Six Months to Go Until<br> The Largest Tax Hikes in History
In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:
(N.B. This version of the document contains even more tax hikes than the original version did)
First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief
In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:
Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:
- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.
The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.
Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.
Second Wave: Obamacare
There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:
The Tanning Tax. This went into effect on July 1st of this year. It imposes a new, 10% excise tax on getting a tan at a tanning salon. There is no exemption for tanners making less than $250,000 per year.
The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).
The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Brand Name Drug Tax. Starting next year, there will be a multi-billion dollar tax assessment imposed on name-brand drug manufacturers. This tax, like all excise taxes, will raise the price of medicine, hurting everyone.
Economic Substance Doctrine. The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly-legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks “economic substance.” This is obviously an arbitrary empowerment of IRS agents.
Employer Reporting of Health Insurance Costs on a W-2. This will start for W-2s in the 2011 tax year. While not a tax increase in itself, it makes it very easy for Congress to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits later.
Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes
When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. These major items include:
The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.
Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”
Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.
Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.
Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.
Norquist Praises Emerging Consensus on Tax Reform

ATR president Grover Norquist released the following statement in response to remarks made today by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer:
“Spicer just announced that border adjustability – once thought to be a sticking point for coming to agreement on fundamental tax reform – is now a consensus item. This statement means we are very close to enacting fundamental tax reform. The Trump team and congress have been moving towards each other for months. And this continues. So today’s comment about the wall was actually an extremely newsworthy story about how close we are to enacting fundamental tax reform that creates jobs, increases wages, and promotes strong economic growth. The entire package is a dramatic reduction in taxes and therefore certainly not a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.”
The Death Tax Should Be Repealed in 2017

The Death Tax should be repealed this year as a part of much-needed, pro-growth tax reform. At its core, this tax is extremely unfair, forcing families to pay a tax on their loved one’s family-owned businesses or farms.
At a steep 40 percent rate, those hit by the Death Tax must give up a portion of their loved one’s legacy because of the tax. The truly wealthy can avoid the tax through an army of accountants, attorneys, and charitable planners, but those who are hit hardest generally are first and second generation small business owners and cannot afford the same tax avoidances the wealthy, like Hilary Clinton, use. Americans for Tax Reform along with 131 other organizations wrote a letter to Congress urging immediate and permanent repeal of the Death Tax.
Repeal of the Death Tax is not only common-sense, but it would also spur economic growth. In 2016, the Tax Foundation estimated that repeal of the Death Tax would create 150,000 jobs. Additionally, the Joint Economic Committee reported that the Death Tax has suppressed over $1.1 trillion of capital in the United States’ economy since being introduced. Much of this comes from small businesses, who are the core of America’s economy. This loss of capital ultimately results in fewer jobs and lower wages for American workers.
In addition, the Death Tax contributes a miniscule amount of revenue relative to the size of federal government. In all, it makes up only one half of one percent of all federal revenue. Because the Death Tax is so economically destructive, almost all the revenue lost would be offset by increased economic growth. As noted by the Tax Foundation, repealing the Death Tax would result in $240 billion in lower taxes over a decade. However, the economic growth created by repealing the Death Tax would produce $221 billion in federal revenue because of increased wages and more jobs.
The majority of Americans oppose the Death Tax and support its repeal. Countless polls have proven that a majority of Americans would support full and permanent repeal of the Death Tax.
Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) and Representative Krisiti Noem (R-S.D.). have introduced legislation, S. 205/ H.R. 631, The Death Tax Repeal Act of 2017, to permanently repeal the Death Tax. ATR urges all members of Congress to support and co-sponsor these bills. Likewise, executive and congressional leaders have been at the forefront of this debate. Both the House GOP tax blueprint and the plans released by President Trump have both called for the repeal of the Death Tax.
As the President and Congress are moving forward with pro-growth tax reform, the repeal of the Death Tax should be a vital part of reform.
Free Market Groups Ask Congress to Rescind FCC Privacy Rules

Americans for Tax Reform along with a coalition of other free market groups sent a letter to House and Senate Leadership asking them to use their Congressional Review Act Authority to rescind the FCC Privacy rules.
Please see the text of the letter below and a link to the letter on ATR's website here:
January 26, 2017
The Honorable Paul Ryan
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Majority Leader
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Democratic Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Chuck Schumer
Democratic Leader
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McConnell, Leader Pelosi and Leader Schumer:
We urge you to use the authority provided in the Congressional Review Act to rescind the Federal Communications Commission’s Broadband Privacy Order.
Congress is fully justified in rescinding these rules both because the Order lacks proper legal grounding and because of the need to ensure real consumer privacy across contexts of user experience.
The FCC’s approach is inconsistent with that of the Federal Trade Commission for nearly two decades, and will likely render harm unto consumers.
The FTC focuses on what data are held, the level of data sensitivity, and how consumers are affected if the data are misused. This outcomes-based approach takes consumers’ preferences into account while preventing actions that harm consumers.
The FTC’s approach rests on well-established standards of Unfairness (preventing substantial consumer injury) and Deception (enforcing material promises). Consumers generally agree on what constitutes financial and physical injury. Consumers deem data that could lead to these types of injuries more sensitive, and expect higher security for these data.
The sensitivity of other “private” information is, as the FTC rightly recognizes, often subjective, depending on its use. Some people might choose to post everything about themselves online — details that others might find invasive or embarrassing if made public — while others chose not to join social networks. Some might find value in an application using data about their geolocation in a particular way, while others decline participation because they consider the benefit of the service outweighed by its privacy cost. None of these approaches to privacy is incorrect. Each is a personal decision about tradeoffs. Taking varying consumer preferences into account, the FTC’s standards functioned reasonably well, requiring opt-out in most instances and opt-in only for particularly sensitive kinds of data.
The FCC approach focuses on who holds the data, rather than what — and how sensitive — the data are. This hinders services that consumers want while failing to protect sensitive data across contexts.
The FCC's questionable ability to regulate privacy standards, and its narrow view on what constitutes privacy protection, make its rules counterproductive to actual consumer privacy protections. In contrast, the FTC's approach to privacy does a better job of balancing protection of consumers’ privacy online with economic incentives to innovate in consumer products and services.
There are many reasons for Congress to negate these rules: The legality of the Open Internet Order, which these rules are based on, is questionable; the FCC's expanded interpretation of customer proprietary network information from section 222 is incorrect, as it applies specifically to voice services; and sections 201, 202, 303(b), 316 and 705 of the Communications Act also do not give the FCC the authority to enter rules of this nature.
Rescinding the Privacy Order would promote both innovation and effective, consistent privacy protections in over-the-top, application, wireless and wireline markets. It would also send a clear signal that the FCC has lost its way in interpreting the statute Congress gave it. Doing so would not create a gap in privacy protection because the FCC would retain the ability to police privacy practices of broadband companies on a case-by-case basis.
If Congress fails to use the CRA in such a clear-cut case of agency overreach, the statute will fail in its original goal: encouraging regulatory agencies to respect the bounds of Congressional authority.
Sincerely,
Americans for Tax Reform
Digital Liberty
American Commitment
American Consumer Institute
Caesar Rodeny Institute
Center for Freedom & Prosperity
Center for Individual Freedom
Competitive Enterprise Institute
FreedomWorks
Frontiers of Freedom
International Center for Law & Economics
Institute for Policy Innovation
The Jeffersonian Project
John Locke Foundation
Less Government
The Main Heritage Policy Center
NetCompetition
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
TechFreedom
Top Comments
Changes to FTC Contact Lens Rule Promotes Free Market Competition

ATR has sent the following letter in support of proposed changes to the Contact Lens Rule, 16 CFR Part 315, Project No. R511995:
On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform, I write in support of new changes to the Contact Lens Rule (16 CFR Part 315, Project No. R511995.) The proposed changes to the rule promote and protect the free market by ensuring consumers have the freedom to purchase where they choose free from interference.
In 2003, the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act (FCLCA) was made into law in response to this issue. The act required that optometrists provide patients with a copy of their prescription.
Prior to passage of FCLCA, optometrists could make it more difficult for their patients to purchase from a third party. These concerns were far from hypothetical – there were many well documented cases of bad actors implicitly or directly blocking the free choice of consumers.
To be clear, there should be no restrictions on professionals selling contact lens, nor should there be any restriction on consumers safely purchasing from a third party.
Since the rule has been enacted, patients have had more options on where to fill their prescriptions. FCLCA fixed existing flaws in law by allowing consumers the right to “passive verification” over contact lens prescriptions, a change that meant patients would have access to a written prescription, so they could shop where they wanted.
The newly proposed changes to the contact lens rule protect the successes from FCLCA introducing new provisions that will strengthen federal law.
The rule calls for additional record keeping in the form of a “receipt of contact lens prescription” that enshrines the right of consumers to freely purchase from either their optometrist or a third party provider.
Consumers will also have increased flexibility to have their prescriptions verified through phone, fax, or online, a change that makes sense given the ease of communication today.
Importantly, changes to the rule do not include some of the proposed changes that would restrict the free market.
Critics of existing law have long argued that it is unsafe for patients to fill their prescriptions through a third party. These opponents have proposed regulations to the FCLCA such as allowing optometrists to block any third party from filling a prescription based on their own discretion and prohibiting automated verification that makes it easier and faster for patients to receive their prescriptions.
After a year-long examination the FTC has rightly debunked all safety issues that have been raised and decided that there is no basis for implementing these unnecessary regulations.
The new proposal will add to the success of existing law, promoting the well-being of patients and the free market. I urge the FTC to move forward with this rule and continue to reject any proposals that weaken contact lens consumer protections.
Onward,
Grover Norquist
Top Comments
Top 5 Reasons to Repeal the Durbin Amendment

Passed as part of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Durbin Amendment allows the government to set price controls on fees for debit card transactions. Before the Durbin Amendment, such fees were not capped, and issuers of debit cards, such as credit unions and banks, were encouraged by a competitive market to offer consumers benefits like reward programs and free checking accounts. Those days quickly faded as the days of Durbin ushered in a darker day for the consumer.
The Durbin Amendment must be repealed so that the consumers can once again enjoy the benefits of the free market.
Here are the top 5 reasons Durbin is failed policy and must be repealed.
1) Unfulfilled promises. The promise made to the consumer that they would receive the benefits of retailers receiving a fee break was never fulfilled. Recent studies show that “most large retailers have seen significant cost reductions as a result of the Durbin Amendment, yet to date there is no evidence that those cost savings have been passed-through to consumers.” In fact, since Durbin was passed, 77% of merchants have not changed prices, and 22% have actually increased prices.
2) Bring back free checking accounts. Credit unions and banks that would have normally received fees from the average debit card swipe are now receiving less and have been forced to cut out free checking accounts, something consumers enjoyed for years before Durbin came around. Before Durbin was enacted in 2009, 76 percent of banks offered free checking accounts. In 2011 that number fell to 45 percent, and in 2012 it plunged to just 39 percent.
3) Growth in America’s “unbanked” population. As a result of the decline in free checking accounts under the Durbin Amendment, many low-to-middle income Americans have been pushed out of the banking system. According to a recent study by George Mason University, the Durbin Amendment has led to over 1 million Americans being unbanked. A regressive trend that falls hardest on America’s poor.
4) The false revenue narrative. While proponents of the Durbin Amendment claim that issuers of debit cards have seen increased revenue since the amendment passed, this narrative is blatantly misleading. While there has been growth in total interchange fees, this is a result of expanded credit and debit card use in recent years – not a result of the Durbin Amendment. For instance, data shows that credit and debit purchases have increased to 46 percent of total consumption value, up from 37 percent in 2008.
5) Reward the consumer not the retailer. Finally, credit unions and banks have been forced to scale back and practically eliminate many forms of debit card reward programs. These programs are vital towards rewarding the consumer for stimulating the economy with their hard earned money.
In essence, the Durbin Amendment is failed policy. Since enactment, Durbin has failed consumers by not passing the savings on as promised, eliminated the ability of many consumers to have their money kept in bank accounts that charge monthly fees, and has led to an increase in unbanked Americans. The 115th Congress and President Trump should act to ensure the Durbin Amendment is repealed.
Photo credit: Arend
Repeal of Obamacare Will Provide Much Needed Middle Class Tax Relief

At today’s Senate Finance Committee hearing for Tom Price to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) falsely claimed that repealing Obamacare’s 20 new or higher taxes would benefit “the rich.”
As further evidence of how ignorant Sen. McCaskill is about the contents of the law,Obamacare imposed roughly one trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000) in higher taxes over ten years that directly and indirectly hit middle class families and businesses.
The law imposes a tax for failing to buy government-mandated insurance, imposes taxes on the millions of Americans using Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Spending Accounts, imposes an income tax hike on Americans facing high medical bills, imposes a new tax on health insurance, a tax on medical devices, a tax on employer provided care, and a tax on innovative medicines and other treatments.
Repealing these taxes will provide much needed relief to the paychecks of families across the country. Repealing Obamacare will also undo Barack Obama’s broken promise not to sign “any form of tax increase” on any middle class American family.
Individual Mandate Non-Compliance Tax ($43.3 billion tax hike between 2016-2025)
Anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services -- must pay an income surtax to the IRS. In 2014, close to 7.5 million households paid this tax. Most make less than $250,000. The Obama administration uses the Orwellian phrase “shared responsibility payment” to describe this tax.
Starting this year, the tax was a minimum of $695 for individuals, while families of four had to pay a minimum of $2,085.
|
|
Households w/ 1 Adult |
|
Households w/ 2 Adults |
Households w/ 2 Adults & 2 children |
|
|
2.5% AGI/$695 |
|
2.5% AGI/$1390 |
2.5% AGI/$2085 |
A recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that repealing this tax would decrease spending by $311 billion over ten years.
Medicine Cabinet Tax on HSAs and FSAs ($6.7 billion tax hike between 2016-2025)
Since 2011 millions of Americans are no longer able to purchase over-the-counter medicines using pre-tax Flexible Spending Accounts or Health Savings Accounts dollars. Examples include cold, cough, and flu medicine, menstrual cramp relief medication, allergy medicines, and dozens of other common medicine cabinet health items. This tax costs FSA and HSA users $6.7 billion over ten years.
Flexible Spending Account Tax ($32 billion tax hike between 2016-2025)
The 30 - 35 million Americans who use a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs face an Obamacare-imposed cap of $2,500. This tax will hit Americans $32 billion over the next ten years.
Flexible Spending Account Tax ($32 billion tax hike between 2016-2025)
The 30 - 35 million Americans who use a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs face an Obamacare-imposed cap of $2,500. This tax will hit Americans $32 billion over the next ten years.
Before Obamacare, the accounts were unlimited under federal law, though employers were allowed to set a cap. Now, parents looking to sock away extra money to pay for braces find themselves quickly hitting this new cap, meaning they have to pony up some or all of the cost with after-tax dollars. Needless to say, this tax especially impacts middle class families.
There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap is particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. Families with special needs children often use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at special needs schools can run thousands of dollars per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. This Obamacare tax increase limits the options available to these families.
Health Insurance Tax ($130 billion tax hike between 2016-2025)
In addition to mandating the purchase of health insurance through the individual mandate tax, Obamacare directly increases the cost of insurance through the health insurance tax. The tax is projected to cost taxpayers – including those in the middle class – $130 billion over the next decade.
The total revenue this tax collects is set annually by Treasury and is then divided amongst insurers relative to the premiums collected from certain plans each year. While it is directly levied on the industry, the costs of the Obamacare health insurance tax are inevitably passed on to small businesses that provide healthcare to their employees, middle class families through higher premiums, seniors who purchase Medicare advantage coverage, and the poor who rely on Medicaid managed care.
According to the American Action Forum, the Obamacare health insurance tax will increase premiums by up to $5,000 over a decade and will directly impact 1.7 million small businesses, 11 million households that purchase through the individual insurance market and 23 million households covered through their jobs. The tax is also economically destructive – the National Federation for Independent Businesses estimates the tax could cost up to 286,000 in new jobs and cost small businesses $33 billion in lost sales by 2023.
Chronic Care Tax ($35.7 billion tax hike between 2016-2025)
This income tax increase directly targets middle class Americans with high medical bills. The tax hits 10 million households every year. Before Obamacare, Americans facing high medical expenses were allowed an income tax deduction to the extent that those expenses exceeded 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). Obamacare now imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Therefore, Obamacare not only makes it more difficult to claim this deduction, it widens the net of taxable income. This income tax increase will cost Americans $40 billion over the next ten years.
According to the IRS, approximately 10 million families took advantage of this tax deduction each year before Obamacare. Almost all were middle class: The average taxpayer claiming this deduction earned just over $53,000 annually in 2010. ATR estimates that the average income tax increase for the average family claiming this tax benefit is about $200 - $400 per year.
“Cadillac Tax” -- Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans ($87.3 million tax hike between 2016-2025)
In 2020, a new 40 percent excise tax on employer provided health insurance plans is scheduled to kick in, on plans exceeding $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. According to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the Cadillac tax will hit 26 percent of employer provided plans and 42 percent of employer provided plans by 2028. Over time, this will decrease care and increase costs for millions of American families across the country.
HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike ($100 million tax hike between 2016-2025)
This provision increases the tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Ten Percent Excise Tax on Indoor Tanning ($800 million tax hike between 2016-2025)
The Obamacare 10 percent tanning tax has wiped out an estimated 10,000 tanning salons, many owned by women. This $800 million Obamacare tax increase was the first to go into effect (July 2010). This petty, burdensome, nanny-state tax affects both the business owner and the end user. Industry estimates show that 30 million Americans visit an indoor tanning facility in a given year, and over 50 percent of salon owners are women. There is no exception granted for those making less than $250,000 meaning it is yet another tax that violates Obama’s “firm pledge” not to raise “any form” of tax on Americans making less than this amount.
Top Comments
Tax Reform Must Retain Carried Interest As A Capital Gain

As President Trump and Congress ramp up discussions on what comprehensive tax reform should look like, they ought to be able to agree that reducing, not raising, the tax burden on badly-needed investment is a top priority. That's the opinion of two of Washington's most prominent taxpayer groups, which today urged leaders on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to get an early start on publicly declaring tax-reform principles that encourage investment, among them ensuring that all types of capital gains are treated fairly, without harsh or discriminatory exceptions in the law.
Grover Norquist, Founder and President at Americans for Tax Reform, and Pete Sepp, President of National Taxpayers Union, offered the following statement ahead of GOP's policy retreat, where tax reform is expected to be the topic of in-depth discussions:
"The next four years represents an opportunity to reduce -- not increase taxes on capital gains. Over the past eight years, the top rate increased from 15 percent to 23.8 percent, and the top integrated rate currently sits at 56.3 percent compared to the OECD/BRIC average of 40.3 percent.
While it appears unlikely that incoming lawmakers and the administration will increase rates outright, they should also be sure not to incrementally move the needle toward higher capital gains taxes in other ways, like boosting taxes on carried interest capital gains.
Carried interest capital gains income is earned through a net gain within a partnership formed between individuals with capital and an expert investor. They are indistinguishable from any other type of capital and so they are paid at the same capital gains tax rates.
While supporters of higher taxes on carried interest capital gains say it takes aim at 'hedge fund guys,' it would also hurt pension funds, charities, and colleges that depend on these investment partnerships as part of their savings goals. In addition, small businesses would find themselves increasingly shut out from investment money available to them from these partnerships.
Rather than supporting proposals that lead to higher capital gains tax rates, the incoming Congress and administration should look toward lower rates. One model to follow is contained in the House GOP blueprint, which reduces the top rate on capital gains to 16.5 percent."
ATR is a nonpartisan taxpayer advocacy group, and sponsors the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. NTU is a pro-taxpayer lobbying organization working for lower, simpler taxes and economic freedom at all levels.
Top Comments
ATR Urges Ind. Lawmakers to Reject Cigarette and Gas Tax Hikes

In a recent letter, Americans for Tax Reform urged Indiana lawmakers to reject measures being pushed by Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma that would raise the state gas and cigarette tax.
To: Members of the Indiana Legislature
From: Americans for Tax Reform
Re: 2017 Legislative Session
Dear Members of the Indiana Legislature,
The coming year looks to be one of historic policy change, not just in Washington, but also state capitals across the country. On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform and our supporters across Indiana, I write today to urge you to keep taxpayers in mind as you take up many important issues during the 2017 legislative session. Any and all tax hikes will be scored as violations of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a personal written commitment many state lawmakers have made to their constituents to oppose net increases in taxes.
Your constituents have been hit with over 20 federal tax increases over the last eight years. The last thing individuals, families, and employers across Indiana need is to have lawmakers in the Indianapolis pile on with further tax hikes at the state level.
There is ample evidence that higher taxes make states less competitive, and harm economic growth. John Hood, chairman of the John Locke Foundation, a non-partisan think tank, analyzed 681 peer-reviewed academic journal articles dating back to 1990. Most of the studies found that lower levels of taxes and spending correlate with stronger economic performance. When Tax Foundation chief economist William McBride reviewed academic literature going back three decades, he found “the results consistently point to significant negative effects of taxes on economic growth, even after controlling for various other factors such as government spending, business cycle conditions and monetary policy”
Unfortunately, potential tax hikes are already looming in the state and your colleagues are openly endorsing them. Earlier this month, not only did Speaker Bosma publicly tout a $0.10 gas tax hike, he’s supporting a gas tax increase for a second year in a row. The plan, like last year’s bill, only focuses on raising taxes, not reforming government or reallocating currently collected resources. As such, I urge you to reject this misguided approach to budgeting.
If transportation funding were truly a priority, lawmakers would immediately use gas tax revenue for its intended purpose: roads—rather than wait until 2019, as the plan proposes. By claiming a tax hike is needed for transportation, lawmakers are admitting that transportation needs are actually their lowest priority; otherwise they would not have funded everything else first. As such, legislators should immediately and permanently codify the earmarking of gas tax revenue to new and existing transportation projects.
Accountability is also an integral part of the legislative process and voters demand it. Yet, as the plan stands, it violates voter wishes by allowing the gas tax rate to increase automatically every year. When lawmakers place tax hikes on autopilot, they strip from the budget process the responsibility and accountability that come with annual decisions about tax rates. A 2015 national public poll found that 79 percent of Americans oppose an increase in the gasoline tax to keep up with inflation and 68 percent oppose any increase in the gas tax to spend more for infrastructure.
Contrary to popular belief, the gas tax is not a user fee. Consumers must be presented with a choice of either purchasing the service from the government (by paying the fee) or purchasing the services from a private business to qualify as a true user fee. Because anyone who purchases gasoline in Indiana is forced to pay the tax, they are not considered user fees. Gas tax increases are tax increases in the same way that income and sales tax increases are. Road tolls, however, are an example of user fees. Tolls are user fees because commuters have the option of using the roads they are imposed upon or not.
An additional object of consideration is an increase in the state cigarette tax. Increasing the Hoosier State’s dependence on tobacco taxes by increasing them will not guarantee more revenue in the long run. As demonstrated by many states and cities across the nation, targeted excise taxes have proven to be unstable sources of revenue, and ultimately result in a decrease in tax receipts. For example, neighboring Illinois nearly doubled its cigarette tax in 2012 by raising the tax $1-per-pack; it generated $138 million less than projected. In fact, only three out of the 32 state tobacco tax increases, enacted between 2009 and 2013, have met or exceeded tax revenue projects.
Currently, Indiana has a regionally competitive cigarette tax rate of $.995-per pack. It is higher than Kentucky’s $.60-per pack tax but makes Indiana a net exporter of cigarettes to states like Illinois, which boasts the city with the highest state-local tax rate of $6.16-per pack in Chicago.
If enacted, this tax would likely further incentivize cigarette smuggling and cross-border sales into states like Kentucky. According to the Tax Foundation, when Illinois almost doubled the cigarette tax rate, cigarette smuggling rate dramatically increased from 1.1 percent to 20.9 percent in the first year. Consequently, small businesses in this state lost tens of thousands of dollars as patrons pursued cigarettes in less expensive markets across state lines, including in Indiana.
Targeted and regressive tax hikes on low-income consumers like smokers are unwise and will prove to be an unstable source of revenue long term.
If you need another reason to not raise taxes, which is what lawmakers do instead of reforming government, there is a good chance that federal tax reform will finally happen this year, and that it will include either a significant scaling back or outright elimination of the state & local tax deduction. The federal government has been subsidizing state tax hikes and high tax states for far too long, but the 115th Congress is looking to put an end to that.
Now that hardworking Hoosier families can finally afford to fuel their cars and heat their homes, legislators should not strip them of economic opportunity by making gas increasingly unaffordable and burdening the middle class and low-income families with more tax hikes. ATR will be educating your constituents and all Indiana taxpayers as to how lawmakers in state capitals vote on important fiscal and economic matters throughout the legislative session.
Please look to ATR to be a resource on tax, budget, and other policy matters pending before you. If you have any questions, please contact Miriam Roff, State Affairs Coordinator, at (202) 785-0266 or mroff@atr.org.
Sincerely,
Grover Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform
Top Comments
ATR Statement in Support of Rep. Mulvaney for OMB Director

ATR President Grover Norquist today sent a letter of support for Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) for the position of Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Read the letter here or below.
Dear Chairman Enzi & Ranking Member Sanders,
I write in support of Congressman Mick Mulvaney for the position of Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Throughout his time in Congress, Rep. Mulvaney has displayed a commitment to addressing Washington’s rampant overspending problem and reforming the bloated federal bureaucracy. Senators should have no hesitation supporting his nomination to lead OMB and should swiftly approve him to this position.
The federal budget is on an unsustainable trajectory that must be addressed. In coming decades, spending and debt are projected to rapidly increase to historically high levels. The Director of OMB will play an integral part in reining in the out-of-control federal government and Rep. Mulvaney has proven he is willing to make the tough choices that will undoubtedly be required to reverse the looming fiscal crisis.
As an advocate of bringing the Department of Defense under full audit, Rep. Mulvaney has shown a willingness to look for waste and abuse wherever it may be.
As a signer of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge – a commitment made to his constituents to oppose any and all new tax increases – Rep. Mulvaney has shown he understands the need to reduce spending and the deficit without burdening American families and businesses with higher taxes.
Congressman Mick Mulvaney is the right choice to lead OMB at a time when the federal budget is in desperate need of restraint. I urge you and your colleagues to swiftly approve his nomination as Director of OMB.
Onward,
Grover Norquist
Top Comments
ATR Supports Congressman Tom Price for HHS Secretary

ATR President Grover Norquist today sent a letter of support for Congressman Tom Price (R-Ga.) for the position of Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Read the full letter here or below.
Dear Chairman Hatch & Ranking Member Wyden:
I write in support of Congressman Tom Price for the position of Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Throughout his career in public office, Dr. Price has proven to be an advocate for pro-growth, fiscally responsible reforms, a champion of patient-centered, free market healthcare, and a supporter of ending Washington dysfunction and gridlock. All Senators should vote to confirm Rep. Price as to lead HHS.
As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Dr. Price has released fiscally responsible proposals that address Washington’s overspending problem and reduce the deficit without burdening American families and businesses with higher taxes.
Dr. Price has also made it a priority to fix Washington’s gridlock and political dysfunction. Dr. Price last year released a detailed proposal to reform the broken federal budget process by replacing the 1974 Budget Act with reforms to reassert Congressional authority over the federal budget, establish enforceable benchmarks to rein in the deficit, and reverse the bias toward unaccountable spending.
As a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Dr. Price has advocated for conservative, pro-growth tax reform. Dr. Price is a signer of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a commitment he has made to his constituents to oppose any and all new tax increases.
Over the last eight years, Dr. Price has conducted important oversight over the Obama administration. Most notably, Dr. Price last year led oversight efforts over Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), which used its broad authority to unilaterally change to healthcare policy despite opposition from doctors, patients, and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
In addition to oversight over Obamacare, Dr. Price has also shown leadership in proposing free market solutions. Rep. Price is the author of the “Empowering Patients First Act,” legislation that replaces Obamacare with a series of reforms that lowers costs, increases efficiency, and empowers patients and doctors across the country.
Congressman Tom Price has a proven record fighting for lower taxes, responsible spending, free market healthcare, and an accountable federal government. Senators should have no hesitation supporting his nomination to lead HHS and should swiftly approve him to this position.
Onward,
Grover Norquist

















Top Comments