Biden: "On Day One, I Will Move to Eliminate Trump's Tax Cuts."


Posted by Adam Sabes on Sunday, June 23rd, 2019, 2:04 PM PERMALINK

2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said he would "move to eliminate" the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on his first day in office if elected.

"And folks, on day one, I will move to eliminate Trump's tax cuts," Biden said during the South Carolina Democrat Convention on Saturday.

[Click here for video]

This is at least the eighth time that Biden has threatened to repeal the TCJA.

Biden’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 If the tax cuts were repealed: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.
  • 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.
     

In South Carolina, where Joe Biden spoke, households with the median income of $50,570 received an average tax cut of around $1,341 according to a recent Tax Foundation report.

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.”

More examples of the benefits stemming from the tax cuts are shown in a recent H&R Block report, which states, “overall tax liability is down 24.9 percent on average.” In Biden’s home state of Delaware, the report found that residents received a 24.8% tax cut.

In South Carolina -- where he made his most recent threat to repeal the TCJA -- residents received a 23.2% tax cut.

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.

See also:

Biden: “First thing I would do as President is Eliminate the President’s Tax Cut.”

Bernie Sanders claims people would be “delighted to pay more in taxes”

Biden: Tax Cuts Will be “Gone” If I’m Elected

Kamala Harris: I Will Repeal Tax Cuts “on day one”

Biden again says capital gains tax is “Much too Low”

Biden: Capital gains tax “much too low”

VIDEO: Five Times Biden has Threatened to Repeal Tax Cuts

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

Joe Biden broke his middle class tax pledge

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

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

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


House Democrats Vote Against Middle Class Tax Cuts

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tom Hebert on Friday, June 21st, 2019, 4:15 PM PERMALINK

House Democrats voted against several Republican proposals to permanently cut taxes for the middle class.

The Democrat-controlled House Ways and Means Committee debated four pieces of legislation this week with very little public notice. Republicans offered numerous pro middle-class amendments, but Democrats shot down every proposal.

Republicans offered amendments to make the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’s middle-class tax cuts permanent. If adopted, these amendments would have meant a permanent: 

  • Doubled standard deduction: this expansion resulted in dramatic tax reduction for the 105,055,150 million taxpayers that took it before the passage of tax reform, a number that has only increased since the TCJA became law.
  • Doubled child-tax credit: this expansion benefited over 22 million American middle-class families that claim the child tax credit.
  • Individual rate cuts: a family of four earning the median income of $73,000 is seeing a federal tax cut of $2,000, while overall tax liability has dropped by almost 25 percent, according to a report from H&R Block.
     

All of these provisions have helped middle-class Americans, and Democrats were unanimous in opposing them.

Democrats also unanimously opposed repealing the Medical Device Tax, an Obamacare holdover that devastated the American healthcare system while it was in effect. The medical device tax was in effect from 2013 and 2015 but Congress has suspended the tax since 2016. When it was in effect, research indicates that the tax reduced research and development by $34 million in 2013 and disproportionately harmed companies with lower profit margins. This resulted in a loss of approximately 28,000 jobs.

Finally, Democrats unanimously voted against cutting taxes for Americans with high medical bills. Before Obamacare, families facing high medical bills could deduct expenses that exceeded 7.5 percent of their AGI. According to the IRS, approximately 10 million families took advantage of this deduction each year before Obamacare was signed into law. In 2010, the average taxpayer claiming the deduction earned just over $53,000 annually.

Obamacare increased the threshold to claim the medical expense deduction to 10 percent of AGI. The TCJA restored the pre-Obamacare 7.5 percent threshold, but House Democrats opted not to make that increased threshold permanent.

Every time Democrats had the opportunity to extend or make middle-class tax cuts permanent, they refused. The next time Democrats tell you that they are for cutting taxes for the middle class, remember this week’s votes.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore


Different Fates for Tax-Hiking Paid Family Leave in Maine, Vermont

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Steven Selleck on Friday, June 21st, 2019, 2:39 PM PERMALINK

The Vermont legislature wrapped up its 2019 session last month without giving final approval to House Bill 107, legislation that called for 12 weeks of state-mandate paid-leave after childbirth for all Vermont workers, men and women alike. Under HB 107, workers would be compensated for 90% of their wages until $27,000 of their salary, and 55% of their higher earnings.

The bill also mandated the same benefit for paid family leave to take care of a sick relative for up to 6 weeks. A 0.2% payroll tax would be used to fund the proposal, as if taxes in Vermont aren’t high enough (Vermont currently has some of the highest income taxes in the country, according to Tax Foundation, with the 6th highest tax collections per capita of any state).

In an article for Seven Days, Vermont Senator Randy Brock (R) objected to the tax, saying, “This is a plan that thousands of people don’t want and can’t use, and it’s being forced down their throats". Brock also notes that there are many hard-working Vertmonters who are planning on having children or have a sick relative at home.

Another point made by Brock in a VPR article is that Vermont lawmakers may seek higher pay rates for off-duty workers in the future, possibly up to 100% of their wages. This will further burden the taxpayers of the Green Mountain State, where only a small percentage of the workforce will ever use paid leave.

Vermont is not the only state in New England to consider a paid leave mandate bill this year. Maine Gov. Janet Mills signed a similar bill on Tuesday, May 28th. The new Maine law calls for up to 40 hours annually of paid leave. Maine workers will be paid their full wages for the hours taken off. Predictably, funding comes from a tax hike of 0.77 percent of payroll taxes.

An article from The Maine Heritage Policy Center explained that the proposal would be particularly harmful to low-income workers in Maine. According to the think tank, individuals earning $25,000 annually will pay $100 each year for the new tax. This tax hike will reduce consumption for the low-income residents, who spend a higher amount of income on consumption than high-income residents.

Maine joins Washington, DC, and five other states in the progressive efforts to tax all workers for the benefit of very few.

Photo Credit: Jennifer/Flickr


It’s a Miracle. NJ Legislature Passes Budget Without Murphy Tax Hikes

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Derek Peterson on Thursday, June 20th, 2019, 4:11 PM PERMALINK

New Jersey taxes are so high even Democrat legislators oppose more increases. They sent a shocking message to Governor Phil Murphy Thursday by passing a budget that stripped out his tax hikes on millionaire’s, guns, and pain medication.

The legislative budget spearheaded by Senate President Steven Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin is a $38.7 billion spending plan.

With only two weeks remaining until the start of a new fiscal year, Governor Phil Murphy has been sparring with legislative leaders over his “Millionaire’s Tax”. After hiking rates for income over $5 million last year from 8.97 percent to 10.75 percent, Murphy came back this year calling for additional tax hikes, not only on income, but also on gun owners, opioid manufacturers, and corporations.

The millionaire tax would apply the top marginal tax rate percent of 10.75 percent to income over $1 million, increasing the already-high tax burden on 18,000 state residents. This tax would cost taxpayers an estimated $447 million.  

The legislative budget also axes Murphy’s aggressive fee hikes on firearms. The fees for firearm permits, firearm identification cards, and a permit to carry a gun would have increased dramatically under his proposal. These taxes disproportionally affect low-income residents, effectively taxing them out of their second amendment right.

Opioid manufacturers would have also been subject to increased fees if Murphy was able to have his way. He has claimed revenue from the fee would be used to “support the fight against the opioid epidemic,” however the tax would punish those with a legitimate need for opioids through higher costs. His fee would make it more difficult for those with cancer or chronic pain to get the medicine they so desperately need.

Corporations were in Murphy’s crosshairs for the second year in a row, as he pushed to impose a $150 fee on private companies for each employee enrolled in Medicaid. This would create a massive burden on businesses and could lead to lower wages and fewer benefits for workers, or the employer leaving the state altogether. It is these types of policies that have given the New Jersey the unwelcome distinction as having the worst business climate in the nation.

Taxpayers in the Garden State have found surprising allies in Sweeney and Coughlin, both Democrats. They have both rejected Murphy’s calls for more taxes, arguing that the state is already overtaxed and stating they wouldn’t agree to tax increases without cost-cutting reforms.

Murphy has expressed disappointment that his long-desired tax hikes were not included in the budget, and stated “every option is on the table”.  He could sabotage the effort with his veto pen, or shut down the government – not an uncommon occurrence.

If Governor Murphy continues to push for tax hikes, even when his Democrat colleagues disagree, he’s putting his ego before doing his job.

Photo Credit: Flickr - Office of Governor Phil Murphy


Francis Rooney Bill Would Raise Taxes on Social Security Benefits

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch and Adam Sabes on Thursday, June 20th, 2019, 9:45 AM PERMALINK

A bill being pushed by Congressman Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) would trigger new or higher taxes on many Social Security recipients.

Rooney is the lone Republican sponsor of the bill, H.R. 763, a carbon tax bill co-sponsored by over 40 House Democrats. The bill is being promoted by an organization called Citizens' Climate Lobby.

Because the carbon tax would significantly increase household costs -- cooling and heating, transportation, groceries, etc. -- the bill directs the federal government to send payments to households in an attempt to compensate for the increased cost burden.

But these payments, called "dividends" by Rooney -- are subject to federal income tax. The tax will not only siphon money from households to be sent to Washington -- it will also impact Social Security benefits.

A report published by Citizens' Climate Lobby states:

"Taxability of Dividends raises three separate issues: (i) additional complexity for taxpayers; (ii) the equity of the disparate effective marginal tax rates on taxable Dividends for various residents; and (iii) the method or methods by which those taxes would be paid."

Regarding Social Security recipients, the report states:

"Over the income-related phase-in range for the taxation of social security benefits, each additional $1.00 of non-social security income causes an additional $0.50 or $0.85 of social security benefits to become taxable. In most situations, the ordinary income tax rate in the phase-in range is 10 percent; however, at some income levels, the rate is 12 percent. Thus, $1.00 of non-social security income -- including income from the Dividend -- will be taxed at effective marginal rates of 15 percent, 18 percent, or 22.2 percent."

The report gives an example of how the tax would hit a typical couple over age 65 with an income of $38,000 and a Social Security benefit of $12,000:

"Based on that income, the tax rate schedule shows that their marginal tax rate would be 10 percent. However, the addition of $1,584 of taxable Dividends from the Carbon Fee causes more of their social security benefits to become taxable, and their marginal tax rate due to the Dividends is 20.12 percent, so that after paying their income tax, the couple is left with only 79.88 percent of their gross Dividend."

Congressman Rooney has some explaining to do.

See also:

75 Conservative Groups: "We oppose any carbon tax."

Caught on Tape: Citizens' Climate Lobby admits carbon tax complexity is "something that we at CCL can tend to soft-pedal"

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore/Flickr


U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer Warns France: No Digital Services Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Kevin Adams on Wednesday, June 19th, 2019, 4:42 PM PERMALINK

Speaking in front of the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said he believed the proposed French digital tax is “a tax that’s geared toward hitting American companies disproportionately.” Lighthizer also noted that he believes President Trump “would respond very strongly” should France or the European Union follow through on their proposals for digital services taxes. 

This latest development comes as world leaders prepare to gather in Japan next week for the G20 Summit. The development of a global consensus on the taxation of the digital economy is expected to be a hotly debated issue. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom, have backed off their plans to impose their own digital services tax, opting instead to wait to see what develops at the multinational level. 

The French proposal is a 3% tax on the revenues of companies with more than 750 million Euros in worldwide revenue. This is a short list of only about 30 companies, the vast majority of which are American companies such as Facebook and Google’s parent company Alphabet Inc. 

If enacted, a digital tax from France or the European Union could lead to retaliatory measures form the United States. If determined to be discriminatory, the U.S. could challenge the tax at the World Trade Organization or start issue tariffs under Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act. A never-used provision of the tax code, Section 891, could even allow the U.S. to increase taxes on U.S. subsidiaries of French companies.

Instead of going alone, France and the EU should wait for talks to play out at the multinational level. The Trump administration has been engaging with the OECD to develop international rules do not unfairly target American companies. Should France choose to move forward, it will only be the beginning of a lengthy fight between two allies. 

Photo Credit: World Bank Photo Collection


Conservative Groups Oppose Any Effort To Roll Back Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alex Hendrie on Wednesday, June 19th, 2019, 4:00 PM PERMALINK

Americans for Tax Reform has led a coalition of conservative groups in opposition to Democrat efforts to roll back the Republican-passed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

The Democrat-controlled House Ways and Means Committee will soon markup legislation that accelerates a scheduled death tax increase by three years. 

Increasing the death tax would be disastrous for small businesses and family farms and small businesses all over the country. 

The Trump tax cuts have had a positive effect on American families and businesses alike. A family of four earning the median income of $73,000 is seeing a federal tax cut of $2,000, and the corporate tax cut has made America competitive on the world stage.

Any effort to roll back the TCJA would undermine these hard-earned gains. Read the full letter here or below:

Dear Chairman Neal and Ranking Member Brady:

We write in opposition to any effort to roll back the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).

The Ways and Means Committee will soon markup legislation that accelerates a scheduled death tax increase by three years.

This would be a mistake – increasing the death tax will disproportionately harm small businesses and family owned farms.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduced taxes on American families at every income level and for businesses large and small.

A family of four earning the median income of $73,000 is seeing a federal tax cut of $2,000, while overall tax liability has dropped by almost 25 percent, according to a report from H&R Block.

Family businesses are benefiting from the doubled death tax exemption and the creation of the 20 percent small business deduction for businesses organized as passthrough entities.

The TCJA also reduced the federal corporate rate from 35 percent (the highest in the developed world) to 21 percent. This rate reduction has made the U.S. competitive with other countries and has allowed businesses to invest in the economy and in American workers.

The TCJA’s corporate rate cut has directly lowered utility rates in all 50 states. This means lower water, gas, and electric bills for American households. Any increase in the corporate rate would directly raise the cost of utility bills.

The tax cuts have also grown the economy. The unemployment rate is at 3.6 percent --- the lowest rate since 1969 – and has been below 4 percent for 15 consecutive months. Similarly, nominal average wages have grown by at or above 3 percent for the past 10 months. An average of 196,000 jobs have been created each month over the past year.

Rolling back any part of the TCJA undermines these gains. As such, we urge you to reject any proposal to undo the TCJA including a death tax increase.

Sincerely,

Grover Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform

James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman, 60 Plus Association

Saulius “Saul” Anuzis
President, 60 Plus Association

Phil Kerpen ​​​​​​​
President, American Commitment

Lisa B. Nelson
CEO, ALEC Action

Brent Wm. Gardner
Chief Government Affairs Officer, Americans for Prosperity

Dan Weber
Founder and President, Association of Mature American Citizens

Ryan Ellis
President, Center for a Free Economy

Andrew F. Quinlan ​​​​​​​
President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity

Jeffrey Mazzella​​​​​​​
President, Center for Individual Freedom

David McIntosh
President, Club for Growth

Matthew Kandrach​​​​​​​
President, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy

Tom Schatz​​​​​​​
President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Katie McAuliffe​​​​​​​
Executive Director, Digital Liberty

Palmer Schoening​​​​​​​
President, Family Business Coalition

Adam Brandon
President, FreedomWorks​​​​​​​

Tim Chapman
Executive Director, Heritage Action

Heather R. Higgins
CEO, Independent Women's Voice

Tom Giovanetti​​​​​​​
President, Institute for Policy Innovation

Seton Motley
President, Less Government

Pete Sepp​​​​​​​
President, National Taxpayers Union

Lorenzo Montanari ​​​​​​​
Executive Director, Property Rights Alliance

Karen Kerrigan
President & CEO, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Tim Andrews
Executive Director, Taxpayer Protection Alliance

Photo Credit: kidTruant - Flickr


Trump EPA finalizes Affordable Clean Energy Rule, replacing Obama’s unlawful Clean Power Plan.

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Mike Palicz on Wednesday, June 19th, 2019, 3:42 PM PERMALINK

Today, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler released the finalized Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule which repeals the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP).

The Obama EPA’s CPP was intentionally designed to regulate away coal from our nation’s energy portfolio with the ultimate goal of eliminating traditional forms of energy, resulting in higher prices for consumers.

The CPP was regulatory overreach at its worst as the Obama EPA exceeded its authority given by Congress under the Clean Air Act. In 2016, the Supreme Court was forced to issue a stay of the CPP and blocked it from ever actually being implemented.

The Trump EPA’s ACE Rule repeals the unlawful CPP and correctly returns power back to the states while restoring the EPA to its proper regulatory role under the Clean Air Act.

The ACE rule creates guidelines for states to use when developing plans to limit emissions at their coal-fired power plants by identifying heat rate improvements as the best system of emission reduction (BSER). States are given 3 years to submit plans ensuring flexibility and adequate time for development.

The EPA projects that ACE Rule will result in annual net benefits of $120 million to $730 million, including costs, domestic climate benefits, and health co-benefits.

“Today, we are delivering on one of President Trump’s core priorities: ensuring the American public has access to affordable, reliable energy in a manner that continues our nation’s environmental progress,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “Unlike the Clean Power Plan, ACE adheres to the Clean Air Act and gives states the regulatory certainty they need to continue to reduce emissions and provide a dependable, diverse supply of electricity that all Americans can afford.”

ATR applauds the Trump EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy Rule which puts more power back in the hands of the states and the private sector. This is a win for advocates of smaller government and consumers who want reliable and affordable energy.

Photo Credit: Maine Public Broadcasting

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Congress Should Avoid Price Controls When Fixing Surprise Billing

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tom Hebert on Wednesday, June 19th, 2019, 3:27 PM PERMALINK

Tomorrow, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee will hold a hearing on the “Lower Health Care Costs Act,” legislation sponsored by Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

One issue that the bill addresses is surprise medical billing, which occurs when a patient is unintentionally treated by a doctor or hospital outside of their insurance network. Typically, this happens in emergency situations. Patients then face steep medical bills because they were treated by an out-of-network provider. 

As lawmakers work through this issue, they must take care that they do not impose price controls on out-of-network rates. Surprise billing proposals should distinguish between setting rates, which would impose price controls, and capping rates, which would set a ceiling for rates.

The Alexander-Murray bill proposes benchmark payments, which would set medical rates. In this scenario, health plans would pay providers a median rate in the geographic area in which the provider is located

This moves dangerously close to top-down government price controls. Setting rates would lower some rates above the benchmark price, but raise rates under the median. Capping rates would limit the rates above the cap without raising prices below the cap.

A proposal from the Council for Affordable Health Coverage (CAHC) estimates that capping rates for all out-of-network and emergency services at 200 percent of Medicare could reduce the federal deficit by $400 billion over 10 years. 

Alarmingly, several proposals also include a binding arbitration provision based on New York’s surprise billing law.

Binding arbitration is a legal process wherein two parties settle a dispute 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. 

Imposing binding arbitration to resolve surprise billing would substantially increase administrative costs for healthcare providers. 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.

CAHC analysis found that including binding arbitration in surprise billing proposals could substantially raise rates because of high administrative costs.

Surprise billing is not the only area where Democrats are trying to impose backdoor price controls. 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. 

Under Pelosi’s 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.

Conservatives are staunchly opposed to binding arbitration for prescription drugs. ATR recently joined a 26 coalition of conservative groups led by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) in a letter opposing the Pelosi plan for prescription drugs.

As lawmakers look to fix surprise billing, they should avoid imposing binding arbitration and price controls on American patients.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore


What’s Worse than One Carbon Tax Proposal? Two.

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Doug Kellogg on Tuesday, June 18th, 2019, 5:46 PM PERMALINK

New York State’s new Democrat majority is working hard to make New York the most expensive, unfriendly place to live and build a future.

The state is already unattractive. More people left New York State than any other from 2017 to 2018. Worse, 42 of 50 upstate counties lost population since 2010. Even New York City, which has grown, has nearly half of residents saying they can’t afford it.

But the cost of electricity, driving, heck, everything we buy could skyrocket if either of two live carbon tax proposals reaches the finish line.

New York may be even closer to getting hit with a carbon tax – done in the name of compensating for the “social cost” of carbon.

Legislation from Assemblyman Kevin Cahill (D) would impose a $35 per ton tax on carbon which would rise to $185 over time. And that may not be the most immediate carbon tax threat!

New York’s Independent System Operator has released a proposal that includes a $50 per ton tax on carbon. This proposal has a long bureaucratic path in front of it before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) renders a decision, but could happen without the legislature taking action.

The state is already part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) cap-and-trade regime. But a carbon tax goes far beyond the burdens imposed by RGGI, driving costs over 50 percent higher than the cap and trade regime.

“The prices in this scheme (RGGI) have never exceeded $5-6/ton on an annual basis. We estimate an initial impact on wholesale energy prices of $21/MWh… This would represent a 50-75 percent increase in NYISO wholesale energy prices,” an ICF analysis states.

Regional cap and trade in the northeast has imposed billions of dollars in costs which get passed on to consumers and businesses. The program decreased goods production 12 percent, and “energy intensive goods” production dropped 34 percent in the region, according to a CATO Institute analysis.

This is just an inkling of the damage a carbon tax would do to New York. All that extra cost, and for what?

“The EPA reports that the aggregate emissions of six common toxic pollutants (carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide) have declined by 67 percent since 1980. Meanwhile, gross domestic product is up 160 percent and population is up 42 percent. Energy-related carbon emissions are down to near 1992 levels,” writes Texas Public Policy Foundation senior economist Vance Ginn and ALEC chief economist Jonathan Williams.

The way New York’s proposal is unfolding could shield legislators from some of the political consequences we’ve seen in other states and other countries. But perhaps it could be a problem for Governor Cuomo, who has already indicated he will run for a fourth (!) term as governor.  

Photo Credit: Wikipedia


×