ATR Supports the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Bethany Patterson on Monday, January 27th, 2020, 2:27 PM PERMALINK

On Friday, Representatives Steve Chabot (R-OH-01) and Hank Johnson (D-GA-04) introduced H.R. 5674, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2020.

The legislation will dramatically simplify the tax system for mobile workers. Currently, these workers face a complicated muddle of 41 different state income tax reporting requirements. These requirements vary based on amount of money workers earned, their length of stay, or even both. 

Most individuals are not aware of the varying non-resident state income tax filing rules, and employers incur extraordinary expenses to comply with withholding requirements. 

This is especially difficult for those able to offer support in the event of a natural disaster. People with specialized skills—doctors, nurses, electricians, arborists, decontamination crews, etc.—are in high demand following these events.  These skills are not bound by location; they can mobilize to accelerate healing and repairs for a community after a disaster.

But the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act would clear up this confusion. It establishes a clear physical presence standard for cross-border work by keeping states from taxing most nonresident employees until the employee is working in the state for more than 30 days. This simplifies tax compliance and minimizes bureaucratic obstacles, which is especially important as the digital world makes us increasingly more mobile.

A version of this bill, S. 604, has been introduced in the Senate by Senators John Thune (R-SD) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and currently has 37 co-sponsors.

Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist wrote to Congress in support of this bill. The full letter can be found below and here

Dear Congressmen:

I write urging you to pass the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2020, H.R. 5674.

This legislation establishes a nationwide physical presence standard for employee income tax reporting, which will provide substantial relief to taxpayers and businesses across the country. It was introduced in the House by Congressmen Steve Chabot and Hank Johnson and in the Senate by Senators John Thune and Sherrod Brown.

As there is currently no uniform standard for collecting state income taxes from out-of-state workers, businesses and employees are forced to deal with a confusing and sometimes duplicative system of reporting requirements. There are 41 states that levy a state income tax, each with a different system of reporting requirements that vary based on factors such as the amount of income earned and the amount of time spent in the state.

This is especially difficult for those able to offer support in the event of a natural disaster. People with specialized skills—doctors, nurses, electricians, arborists, decontamination crews, etc.—are in high demand following these events. These skills are not bound by location; they can mobilize to accelerate healing and repairs for a community after a disaster.

Individuals who work across state lines for any period of time in a year may be required to file income taxes in their home state as well as any other states in which they earned income. Although tax credits issued in the home state typically prevent double taxation, the presence of 41 different state income tax reporting systems provides a burdensome series of complications for both businesses and workers.

The Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2020 addresses these problems by establishing a uniform standard, under which workers and businesses would only be required to file and pay income tax after an employee has worked more than 30 days in a state. The legislation excludes three categories of highly paid, highly mobile workers, including professional athletes, professional entertainers, and certain prominent public officials.

The Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2020 simplifies tax compliance for businesses and workers, allows workers to keep more of the income they earn, and minimizes bureaucratic restraints on worker freedom.

I encourage Congress to support workers by supporting The Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2020. If you should have any questions regarding this issue please contact me, or Katie McAuliffe at kmcauliffe@atr.org or 202-785-0266.

Onward,

Grover Norquist

Photo Credit: Pierre-Selim


Tax Hike Bernie Says "Nobody Knows" How Much Medicare for All Will Cost

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Saturday, January 25th, 2020, 4:35 PM PERMALINK

Bernie Sanders said that "nobody knows" how much Medicare for All will cost and that he has no intentions of telling the American people, during a CBS Evening News interview on Friday

 Norah O'Donnell: "Your agenda has promised free health care for everybody free college tuition and to pay off people's college loans. The price tag for that is estimated to be $60 trillion over 10 years, correct?"

 Bernie Sanders: "Well, look We have political opponents"

O'Donnell: "You don't know how much your plan costs?"

Sanders: "You don't know. Nobody knows, this is impossible."

O'Donnell: "You're going to propose a plan to the American people and you're not going to tell them how much it costs? 

Sanders: "Of course I will. Do you know exactly what health care costs will be one minute in the next 10 years if we do nothing? It will be a lot more expensive than a Medicare for all single payer system."

The Sanders government takeover of everything from healthcare to college has one reoccurring theme: Substantial tax increases on all Americans.

During an interview with Steven Colbert in September, Sanders said that he would tax all income over $29,000 "in a progressive way."

You’re going to pay more in taxes,”  Sanders said during a Fox News town hall in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania on April 15 . At the same town hall he said, “Are people going to pay more in taxes? Yes.

On Dec. 16, Sanders told a crowd that "of course" Medicare for All is going to cost Americans something.

And yes, we have to raise individual tax substantially higher than they are today,” Sanders said during an interview with Jake Tapper on July 5, 2015. 

On a separate CNN townhall hosted by Chris Cuomo in Des Moines, Iowa on Jan. 25, 2016, Sanders promised that “yes, we will raise taxes, yes we will.

During another CNN interview, Sanders also claimed that Americans would be “delighted to pay more in taxes.

Joe Biden has consistantly hit Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for their unwaivering support of the plan, saying that "it's totally unrealistic and can't be done."

If you want to stay up-to-date on their threats to raise taxes, visitwww.atr.org/HighTaxDems.


Biden: "Yes" We Should End Fracking

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Saturday, January 25th, 2020, 12:24 PM PERMALINK

Joe Biden said that he would end fracking, during an exchange with a New Hampshire voter on Friday.

Voter: "But like, what about, say, stopping fracking?"

Biden: "Yes."

Voter: "And stopping pipeline infrastructure?"

Biden: "Yes."

If elected, Biden's fracking ban will devastate the economies of several battleground states, as noted by Steve Moore in the Wall Street Journal:

Curtailing U.S. oil and gas production would be economically disastrous. At least $1 trillion of U.S. economic output is related to the shale revolution, and more than 1.5 million Americans are employed by the industry. A PricewaterhouseCoopers study for the American Petroleum Institute found that at least four million American jobs are tied to the shale oil and gas revolution in areas like auto production, construction, petroleum engineering, pipe fitting, service stations, steel production and trucking.

Democrats' quest to eliminate these jobs would hurt them in the swing states they'll need to win to unseat President Trump. Ohio and Michigan have a combined total of more than 400,000 workers in the shale industry. Pennsylvania has another 320,000. Colorado and Florida each have more than 200,000 workers in oil and gas.

Pittsburgh has become a global energy hub, and whole towns in Ohio and Pennsylvania that were once left for dead have been revitalized thanks to shale gas and related industries.

Then consider Texas. Liberals have long wanted to turn the Lone Star State blue, or at least purple. But nearly two million Texans are employed in oil and gas and related industries. Many hard-hat workers and truckers employed in the oil-rich Permian Basin earn more than $100,000 a year with overtime. How do you win in and around Houston, Dallas and Midland with a platform that opposes oil and gas?

Biden has shown a consistent hostility to energy industry workers. In December he suggested if coal miners lose their job due to his policies they should learn to code.

Biden has also said “we should put them in jail” when talking about fossil fuel executives.

Biden also endorsed a carbon tax on the American people, which will force households to pay much higher gasoline, heating, and cooling bills. 

 


ATR Urges South Carolina Lawmakers To Sell Debt-Ridden, State-Owned Utility

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Friday, January 24th, 2020, 7:34 PM PERMALINK

South Carolina lawmakers recently convened their 2020 session, during which they will debate a number of important issues, such as cutting the Southeast’s highest state income tax rate, and education reform that provides more choice to parents.

Among the most important issues to be debated in Columbia this year is what to do with Santee Cooper, the state-owned utility company that has accumulated billions of dollars in debt, much of it due to the failed V.C. Summer nuclear project fiasco. Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist recently sent a letter to South Carolina lawmakers urging them to approve the sale of Santee Cooper to a buyer who will assume the utility’s debt.

“Of all the options put forth to date, only the sale of Santee Cooper has the potential to reduce or eliminate the enormous future costs to be borne by the ratepayers and provide the ability to protect ratepayers in the future,” explains a recently released by the Palmetto Promise Institute Report.

While the sale of Santee Cooper to a private entity is the best solution for South Carolina taxpayers, it’s critical that such a sale not result in ratepayers continuing to bear the cost of bad decisions made by officials at the state-owned utility through future rate hikes. As such, ATR is urging Palmetto State lawmakers to approve the sale of Santee Cooper before the current legislative session ends, and to do so in a manner that protects taxpayers, ratepayers, and eliminates the possibility of a taxpayer bailout.

ATR recently launched a digital ad campaign urging South Carolinians to sign a new petition that urges lawmakers to sell the state-owned utility to a private entity who will assume Santee Cooper’s debt, so that ratepayers and taxpayers aren’t stuck with the bill for a failed nuclear project.

To sign the petition, click here

 


Bernie Sanders Wants to Impose National Rent Control

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Isabelle Morales on Friday, January 24th, 2020, 12:00 PM PERMALINK

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wants to impose national rent control. He unveiled the policy proposal last September and reiterated his support via Twitter on January 19.

Specifically, Bernie Sanders proposes a national cap on annual rent increases to 1.5 times the rate of inflation or 3 percent—whichever is higher.

Ironically, the article Sanders tweeted out attributes the cause of higher rent prices, in part, to government control over the private housing market. This simply reinforces what many economists already know to be true: the left’s prescriptions for lowering housing prices are precisely what keeps prices high and supply low.

"Some dumb ideas are new. Rent control is an old, dumb idea. Price controls have failed for thousands of years," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

A national rent control scheme would have the following effects:

1. It would be a flagrant infringement of American property rights and a vast expansion of the federal government's control over the private housing market. 

The government should have no role in determining rental costs. All governments are ill-equipped to consider the many visible and invisible factors that determine the market price of a rental property.

What enforcement mechanisms would come down on the American people under a national rent control bureaucracy? If a local landlord, for whatever reason, fails to comply with the new federal standard, what kind of punishment would ensue? Might the IRS garnish his wages? Would federal law enforcement lock down his property? Would he be fined out of business? Put in jail? The reason why none of that passes the smell test is because none of it feels like it's an appropriate use of the federal government's power nor is it even within the scope of power that the government ought to operate in.

2. National rent control would require the creation of an elaborate bureaucracy with substantial administrative costs. 

Enforcing rent control requires an elaborate bureaucracy—especially on a national level. In Santa Monica, the Rent Control Board in 1996 had a $4 million a year budget for enforcing rents on only 28,000 apartments. This fiscal year, San Francisco's Rent Arbitration Board can expect to bring in over $5 million. The system only gets more complicated as it grows. The National Multifamily Housing Council explains, “Rental property must be registered; detailed information on the rental property must be collected; and elaborate systems for determining rents and hearing complaints and appeals must be established.”

3. It would reduce housing supply across the country. 

Evidence shows the 1994 rent-control expansion in San Francisco actually led to landlords converting their properties to condos or a Tenancy in Common, both of which are exempt from rent control. This is reflected by a 15 percent decline in the number of renters living in these buildings and a 25 percent reduction in the number of renters living in rent-controlled units. Instead of encouraging affordable housing, the government incentivized conversion away from it.

Rent control discourages the construction of new rental housing, even when controls don't apply to new developments. Investors anticipate future policy changes that would subject their developments to similar, pricey controls. 

This is why in Cambridge, Mass., when rent control was abolished, economists found that direct dollar investments in housing units doubled in just a few years. This led to an increase in housing supply. According to a Cato Institute policy analysis by William Tucker, non-rent-controlled cities have normal vacancy rates at or above 7 percent, while rent-controlled cities experience vacancy rates at around 5 percent.This speaks to a central problem with rent control: its tendency to suppress housing supply. This creates severe, visible consequences: restricted housing options and even homelessness.

4. It would increase rent prices across the country. 

The San Francisco study also found that, as a result of rent control, there was a city-wide rent price increase of 5.1 percent. A study of New York City’s 1968 rental market found that rents in noncontrolled units were 22 percent –25 percent higher than they would have been without the presence of rent control.

Landlords, as a way to make up for their inability to increase rents once a tenant moves in, will set rents artificially high in their initial contracts with tenants. Also, because of existing tenants’ depressed rents, many will stay in apartments for longer than they otherwise would. This reduces the housing supply for other potential tenants; specifically, the supply of rent-controlled units. This increases the prices of non-controlled housing units, which often become the only option for a number of people. 

5) It would reduce the quality of tenant housing.

Hendrix of the Manhattan Institute points out that, under rent control, landlords have a limited ability to "recoup operational costs and investments through rents or an appreciation of their building’s value." Also, because they cannot raise rents, there's little incentive to improve their properties, as they will not see a payoff for building improvements. 

In the aftermath of price controls in Cambridge, Mass., housing units were described as “older, in worse condition, and more in need of very essential repairs.” Once rent control was abolished in the city in 2004, "property investments rose 20% over what would have been the case under rent control and led to major improvements in housing quality."

6) It would harm disadvantaged groups. 

Michael Hendrix of the Manhattan Institute explained that all the savings associated with rent control are offset by the increased costs of non-controlled housing units. However, those who benefit from rent control are disproportionately white, affluent renters. Hendrix notes, "White renters in 2017 claimed a 36% discount on market-rate rents in New York City because of rent control, compared with 17% for Hispanic renters and 16% for black renters; affluent renters received a 39% discount. The city’s rent-control and rent-stabilization laws have apparently induced landlords to favor older tenants and smaller households (primarily those without children), and rent control’s benefits are similarly biased against young people and larger families." 

Rent control hurts the very people it aims to help. It restrains consumers’ ability to find a place that works for them. As a consequence, the housing market in rent-controlled cities is defined by dissatisfaction, maddening trade-offs, and paycheck-consuming prices.

If rent control on the local level causes increases in rent prices and limits housing supply, it’s not hard to imagine just how severe the effects would be on a national scale, when the federal government tries to impose Manhattan-type rent control policy on Thurmond, W. Va.

Even the socialist Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck said, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing.”


Iowa Voter Asks Warren "Will I Get My Money Back" On Daughter's Education Under Student Loan Debt Forgiveness

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Thursday, January 23rd, 2020, 10:17 PM PERMALINK

A voter in Iowa decided to confront Elizabeth Warren about her student loan debt forgiveness plan and asked "Will I get my money back" on his daughter's education that he had to work double shifts to afford.

Here's the key exchange:

Voter: "I just wanted to ask one question. My daughter is getting out of school. I've saved all my money. She doesn't have any student loans. Am I going to get my money back?" 

Warren: "Of course not."

Voter: "So you're going to pay for people who didn't save any money and those of us who did the right thing get screwed."

Warren: "No, you're not going to get screwed."

Voter: "Of course we do. My buddy had fun, bought a car, went on vacations. I saved my money. He made more than I did. But I worked a double shift, worked extra -- my daughter has worked since she was 10. So, you're laughing."

Warren: "No, I'm not."

Voter: "Yeah, that's exactly what you're doing. We did the right thing, and we get screwed."

If you want to stay up-to-date on their threats to raise taxes, visit www.atr.org/HighTaxDems.


Republicans Have Full Control of 22 States, Democrats 15


Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Thursday, January 23rd, 2020, 2:00 PM PERMALINK

Republicans have full control of the legislative and executive branch in 22 states.
Democrats have full control of the legislative and executive branch in 15 states.

Population of the 22 fully R-controlled states: 132,338,323
Population of the 15 fully D-controlled states: 120,326,393

Republicans have full control of the legislative branch in 30 states.
Democrats have full control of the legislative branch in 19 states.

Population of the 30 fully R-controlled states: 184,536,246
Population of the 19 fully D-controlled states: 135,248,276

Click here for full-size versions of the map below.

 

 


Fact Check: The "Band-Aid" Has Not Been Ripped Off of the Economy, Joe Biden

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Wednesday, January 22nd, 2020, 9:29 PM PERMALINK

Joe Biden made a weird claim on MSNBC's Morning Joe that the "Band-Aid has been ripped off" of America's economy.

"It's like the Band-Aid has been ripped off, Joe, by the president's $1.9 trillion tax cut that benefited the very wealthy," Biden said on Wednesday.

Biden's odd "Band-Aid" claim just isn't true, and even left-leaning media outlets have called out Biden's claim as false:

If Biden gets his way and repeals the TCJA, as he has said countless times, Americans will be stuck paying significantly more in taxes. If he and the Democrats repeal the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the following would happen:

  • A family of four earning the median income of $73,000 would see a $2,000 tax increase.
  • A single parent (with one child) making $41,000 would see a $1,300 tax increase.
  • Millions of low and middle-income households would be stuck paying the Obamacare individual mandate tax.
  • Utility bills would go up in all 50 states as a direct result of the corporate income tax increase.  
  • Small employers will face a tax increase due to the repeal of the 20% deduction for small business income.
  • The USA would have the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, higher than the United Kingdom (19 percent), China (25 percent), Canada (26.8 percent), and Ireland (12.5 percent). 
  • Taxes would rise in every state and every congressional district.
  • The Death Tax would ensnare more families and businesses.
  • The AMT would snap back to hit millions of households.
  • Millions of households would see their child tax credit cut in half.
  • Millions of households would see their standard deduction cut in half, adding to their tax complexity as they are forced to itemize their deductions and deal with the shoebox full of receipts on top of the refrigerator.
     

Biden also lied to the American people when he ran for Vice President in 2008 when he repeatedly said he would not support any form of any tax that imposed even “one single penny” of tax increase on anyone making less than $250,000. Biden shattered that promise upon taking office.

If you want to stay up-to-date on their threats to raise taxes, visit www.atr.org/HighTaxDems.

 

Biden Lies at Town Hall, Claims Trump Tax Cut Only Benefited the "Top 2% of the Nation"

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Wednesday, January 22nd, 2020, 12:44 AM PERMALINK

Joe Biden lied at a town hall on Tuesday in Ames, Iowa when he said that the Trump tax cut "only affects the top 2% of the nation."

Watch the Biden video below:

Biden is lying when he says that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act only affect the "top 2%" of Americans, and even left-leaning and establishment media outlets confirm the good news arising from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act:

If Biden gets his way and repeals the TCJA, as he has said on numerous occasions, Americans will pay significantly more in taxes. If he and the Democrats repeal the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the following would happen:

  • A family of four earning the median income of $73,000 would see a $2,000 tax increase.
  • A single parent (with one child) making $41,000 would see a $1,300 tax increase.
  • Millions of low and middle-income households would be stuck paying the Obamacare individual mandate tax.
  • Utility bills would go up in all 50 states as a direct result of the corporate income tax increase.  
  • Small employers will face a tax increase due to the repeal of the 20% deduction for small business income.
  • The USA would have the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, higher than the United Kingdom (19 percent), China (25 percent), Canada (26.8 percent), and Ireland (12.5 percent). 
  • Taxes would rise in every state and every congressional district.
  • The Death Tax would ensnare more families and businesses.
  • The AMT would snap back to hit millions of households.
  • Millions of households would see their child tax credit cut in half.
  • Millions of households would see their standard deduction cut in half, adding to their tax complexity as they are forced to itemize their deductions and deal with the shoebox full of receipts on top of the refrigerator.
     

Biden also lied to the American people when he ran for Vice President in 2008 when he repeatedly said he would not support any form of any tax that imposed even “one single penny” of tax increase on anyone making less than $250,000. Biden shattered that promise upon taking office.

If you want to stay up-to-date on their threats to raise taxes, visit www.atr.org/HighTaxDems.

See more:

Buttigieg Lies About Trump Tax Cuts on MSNBC

Buttigieg Calls for “Wholesale” Rollback of Trump Tax Cuts

CNN: Sanders Would Repeal the Trump Tax Cuts

Warren Falsely Claims Her MFA Plan Will Not Raise Middle Class Taxes by “One Thin Dime”

Biden: Sanders Tax “Doesn’t Even Come Close” to Paying for Medicare for All


Sanders Misleads Voters With Claim He Will Not Raise Middle Class Taxes by "One Nickel"

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Wednesday, January 22nd, 2020, 12:15 AM PERMALINK

Bernie Sanders mislead voters when he claimed he would not raise middle class taxes by "one nickel."

"And under our proposal, the top one-tenth of 1% will be paying more in taxes. But 99.9% of Americans will not see their taxes go up by one nickel," Sanders said during a town hall in Las Vegas in September.

It is unclear if Sanders was referring only to his rent control plan (which will certainly impose massive government costs and property rights infringements on homeowners and also hurt tenants) or to his entire policy plan. In any case, Sanders will be picking the pockets of middle class taxpayers. Whether it is the right pocket, left pocket, or back pocket is less interesting.

Sanders supports "Medicare for All" which would raise taxes substantially on middle class Americans. Sanders has proposed a 4% tax on all income over $29,000 in addition to a new tax on employers, which would have an impact on middle class Americans. According to a document from Sanders, the employer tax could be as much as 7%.

Sanders is also considering raising the capital gains tax which would harm Americans’ ability to build a nest egg and hurt the value of their homes, farms, and businesses.

In addition, Sanders plans to repeal the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, according to CNN, which would force middle class Americans to pay thousands more in taxes.

Sanders's promise to repeal the tax cuts is a promise to raise taxes. If the tax cuts were repealed:

  • A family of four earning the median income of $73,000 would see a $2,000 tax increase.
  • A single parent (with one child) making $41,000 would see a $1,300 tax increase.
  • Millions of low and middle-income households would be stuck paying the Obamacare individual mandate tax.
  • Utility bills would go up in all 50 states as a direct result of the corporate income tax increase.  
  • Small employers will face a tax increase due to the repeal of the 20% deduction for small business income.
  • The USA would have the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, higher than the United Kingdom (19 percent), China (25 percent), Canada (26.8 percent), and Ireland (12.5 percent). 
  • Taxes would rise in every state and every congressional district.
  • The Death Tax would ensnare more families and businesses.
  • The AMT would snap back to hit millions of households.
  • Millions of households would see their child tax credit cut in half.
  • Millions of households would see their standard deduction cut in half, adding to their tax complexity as they are forced to itemize their deductions and deal with the shoebox full of receipts on top of the refrigerator.
     

If you want to stay up-to-date on Democratic candidates and their threats to raise taxes, visit www.atr.org/HighTaxDems.

See more:

Buttigieg Lies About Trump Tax Cuts on MSNBC

CNN: Sanders Would Repeal the Trump Tax Cuts

Warren Falsely Claims Her MFA Plan Will Not Raise Middle Class Taxes by “One Thin Dime”

Biden: Sanders Tax “Doesn’t Even Come Close” to Paying for Medicare for All


×