitable planners.
The Death Tax is bad for jobs and the economy. This regulation would disproportionately affect family businesses and threaten to put many out of business. The IRS has historically valued family businesses higher than CPA firms, resulting in higher estate and gift taxes for the family. According to the Tax Foundation, repealing the Death Tax would create 159,000 jobs and significantly increase wages, GDP, and capital investment.
The intense opposition to the Death Tax is unquestionable. In poll after poll, the Death Tax has consistently been opposed by nearly 70 percent of adults, registered voters, and likely voters. The House of Representatives even voted to repeal the Death Tax last year with a bipartisan vote of 240-179.
I urge you to listen to the voices of the American people and the elected Congress and work to repeal the Death Tax and withdraw this regulation.
Onward,
Grover G. Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform
Top Comments
Conservatives Should Focus on Governing from Congress
In a recent article in Medium, Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist outlined the importance of Republicans holding their current majorities in both houses of Congress. For the better part of 62 years, Democrats held the House and Senate, and Republicans focused solely on winning the Presidency. Norquist says of the Democrats’ stronghold on Congress:
Democrats were content to govern from Congress — driving tax policy, spending policy and directing the executive branch with appropriations riders requiring or forbidding how the president could spend money. Government grew. Entitlements created a European social welfare state untouchable by the executive branch.
In 1994, that all changed and Republicans won back the House and the Senate for the first time in more than 60 years, ushering in a new decade of economic growth and prosperity.
Republican Congress won a cut in the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%. They forced spending down from Clinton’s planned spending by more than $200 billion/year and balanced the budget. They enacted welfare reform, the first major entitlement reform.
Unfortunately, during the Bush years the Republican Congress put their agenda aside in favor of the President’s, and it cost them the Congress in 2006 and 2008. So while the Presidency is “second dessert," Republicans and conservatives should focus on governing from Congress.
You can read Norquist’s article here, and listen to his podcast below.
Top Comments
Tax Policy Center Data: Trump Tax Plan Beats Clinton with Higher Take-Home Pay for All Income Levels
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
Top Comments
California: The Golden State With Some Not So Golden Measures
It’s not November yet, but changes are already happening in California. Last month, Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed a number of bills into law that will negatively impact the Golden State economy.
Most notable and problematic is Senate Bill 1234, dubbed the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust Act. For workers without an employer-sponsored retirement plan, this new law will require 2-5% of their wages to be automatically set aside for California bureaucrats to manage in a state-sponsored IRA. This new law will place the savings of seven million eligible employees under state government control. The Wall Street Journal’s Allysia Finley, a California native, explains what the state would then do with the siphoned wages:
"They essentially want to give it to this Retirement Board that's comprised of mainly politicians in Sacramento and their union allies. And they would supposedly invest the money for the first three years in treasuries and other 'safe investments.' And then they could distribute the money essentially to their politically-favored causes' investments."
Workers can technically opt-out of making contributions to a state-run IRA, but as Finley notes, “it’s a very onerous process,” just like it is for public employees who want to opt out of paying dues.
In a recent Forbes article, Chuck DeVore, a former California legislator and current Vice President of National Initiatives at Texas Public Policy Foundation, explained the motive behind this odious new law:
“Why are the weakest government pension systems seeking to force private sector workers to pay into their accounts? There are four reasons: the infusion of new cash can help the balance sheets; millions of additional voters will be made more dependent on government programs; those same voters will be invested in ensuring that state-run pension systems are adequately funded; and the political appointees and politicians who oversee those retirement systems will have billions more in investment leverage to pressure corporations to bend to their progressive demands.”
Not all of the bills signed into law by Gov. Brown last month are bad. Senate Bill 443, for instance, is a bipartisan-supported measure that requires a conviction before police can claim civil asset forfeitures. In the past, police officers could claim an individual’s assets without a conviction.
“This important legislation will drastically reduce the opportunity for police to take money from and otherwise harass poor people, immigrants, people of color, and small businesses that work primarily in cash,” said Lynne Lyman, California state director of the Drug Policy Alliance.
In less than two weeks, California voters have some important decisions to make that will influence everything from their tax returns to their trips to the grocery store. The Americans for Tax Reform 2016 Ballot Guide, released this week, highlights the noteworthy measures on the 2016 ballot that will have the greatest impact on California taxpayers and the state economy:
Notable Tax-Related Ballot Measures
California Proposition 67, Plastic Bag Ban Veto Referendum
Americans for Tax Reform Stance: Oppose
Proposition 67, if approved by voters, would uphold a 2014 state law banning the use of plastic bags and charging consumers a 10 cent on every paper bag used at checkout. All revenue collected from this bag tax would go to grocery stores, not state government coffers.
Prop. 67’s approval would result in a multi-million dollar tax increase on consumers that will do nothing to improve the environment but will transfer income from low and middle-income households to the bank accounts of large corporations.
California Proposition 65, Dedication of Revenue from Disposable Bag Sales to Wildlife Conservation Fund
Americans for Tax Reform Stance: Support
Proposition 65 is an initiative statute to Proposition 67 that would direct all bag tax revenue away from grocery stores, as current law stipulates, and instead towards the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Fund, a new fund that would be managed by Wildlife Conservation Board.
Americans for Tax Reform opposes California’s plastic bag ban and paper bag tax. Yet if Prop. 67 is approved and the paper bag tax remains on the books, revenue raised by it should go to public coffers instead of private companies. As such, ATR opposes Prop. 67, while supporting Prop. 65.
California Proposition 55, Extension of the Proposition 30 Income Tax Increase
Americans for Tax Reform Stance: Oppose
Proposition 55 would extend the higher temporary income tax rates approved by voters in 2012 on incomes exceeding $250,000 a year. If this measure is approved, the higher income tax rates will remain in place through 2030. However, if voters reject Prop. 55, these tax increases will begin phasing out in 2018.
Currently, California’s top marginal income tax ranks highest in the nation at 13.3 percent. Second highest in the nation, Oregon, is more than 3 percentage points lower. Keeping such a high rate in place for a longer period of time will continue to hamstring the state economically and will be particularly harmful to small businesses owners who pay their taxes on their individual income tax return.
California Tobacco Tax Increase, Proposition 56
Americans for Tax Reform Stance: Oppose
Proposition 56 would increase the state cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, resulting in a total cigarette tax of $2.87 per pack. This increase would be equivalently applied to other tobacco products as well.
In that vein, Prop 56 would also expand the state definition of “other tobacco products” to include e-cigarettes, which would hold these innovative, safer alternatives to traditional cigarettes to the taxes outlined in Proposition 99 and Proposition 10.
Prop 56 would make California’s cigarette tax rate within the 10 highest in the nation and make it among the few states that taxes e-cigarettes.
Local Tax-Related Ballot Measures
San Diego, California Football Stadium Initiative, Measure C
Americans for Tax Reform Stance: Oppose
Measure C would raise the city’s hotel room tax to finance the construction of a new stadium for the San Diego Chargers, and additional convention center space.
Currently, the city’s hotel room tax is 10.5 percent, which is collected with an additional 2 percentage point surcharge to fund the Tourism Marketing District for an effective total hotel tax of 12.5 percent. Measure C would lower the Tourism Marketing District down to 1 percent, however, the overall effective rate would still increase to 16.5 percent. Approval of Measure C would result in a nearly 60 percent increase in the San Diego hotel tax.
Numerous Local Soda Tax Ballot Measures
Americans for Tax Reform Stance: Oppose
Voters in San Francisco & Oakland, CA, as well as Boulder, CO will face ballot questions asking them to approve punitive tax hikes on soda.
Simply put, discriminatory soda tax hikes are regressive cash grabs that will do nothing to improve public health.
One of the few times Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has ever been correct about any fiscal policy issue was when he pointed out on the presidential campaign trail this year that soda tax hikes are “fairly regressive. And that is, it will be increasing taxes on low-income and working people.”
Significant Local Ballot Measure
Monterey County Ban on Fracking and Extreme Oil Extraction Methods Initiative
Americans for Tax Reform Stance: Oppose
This initiative would ban hydraulic fracturing in Monterey County, California.
Banning energy extraction methods such as hydraulic fracturing prevents the development of affordable, cleaner, reliable, and abundant natural gas. Furthermore, banning hydraulic fracturing will cause Monterey County to forgo economic growth and job-creation.
Top Comments