Democrat presidential candidates Joe Biden and Kamala Harris both promised to repeal the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act while making campaign stops in New Hampshire this week, a move that would impose massive tax increases on New Hampshire households and businesses.

“When I’m president, if God Willing I am, we’re going to reverse those Trump tax cuts,” Biden said Monday in Manchester.

“On day one, we gonna repeal that tax bill,” Harris said on Wednesday in Nashua.

Their promise to repeal the tax cuts is a promise to raise taxes. Repeal of the tax cuts would hit New Hampshire hard. If Biden or Harris repeal the tax cuts:

• New Hampshire households would lose their tax cut -- a 25.2 percent tax cut on average, according to data reported by H&R Block.
• New Hampshire residents would be forced to pay the highly regressive Obamacare individual mandate tax. In 2016, 24,350 New Hampshire residents paid the tax totaling $17,392,000. 76 percent of people that paid the individual mandate tax made less than $50,000 a year, and 33 percent made less than $25,000 a year.
• 91,000 New Hampshire households who claim the Child Tax Credit would see their credit slashed in half from $2,000 to $1,000. 
• 476,000 New Hampshire households who claim the standard deduction would see it slashed in half. (The TCJA nearly doubled the standard deduction from $6,300 to $12,000 for an individual and from $12,600 to $24,000 for a family.)
   

From a nationwide perspective, if Biden and Harris 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.
• 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.
   

As noted by the New York Times, thanks to the GOP tax cuts, “Most people got a tax cut.” The NYT also stated: “To a large degree, the gap between perception and reality on the tax cuts appears to flow from a sustained — and misleading — effort by liberal opponents of the law to brand it as a broad middle-class tax increase.”

The Washington Post also stated: “Most Americans received a tax cut.”

See also:

Biden: “First thing I’d do is repeal those Trump tax cuts.”

Joe Biden broke his middle class tax pledge

Kamala Harris Vows Repeal of Tax Cuts “on Day One”

“Mayor Pete” Calls for Steep Tax Hike on Homes and Businesses

Biden: “When I’m President, if God willing I am, we’re going to reverse those Trump tax cuts.”

Americans for Tax Reform today launched the Shareholder Advocacy Forum, a project to preserve the long-term interests of shareholders and counter the rise of activist shareholder proposals that often force a company into a stance on an unrelated social policy. The Shareholder Advocacy Forum’s goal is to protect all shareholders’ interests and to maximize their return on investment, including pension fund beneficiaries and small shareholders who rely on the continued growth of these investments for their retirement planning.

SAF will also examine the role proxy advisor firms play in providing recommendations to shareholders. These supposed conflict-of-interest-free organizations have been cited as a reason for the chilling effect in the IPO market. Existing public companies have seen these firms become more activist in nature when providing recommendations and the role their recommendations have had in undermining the long-term interests of company’s shareholders. SAF plans to hold directors and executives accountable when they place the social agenda of some ahead of their fiduciary duty to all shareholders.

SAF will also be a voice at the table to provide support for legislative and regulatory proposals and serve as an educational platform to emphasize why it is important for shareholders to continue participating in the voting process. In addition, SAF will maintain that decisions of private institutions and shareholders should be respected and protected from government intrusion, including instances of shareholders supporting mergers and acquisitions.

SAF will publish recommendations on shareholder proposals, highlights from recently published research, and letters supporting and opposing legislation. James Setterlund will serve as the Executive Director of SAF.

Recent media reports indicate that a top aide to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wants to impose binding arbitration into the healthcare system as part of drug pricing reform.

This proposal would specifically apply a dispute settlement process to physician-administered drugs under Medicare Part B but could easily be applied to other parts of the healthcare system.

Binding arbitration is a flawed proposal. While there are many unknowns behind how the proposal would work in practice, it should be concerning as it would be another way for Washington bureaucrats to implement backdoor price controls on lifesaving medicine. 

Binding arbitration would be used to settle disputes between two different parties without going through the court system. Each party appeals to a neutral third party that considers the options and chooses one of them as the binding decision.

Under this proposal,  binding arbitration would apply when a subjective value of a drug is exceeded, for new drugs entering the market, and for drugs with no competition. HHS would pick a supposedly neutral third party to arbitrate between the department and the drug manufacturer.

This arrangement creates a critical problem — why would HHS pick panels that routinely rule against the department in arbitration? This would lead to selection bias which would all but ensure that HHS would be able to establish price controls on lifesaving medicine.

Binding arbitration resembles Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which instituted price controls and rationing within the Medicare system. Thankfully, Congressional Republicans repealed the IPAB.

Currently, Medicare Part B drugs are calculated based on market prices using a formula which calculates the “Average Sales Price” of U.S. drugs. This formula factors in discounts negotiated between payers, hospitals, and health plans. In recent years, this system led to a 0.8 percent decrease in the cost of Top 50 Medicare Part B drugs. 

Using government power to lower prescription drug costs would have the unfortunate effect of reducing access to lifesaving medicine for American healthcare consumers.

Price controls reduce access to lifesaving medicine for patients. As noted in a recent study by the Galen Institute, roughly 290 new medical substances were launched worldwide between 2011 and 2018. Of these medicines, the U.S. had access to 90 percent. In contrast, foreign countries have access to far fewer. The United Kingdom had 60 percent of medicines, Japan had 50 percent, and Canada had just 44 percent.

The United States is a world leader in research and development of lifesaving medicine because our healthcare system is based around the free market. Rejecting price controls in all forms is essential to maintaining a healthcare system that encourages innovation and near-total access to lifesaving medicine.

While binding arbitration may sound like a reasonable proposal, it would actually put healthcare policy in the hands of faceless Washington bureaucrats and should be rejected by policymakers.

Connecticut lawmakers could vote any time on a measure to impose a costly new tolling system on the state.

Ned Lamont, Connecticut’s first-term Governor, wants electronic tolling to be placed on vehicles, cars and trucks, on all three major highways, I-84, I-91, I-95, and Route 15 - which spans from Stamford to Hartford.

The tolls put forth in Mr. Lamont’s budget would appear on every single major route in the State. Studies have found that the brunt of the burden will be put on the taxpayers of Connecticut, almost 60-75% of the revenue brought in to the state, from tolling, would be paid by residents.

Proponents argue the state’s recently-passed transportation lockbox makes the tolls user fees and a non-issue. Having the lockbox is better than not having one, but legislators have ways to get around it if they want to.

Currently, the State faces a political dilemma as well; if tolls are put in, the State could lose the $528.6 million from the federal government that has been afforded to the state because they do not have tolls.

“The Reason Foundation found that Connecticut ranked 44th in cost effectiveness for highway performance. They found that Connecticut spends nearly $480,000 for each mile of road versus a national average is just over $160,000 per mile.

“The Foundation reports that administrative costs significantly contribute to the $480,000 price. Connecticut spent more than $83,000 per mile in administrative costs compared to $10,000 per mile nationally. Connecticut still outspends the national total average by more than $250,000 per mile even if those costs are subtracted.”

The Hartford Courant, recently outlined five reasons why tolling in Connecticut will be bad:

• It already costs too much to drive in state
• It will take a very long time for the State to see return on the tolls
• It is another tax hike
• Pennsylvania is $11 billion in debt from attempting to put in tolls
• Chaos for drivers – Exits are a mile apart in Southwestern Connecticut, you will suffocate them

Another concern is that jobs and businesses would be impacted. With higher taxes, would come lost jobs, lower wages, and another fiscal crisis for the state. Peter Malone, the CEO of Thurston Foods, a Wallingford-based supplier of lunch foods, has stated that if tolls are put in, his business of 215 employees, 60 trucks, and 3,000 customers would cost his business close to $250,000 per year alone.

Connecticut residents already pay a huge tax burden, including on transportation related costs.  According to the American Petroleum Institute, Connecticut drivers pay 43.8 cents per gallon in state taxes. In addition, residents of the State of Connecticut also pay an $18 gasoline tax, which was found to be the 7th highest in the nation.