Patrick Gleason

Ballot Measure That Would’ve Killed Colorado's Taxpayer’s Bill Of Rights Goes Down In Flames

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Patrick Gleason on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019, 11:52 PM PERMALINK

On the same Election Day that voters in Texas approved a new taxpayer safeguard in the Lone Star State, Colorado residents voted to protect their state’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, the nation’s strongest taxpayer safeguard.

The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), approved by Colorado voters in 1992, does two things: 1) It requires voter approval for all state tax hikes, and 2) It caps state spending at the rate of population growth plus inflation. Revenue collected in excess of that spending cap must be returned to Colorado taxpayers.

Proposition CC, which was referred to the November 2019 ballot earlier this year by the Democrat-controlled Colorado Legislature and Governor Jared Polis (D), would have permanently ended taxpayer refunds due in accordance with TABOR. Proposition CC was defeated today with nearly 56% of voters rejecting the ballot measure, which would’ve gutted TABOR forever and led to a significantly higher state tax burden in Colorado’s future.

“Presidential contenders and others running for office should pay attention to what happened in Colorado tonight,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “Every Democrat running president has promised massive tax increases if they win next year. A battleground state that recently elected a progressive-run state government just voted to uphold the nation’s strongest taxpayer protection measure. This indicates that a plan to run on a platform chalk full of huge tax hikes is not the wisest approach for 2020 hopefuls to take.”

Photo Credit: Matt Santomarco


Texas Voters Pass Income Tax Prohibition

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Patrick Gleason on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019, 11:24 PM PERMALINK

The Lone Star State’s 2019 election results are in and an overwhelming majority, more than 77% of the electorate, voted to approved Proposition 4. By approving Proposition 4, Texans voted to amend the state constitution to include an income tax prohibition. 

Texas is one of nine states that does not levy a state income tax. Passage of Proposition 4 inserts a new taxpayer safeguard in the state constitution ensuring that future legislatures, no matter who is in charge, cannot easily impose an income tax on Texans. 

“I applaud Texas voters for putting an income tax prohibition in the state constitution,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “Austin and DC progressives dream of turning Texas blue and will spend a great deal of money in 2020 and beyond attempting to do so. By approving Proposition 4, Texans have installed long-term protection against well-funded progressive plans to take over the state and ultimately impose a state income tax.”

This move by Texas voters comes five years after the passage of a similar constitutional amendment in Tennessee, another no-income-tax state, back in 2014. 

“The lack of an income tax has played a key role in making Texas a magnet for employers, jobs, and people,” added Norquist. “Passage of Proposition 4 ensures Texas will remain a no-income-tax state, no matter how many Californians move in.” 

Photo Credit: Knowsphotos


After Gas Tax Hike, Alabama Employers And Households Now Hit With Massive Property Tax Hikes

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Patrick Gleason on Saturday, October 5th, 2019, 1:11 PM PERMALINK

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey (R) saw her approval rating decline precipitously this year. According to Morning Consult, which publishes a quarterly survey of approval ratings for all 50 governors, Governor Ivey’s approval rating has declined substantially and was a noteworthy drop compared to her counterparts in other states.

“The state’s former No. 2, who is serving her first full term as the leader of the state, saw her net approval decline by 17 percentage points,” Morning Consult reported in its Q2 gubernatorial approval survey. “Democrats and independents soured on Ivey’s job performance by 20 and 18 points, respectively, but Republicans were also 15 points less likely to approve of her.”

Morning Consult tried to pin Ivey’s drop in approval on abortion-related legislation that consumed the media’s attention during the legislative session, but a better explanation is the regressive gas tax hike that Governor Ivey made her top priority upon moving into the governor’s mansion. In fact, Morning Consult’s survey points out that none of the other governors who enacted the same abortion restrictions this year have experienced a drop in approval rating like Ivey has. That’s because none of those governors also imposed a regressive tax hike this year like Ivey did in Alabama.

In fact, because Governor Ivey made this gas tax hike her top priority, the first vote ever cast by many freshman Republican legislators was a vote for a gas tax hike that will disproportionately harm low and middle income households in their districts. No corresponding tax relief has since been enacted by Alabama lawmakers, despite smart recommendations from Alabama Policy Institute and others who are calling upon Alabama legislators to provide much-needed tax relief.

Adding insult to injury, following the gas tax hike passed earlier this year, some Alabama employers and households are now being hit with large property tax hikes. Jefferson County, Alabama’s most populous county, has significantly increased property appraisals for both residential and commercial properties. The result is that some home values are going up by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“In Jefferson County, people are going to be shocked when they see it,” Abe Brand, a Birmingham, AL-based property tax consultant told AL.com’s William Thornton. “Some of these increases may be deserved. There will be a lot which will not be.”

Exacerbating the pain and shock to taxpayers, Jefferson County sent their tax cards late this year, which left taxpayers with only a month to dispute the jacked up assessments.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Were Alabama to have a property tax cap on the books like those found in other states, taxpayers would be protected from the massive property tax hikes now hitting employers and families in Alabama. These property tax adjustments are not limited to Jefferson County.

“Jefferson County is one of twenty-one counties implementing the new Alabama appraisal manual for ad valorem tax collections beginning October 1st 2019,” reports ABC 33 Birmingham. “According to the department representative, in the first year of this process each county is to establish their own value of land and improvement values of personal property.”

The Alabama Legislature isn’t scheduled to convene until February. Yet if Alabama lawmakers were able to call an early special session to raise the state gas tax this year, perhaps they can call and early special session to provide tax relief and to enact a clearly-needed property tax cap. That’s an idea Americans for Tax Reform will be urging Alabama lawmakers to consider as the 2019 comes to a close and the 2020 session rapidly approaches.

Photo Credit: Jimmy Emerson, DVM


Triggering Tax Reform Through Revenue Triggers

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Patrick Gleason on Friday, September 27th, 2019, 5:50 PM PERMALINK

Tax reform is arguably the most politically difficult undertaking a policy maker can pursue. One of the reasons why tax reform is so hard is that when rates are lowered and the base is broadened, particular industries, businesses, and consumers can be adversely affected even if the reform is a net tax cut for taxpayers and an overall good the state economy. 

Facilitating or “paying for” rate-reducing tax reform through revenue triggers and the allocation of projected revenue growth has proven to be the path to tax reform that entails less political resistance and friction. Recent years have provided some examples from the states, both proposed and enacted, of revenue trigger-facilitated tax reform and how it works.

North Carolina

That tax code overhaul approved by North Carolina lawmakers in 2013 utilized revenue triggers to reduce the corporate tax rate by 63.7%, taking the rate from 6.9% (which was the highest corporate tax rate in the Southeast at that time) down to 3% (the lowest state corporate tax rate in the nation, not including the few states that do not levy a corporate tax). The 2013 North Carolina tax reform act did the following: 

Corporate Income Tax Relief:

- Reduce rate from 6.9% to 5% by 2015;

- If certain revenue targets were met (and they were), the rate would decrease to 4% in 2016 and 3% in 2017. (lawmakers enacted a subsequent rate reduction in 2017 that brought the corporate rate down to 2.5% in 2019)

 

Individual Income Tax Relief:

- Flatten and lower rate, dropping the top rate from 7.75% to 5.75% by 2015;

- Increase standard deduction to $7,500 (for singles);

- Allow full deductibility of charitable contributions;

- Fully exempt Social Security income from state income tax; 

- Allow for certain itemized deductions (total of mortgage interest and property taxes paid would be capped at $20k); and

- Retain current child credit of $100 for those earning $40k and increase credit to $125 for those earning under $40k.

 

Other Changes:

- Cap gasoline tax;

- Fully repeal estate tax

 

North Carolina’s tax code overhaul, along with subsequent rate reduction that brought the personal rate down to 5.25% and the corporate rate down to 2.5%, has improved North Carolina’s standing in the State Business Tax Climate Index.

Prior to passage of revenue trigger-enabled tax reform in 2013, North Carolina had the nation’s 44th ranked business tax climate. Today North Carolina’s business tax climate is ranked as that nation’s 12th best

Here is a link to the legislative language of North Carolina’s revenue trigger-enabled 2013 tax reform. 

Virginia

Ed Gillespie, when he was running for Governor of Virginia in 2017, introduceda pro-growth tax reform plan that would’ve significantly improved Virginia’s business tax climate, making the commonwealth’s tax code more competitive, less burdensome, and more conducive to economic growth and job creation. 

Gillespie proposed lowering personal income tax rates by 10% across the board, which his plan facilitated with revenue triggers. Gillespie’s campaign platform explained that the revenue triggers would work thusly:

“Revenue triggers will be designed by the Secretary of Finance, agency heads from the Department of Planning and Budget, Department of Taxation, Department of the Treasury in partnership with a working group to include the House Appropriations (HAC) Staff Director, Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Staff Director and other individuals as designated by the governor. The revenue triggers will be reviewed by the Governor’s Advisory Committee on Revenue Estimates (GACRE) and ultimately adopted by the General Assembly. The triggers will be designed to ensure that Virginia can maintain its existing commitment to core services.”

Most recently, New Hampshire lawmakers enacted a new budget that relies on revenue triggers to cut the state business profits tax. That tax cut will only take effect if revenue collections exceed projects by more than 6%. 

In addition to showing that significant improvements can be made to a state tax code in a short period of time, North Carolina’s experience demonstrates how revenue triggers enable lawmakers to enact rate-reducing tax reform in a fiscally responsible manner. 

Revenue Triggers Protect Fiscal Health 

By making income tax rate reduction based on certain revenue triggers being met, North Carolina lawmakers were able to significantly cut income tax rates while ensuring the state would not have revenue problems like those encountered in Kansas, a state where lawmakers irresponsibly cut taxes at the same time that they were ratcheting up state spending levels. 

Spending restraint, coupled with income tax cuts based on revenue triggers, have allowed North Carolina lawmakers to return more than $5 billion to taxpayers over the last seven years, all while the state has realized repeated budget surpluses. During this time North Carolina has outperformed the national average on job creation and economic growth. 

By eliminating the possibility of future budget deficits and reducing political resistance that comes with an overreliance on base-broadening, revenue triggers have proven to be an effective tool for reducing income tax rates in a fiscally responsible and politically palatable manner.  

Photo Credit: Wendy


Wyoming Lawmakers Vote To Advance Corporate Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Patrick Gleason on Saturday, September 21st, 2019, 8:07 PM PERMALINK

Wyoming is one of two states that does not impose a corporate income tax on employers, but that could change in 2020. Earlier this year Wyoming lawmakers debated legislation, House Bill 220, that would institute a 7% state corporate tax. The Wyoming House of Representatives passed that bill but the Legislature adjourned without the state Senate doing likewise. However that proposed corporate tax, as was predicted at the time, did not die with the 2019 legislative session. The proposal is now back and primed to pass both chambers of the Wyoming Legislature in 2020.

This week the Wyoming Joint Revenue Committee approved a new version of the proposed  corporate tax, which would apply to companies with more than 100 shareholders by a 9-4 vote. Were state lawmakers to enact a corporate tax in 2020, that would have Wyoming moving in the opposite direction of many states and nations, which have been cutting their corporate taxes in recent years.

While proponents of the proposed corporate tax portray the levy as a way to soak large corporations, the burden of a corporate tax would be borne by both business owners and workers. That’s why key non-partisan fiscal scorekeepers, such as the Congressional Budget Office and the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, have adjusted their methodology in recent years to account for the harm corporate taxes do to workers.

In addition to the tens of millions of dollars it is estimated the proposed corporate tax would siphon from employers to fill state coffers, the corporate tax advanced by Wyoming Revenue Committee members this week would also lay the groundwork for a personal income tax.

“The bill has a little-noticed feature in it that allows for the creation of a personal income tax,” explains Sven Larson, a senior fellow at the Wyoming Liberty Group, a Cheyenne-based think tank. “If this bill becomes law Wyoming will have the legal infrastructure in place for both a corporate and a personal income tax.”

In addition to the costs a corporate tax would impose on businesses and the negative impact it would have on the state economy, a corporate tax would cost Wyoming taxpayers millions of dollars just to collect.

“The system to collect these taxes would cost $10 million to set up and $3 million to maintain, along with $1.5 million for staff – costing essentially 10 percent of the rough revenue estimate annually,” the Casper Star-Tribune reported earlier this year as the corporate tax proposal worked its way through the Legislature.

There is a wealth of social science demonstrating that corporate taxes are one of the most economically destructive ways to fill government coffers. That’s why states across the country and nations across the globe have been cutting corporate tax rates and reducing their reliance on them in recent years.

The corporate tax isn’t the only tax hike threat facing individuals, families, and employers across Wyoming. State lawmakers in Cheyenne are also advancing tax hikes on property, sales, and nicotine. Altogether, 2020 is shaping up to be Taxmageddon in Wyoming.

Photo Credit: Roger Smith


Alabama Governor Signs 55% Gas Tax Hike That Was Rushed Through Legislature In Five Days

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Patrick Gleason on Wednesday, March 13th, 2019, 12:28 PM PERMALINK

Less than a week after being initially introduced in the statehouse, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey (R) signed into law a 10 cent per gallon gas tax hike that will be phased in over the course of three years. 

“The plan would raise an estimated $320 million a year for road construction and maintenance,” reports Mike Cason, who covers the Alabama Statehouse for the Alabama Media Group. "About $12 million a year would go to a project to improve the shipping channel in the port of Mobile.”

The bill enacted by Governor Ivey and bipartisan majorities of the Alabama House and Senate represents a more than 55% increase in the state’s gas tax rate, which currently stands an 18 cents per gallon for gasoline and 19 cents for diesel. 

In accordance with the new law, Alabama’s tax on gas and diesel fuel will rise by 6 cents per gallon after August 31 of this year. The rate will increase by 2 cents a gallon on October 1, 2020, and again one year after that. 

This 55% gas tax increase was the first action taken by many new members of the Alabama House and Senate. According to a poll released this week by Alabama First Committee, the tax hike is not popular with the public, with the poll showing 85.2% opposing the bill to hike the state’s gas tax that was enacted yesterday. 

“It is clear that Alabamians across the state want better roads and bridges, but they are overwhelming opposed to higher gasoline taxes,” said former Tuscaloosa County Commissioner Don Wallace, chairman of Alabama First, the organization the commissioned the new poll.

Alabama officials have misdirected gas tax revenues for non-transportation purposes in the past by hundreds of millions of dollars. It will be interesting to see if such misappropriation will continue now that Governor Ivey and state lawmakers have just taken action to take more money from taxpayers at the pump. Alabama taxpayers aren't out of the woods yet. Republican leadership in the Alabama legislature reportedly has plans to hike other taxes this session, as well as expand Medicaid in accordance with Obamacare.

Photo Credit: Jimmy Emerson, DVM


Another Blue State Rejects A Carbon Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Patrick Gleason on Friday, March 1st, 2019, 10:36 AM PERMALINK

While Congressman Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) and Democrats in Congress push legislation to impose a national carbon tax, they can’t even convince one left-leaning blue state to take the first step by implementing a state level carbon tax. Those calling for a carbon tax just received their latest blue state rejection this week in Maine. 

In a committee hearing in the Maine House of Representatives yesterday, Rep. Deane Rykerson (D-Kittery), the lawmaker sponsoring legislation to impose the nation’s first statewide carbon tax, announced that he will be pulling the bill and replacing it a “Carbon Pricing Study Group” that will explore the topic and issue recommendations. 

Nick Isgro, mayor of Waterville and vice chairman of the Maine Republican Party, announced this major win for Maine taxpayers on Twitter yesterday:

"Thanks to a bipartisan coalition of grassroots citizens who journeyed with me to Our Capitol, the @MaineDems/@saragideon agenda to raise heating oil prices on Maine families is in retreat! The sponsor now wants the tax bill replaced with a study. Thank you all...WIN! #mepolitics pic.twitter.com/urzsxXSQCT"— Mayor Nick Isgro (@MaineMayorNick) March 1, 2019

“This is a middle- and low-income family crushing tax,” said Mayor Isgro. Yet while proponents of this regressive new tax hike remain unable to convince even one Democrat-run blue state to lead the way on the issue, that isn’t stopping them from trying to take their campaign national. 

Today, less than a day after Maine Democrats declined to move forward with a carbon tax, Washington State Governor Jay Inslee (D) announced his bid for president. Gov. Inslee, is an ardent carbon tax proponent, but has seen his proposal rejected by his own constituents twice in the last three years. 

In the same elections that Evergreen State voters gave Democrats complete control of state government, they also rejected two ballot measures to impose a statewide carbon tax, one of which was designed to be revenue neutral (environment groups opposed the revenue neutral carbon tax ballot measure because it didn’t raise revenue and grow the size of government, which exposes how emissions reduction is not the real goal of green groups). Mainers are just the latest group of voters to reject the carbon at the ballot box.

This taxpayer victory in Maine is the latest data point documenting how carbon taxes, in addition to being terrible policy that would do the greatest harm to low income families who can least afford it, are also terrible politics, even in blue states.

Photo Credit: Jim Bowen


ATR Urges Wyoming Lawmakers To Reject Calls To Impose A Corporate Tax


Posted by Patrick Gleason on Friday, February 22nd, 2019, 9:50 AM PERMALINK

It was reported in multiple news outlets earlier this week that House Bill 220, legislation pending in the Wyoming Senate that would impose a 7% state corporate income tax on certain companies, had been defeated in committee on Tuesday and was officially dead for the year. 

That is no longer the case. According to sources on the groud in Cheyenne and an article published in the Casper Star-Tribune last night, some Wyoming lawmakers are making an aggressive push to revive the corporate tax and ram in through int the final days of the legislative session, which ends next week. 

In response to the rumored push to revive the proposed corporate tax and pass it in a hasty and opaque manner, Americans for Tax Reform sent the following letter to Wyoming Senators last night urging them to reject this effort:

 

To: Members of the Wyoming Senate

From: Americans for Tax Reform

 

Re: HB 220 & Efforts to revive and rush through a corporate income tax

 

Dear Senator,

 

I write to address persistent rumors that HB 220, legislation that would impose a corporate income tax, may be resurrected in an amendment to another bill. I urge you to reject calls to revive the 7% corporate tax included in HB 220 and rush it through before the session ends next week. Were the state’s first income tax to be instituted in such a hasty and opaque manner, it would send a truly terrible message about what kind of place Wyoming is to do business. 

 

Imposing an income tax that will have unintended negative consequences is bad enough. It’s even worse when it’s done in a rushed manner, with rules and typical procedures suspended.  Do Wyoming lawmakers want their state to be a place where a major new tax can be imposed rapidly, through opaque machinations that bypass the typical committee process and disregard established deadlines? We’ll soon find out. If so, it could have a chilling effect on in-state investment. 

 

The claim that this proposed 7% tax is merely capturing revenue that is already taxed in other states in not accurate. Many other states lack throwback rules, making this proposal mostly a new tax liability. As the non-partisan Tax Foundation has pointed out, HB 220 is not a costless tax. It would harm the state’s economy and business tax climate. This corporate tax wouldn’t just capture money for Wyoming coffers that otherwise would have gone elsewhere. This tax would hit Wyoming residents, perhaps through higher prices, possibly in the form of fewer options, or both.

 

A Corporate Tax Harms Workers, Not Just Owners Of Capital

 

In recent years the major non-partisan federal government scorekeepers acknowledged for the first time ever that corporate taxes, and corporate tax hikes like those proposed by congressional Democrats and now state legislators in Wyoming, are borne in part by workers.

 

The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) announced in a 2013 study that the JCT would henceforth be reporting the affect that corporate taxes and corporate tax changes have on both labor and capital. Prior to that 2013 change, JCT models assumed that the burden of corporate taxes was borne entirely by the owners of capital (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, IRAs and so on).

 

That move by the JCT five years ago followed similar model adjustments by the Treasury Department and the Congressional Budget Office that account for the share of corporate taxes borne by labor. Interestingly enough, it was during the Obama administration, which enacted billions of dollars in higher taxes, that key non-partisan fiscal scorekeepers began to formally recognize that  corporate taxes are paid for, in part, by workers in the form of lower pay, fewer benefits, and reduced job opportunities. As such,  by imposing a state corporate tax, you and your colleagues would harm workers and shareholders alike .

 

A Terrible Time for a Tax Hike

 

It’s no coincidence that the U.S. has reclaimed the number one spot on the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index following enactment of federal tax reform that significantly cut federal income tax rates, both personal and corporate. It’s clear that many investors, CEOs, and site selectors are bullish on the U.S. relative to other potential destinations for their capital.

 

Yet once business owners or investors make the decision to bring new capital or create jobs in the U.S., either by relocating or expanding operations stateside, they then have 50 choices before them when it comes to which state to choose. That’s why it is more important than ever for legislators in Cheyenne to do everything they can to make Wyoming a more attractive place to invest, do business, live, and raise a family.

 

Your constituents are counting on you to protect their pocketbooks and to reject misguided proposals that would harm the Wyoming economy.  As such, I urge you to reject efforts to bring HB 220’s 7% corporate income tax back to life. I thank you for your public service. If you have any questions or if ATR can be of assistance, don’t hesitate to contact me at 202-785-0266.  

 

Sincerely,

 

Grover G. Norquist

President

Americans for Tax Reform

 

 


Georgia Lawmakers Ponder A Netflix Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Patrick Gleason on Thursday, February 14th, 2019, 10:30 AM PERMALINK

Politicians are coming up with new ways to eat into household budgets and deplete personal bank accounts. It’s not just blue state lawmakers who are busy looking for ways to siphon more revenue from the private economy and into state coffers. 

Take the Republican-run state of Georgia, where Representative Jay Powell (R), chairman of the House Rules Committee, is pushing for a new tax on internet services like Netflix and Hulu, as well as digital goods like iTunes music downloads and e-books. 

“The 4 percent communications service tax would replace the state’s existing taxes and fees on phone lines and cable TV, which range from 5 percent to over 7 percent,” reports the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Governor Brian Kemp (R) and Lt. Governor Geoff Duncan (R) have both come out in opposition to the proposal. Governor Kemp is a signer of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a written commitment to Georgia taxpayers that he will oppose and veto any and all efforts to raise state taxes. 

“My first inclination is not to look at tax increases to pay for this,” Kemp said in recent interview with Georgia Public Broadcasting. “If we’re going to have some sort of offset, I’d be open to looking at that. I don’t know that raising taxes is the answer for me.”

The tax hike proposed by Rep. Powell is intended to fund rural broadband. Lt. Gov. Duncan tweeted that while he shares the goal of increasing rural broadband access, he thinks that Rep. Powell’s proposed tax hike is the wrong way to go about it.

 

 

Americans for Tax Reform is urging Georgia lawmakers to reject this tax hike.


Governor Kay Macron?

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Patrick Gleason on Tuesday, January 15th, 2019, 9:44 AM PERMALINK

The Yellowhammer State appears primed for a Yellow Vest protest of its own. Weeks after French President Emmanuel Macron had to pull the plug on his proposed gas tax hike, Alabama's new governor is now making a go of raising levies on fuel. 

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey (R) was sworn in yesterday at the state capitol in Montgomery. In her inauguration speech, Gov. Ivey made clear that hiking the state gas tax will be one of her top priority right out of the starting blocks. 

“I never thought I would hear a Republican talk about tax increases and prisons in an inaugural address, or in the same inaugural address,” said Representative Chris England (D-Tuscaloosa), who is chairman of the Democratic caucus in the Alabama House of Representatives. 

Gov. Ivey’s campaign for a regressive tax hike in a state sandwiched between two zero income tax states stands in stark contrast to her counterparts in the region. To Alabama’s north, Tennessee Governor-elect Bill Lee has promised in writing that he will veto any and all efforts to raise taxes. While it appears Gov. Ivey is making a gas tax hike in Alabama one of her top priorities, Lee meanwhile has stated that one of his top fiscal goals will be providing tax relief to employers in Tennessee: 

“We've made progress cutting taxes for individuals, but we are tied for the highest tax rate on business entities in the Southeast,” Lee said on the campaign trail last year. “High taxes on businesses mean high taxes on consumers. Now is the opportunity to build on past successes and make Tennessee an even better place to do business.”

On Alabama’s southern border, Florida has a new governor in Ron DeSantis (R-FL) who, like Gov. Lee in Tennessee, has committed in writing to vetoing net tax hikes of the sort that Gov. Ivey is leading with. 

Alabama lawmakers convene their new legislative session on March 5th. If Alabama taxpayers want avoid paying higher taxes at the pump, now is the time for them to get in touch with their representatives at the state capital. As Gov. Ivey’s inaugural address makes clear, there will be a powerful and well-funded push for a gas tax hike in 2019. While well-heeled lobbyists will tout Ivey’s proposal, they are pushing a tax increase that would do the greatest harm to Alabama households who are least able to afford the additional cost.

Photo Credit: Jimmy Emerson, DVM

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Pages

×