Tyler Tate

ATR Supports New Constitutional Taxpayer Protection Initiative in California

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tyler Tate on Wednesday, May 2nd, 2018, 12:24 PM PERMALINK

ATR strongly supports the landmark ballot initiative currently in the process of qualifying for the ballot in California’s November election. The initiative, supported by taxpayer advocacy organizations, good government groups, and concerned businesses, would strengthen Proposition 13 and other constitutional taxpayer protections by raising the barrier to increasing state fees and hiking local taxes. If successful, the constitutional amendment is poised to change California’s political landscape.

The initiative takes several crucial steps toward protecting California taxpayers from Sacramento’s big spenders. The initiative would close the fee increase loophole (not subject to a 2/3 vote) by defining any charge or levy made on Californians as a tax. It would require a 2/3 vote by local governing bodies, city councils, for example, to raise or impose a tax, and additionally require that tax to receive 2/3 support of the citizens in that locality at the ballot box. Finally, the initiative would require that all tax increases include legally binding specifications on exactly what the tax revenue will be spent on.

The initiative is currently in the signature gathering phase. 585,407 signatures are needed by July 25th to qualify for the ballot, 25% of which had been gathered by February 26th. It is expected to qualify for the ballot in November.

Since 1978, California taxpayers have passed a series of ballot initiative propositions designed to stop tax increases and reign in spending by Sacramento politicians.

The most substantial was Proposition 13, requiring a 2/3 supermajority in each chamber of the state legislature to increase or impose a tax. The measure served as a successful barrier to billions in tax hikes.

However, the state legislature has repeatedly found loopholes around the law, falsely designating tax hikes as fee increases to avoid the 2/3 supermajority threshold and using similarly obscure arguments to find ways around the proposition.

This initiative would eliminate the loopholes favored by big spenders in Sacramento while ensuring fiscal discipline by legally binding lawmakers to spend tax revenue on the policies they promise the money will go toward. Needless to say, this initiative, if passed, would be a game changer in driving state policy and politics in California.

The initiative could not come at a better time for California taxpayers. 2017 was particularly costly, with state lawmakers hiking the gas tax by $52 billion, passing a new cap and trade plan expected to increase gas prices 73 cents a gallon by 2030, and unsuccessfully attempting to hike taxes on water and other vital goods.

Unfortunately, these hikes pale in comparison to future hikes under consideration. State Democrats are pushing to create a mandatory, government run socialized healthcare system that would cost $400 billion annually, twice the current state budget. State and local government pensions are significantly underfunded, with $333 billion in unfunded liabilities. Experts argue this is a conservative estimate and that actual liabilities could exceed $1 trillion.

Even if every single one of these spending priorities goes unfunded, current spending is on track to turn the budget surplus into a deficit by 2021. This is largely driven by the explosion of state spending, which has increased 68% since 2009 and imposes an average increase of $7,200 in taxes annually for the average family of four in California.

On top of these potential future tax hikes, California has the 2nd highest cost of living in the country and already is among the states with the highest tax burdens in the country. Over the past several decades, California has experienced a net out migration of about 650,000 people with aggregate income totaling about $60 billion.

As prices of basic consumer goods like gasoline, housing, food, and other products continue to rise and taxes are poised to skyrocket, this initiative offers a viable path forward for state residents to finally reign in tax increases and achieve real transparency in government spending. If passed, it has the potential to finally decrease the overwhelming tax burden and staunch the flow of tax refugees. ATR strongly urges California residents to sign petitions to place this measure on the ballot and support it in November.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

More from Americans for Tax Reform


ATR Urges Virginia Lawmakers to Reject Medicaid Expansion & Tax Hikes

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tyler Tate on Monday, April 16th, 2018, 2:25 PM PERMALINK

ATR urges state lawmakers to reject Governor Ralph Northam’s (D-Va.) numerous tax hikes and Medicaid expansion in the state budget. The hikes range from taxing hospital beds to increasing the tax on real estate transactions (including homes) and motel/hotel rooms. After failing to pass his plan in the legislature’s regular session, Northam has called a special session to get lawmakers to acquiesce to his demands.

ATR’s recent letter expressing opposition can be found here.

Northam’s proposed tax hikes come in the wake of Virginians being hit with more than 20 Obamacare tax hikes over the last ten years and a massive state sales tax hike passed within the last five. As Virginians are just starting to enjoy tax relief from the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the last thing they need is for Northam to wipe out the benefits of the Trump tax cuts at the state level.

Northam’s hikes would raise living costs on Virginia residents and damage Virginia’s economic recovery. The hospital bed tax will be passed directly on to those receiving care, increasing the cost of healthcare for Virginians. The real estate tax increase would increase the price of homes, making living in Virginia more expensive. The 3% tax hike on hotel and motel rooms would drive tourists out of Virginia into neighboring states for lodging, harming Virginia businesses and incentivizing tourists and travelers to spend their money elsewhere. It would also have a negative impact on downstream businesses that benefit from tourism and hotel stays in the state as a result of consumers having less money to spend while in town.

Adding to the fiscal damage of tax hikes is the expansion of Obamacare. According to a February report from the Foundation for Government Accountability, Medicaid expansion costs exceeded 250% more than the federal government promised. Per person costs of expansion were 79% higher than expected, and overruns of expansion costs have cost taxpayers 157% more than expected. In other words, expanding Medicaid would potentially stick Virginians with consistent tax hikes driven by cost overruns for years to come. This would also crowd out other budget priorities such as education, transportation and public safety.

For Northam’s Medicaid expansion and tax hikes to pass the legislature, two Republican votes in the Senate and the support of the Republican Speaker of the House, Kirk Cox, are needed. Currently, Republican Senators Frank Wagner, who can be reached at (804) 698-7507 and Emmett Hanger at (804) 698-7524 are considering supporting Northam’s proposal. Speaker Cox can be reached at (804) 698-1066 and has publicly supported the proposal. A vote is expected sometime this week.

ATR urges Virginia taxpayers to call Senator Wagner (804) 698-7507, Senator Hanger (804) 698-7524, and Speaker Cox (804) 698-1066 and tell them to oppose Northam’s tax grab and Medicaid expansion.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

More from Americans for Tax Reform


ATR Applauds Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin’s Veto of $487 Million Tax Hike

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tyler Tate on Thursday, April 12th, 2018, 4:14 PM PERMALINK

ATR applauds Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin’s (R-Ky.) recent decision to veto the state legislature’s budget and tax bills, which included $487 million in tax hikes. The bills, cast as efforts to reform Kentucky’s tax code to encourage business investment, also function as a Trojan horse for net tax increases on small busiensses and consumers. At a time when federal tax reform is beginning to provide long overdue tax relief, now is not the time to erode the benefits of federal tax cuts for Kentucky with net tax hikes.

ATR’s recent letter expressing opposition can be found here.

In his veto message, Governor Bevin argued that Kentucky has an overspending problem, not an under-taxing problem. Bevin stated, “the budget has hundreds of millions of dollars in spending that we can’t really afford to spend.” Bevin further stated it was irresponsible for lawmakers to continue to raise taxes to pay for unnecessary spending.

Further, Bevin pointed out that despite a whopping $487 million tax hike, the budget did not balance. Rather, Bevin urged the legislature to focus on solving the spending problem to avoid these unnecessary tax hikes.

Bevin rightly acknowledged that several components of the bills would bring much needed business investment, increased competitiveness and benefits to Kentucky. For example, the bills would have lowered the corporate rate and individual income tax down to 5%. These important reductions were, however, offset by a 50 cents a pack increase in the excise tax on cigarettes and a major expansion of the sales tax base. Together, these components amounted to a $487 million tax hike.

The cigarette tax increase would have disproportionately harmed lower income Kentuckians. Extensive research demonstrates that cigarette tax hikes don’t reduce smoking and only serve to punish those who choose to smoke. Additionally, these types of tax increases serve to increase illicit sales of cigarettes through smuggling and other criminal activities. It’s not surprising that New York, which has the highest tobacco tax in the nation, also has the highest rate of cigarette smuggling.

As a result of federal tax reform, many Kentucky businesses have already increased investments and passed along benefits, bonuses, and gains to workers through raises and increased retirement contributions.  A list of companies offering tax reform bonuses can be found here.

ATR applauds Governor Bevin’s veto and urges the legislature to consider the harms of net tax increases on Kentucky small businesses, consumers, and taxpayers.

 

More from Americans for Tax Reform


ATR Applauds EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s Decision to Revise CAFE Standards

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tyler Tate on Monday, April 9th, 2018, 4:31 PM PERMALINK

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt recently announced that the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for future vehicle fleets will be revised, reversing a rushed midnight regulatory push in the final days of the Obama administration that would have made vehicles more expensive and less safe. ATR applauds this decision, which moves in the direction of reducing the burden of an unnecessary and complicated government mandate.

ATR was proud to join other organizations in urging this important reform. The coalition letter can be read here.

The CAFE standards program is an outdated regulation dating back to the 1970’s, originally developed to conserve oil during the embargo. Today, it exists as a tool for unelected federal government regulators to shape consumer behavior through controlling the types of cars automakers are allowed to sell. The standards require each fleet of vehicles, by model year, to meet an average mile per gallon standard set by officials at the EPA.

In 2012, the EPA announced new standards for Model Years 2017-2025, with a mandatory review in 2018 to determine if the standards should be revised. These standards required automakers to manufacture a fleet of cars that must reach a total average of 54.5 miles per gallon. In the days leading up to the inauguration of President Donald Trump, President Obama’s EPA rescheduled the mandatory review to January 2017 and released a “report” upholding the stringent original standards day before President Obama vacated office.

Upon entering office, Administrator Pruitt reopened the process to receive public comments, hold hearings, and receive additional information to properly conduct the review. Based on this information, the EPA determined the Obama standards were not appropriate and are revising them to ensure automakers can manufacture affordable cars.

The decision to revise the draconian standards serves as a win for American drivers and consumers.

To comply with the standards, automakers would have had to have manufactured a greater number of electric vehicles and created new designs for significantly smaller vehicles. The Heritage Foundation estimates these actions would have added a whopping $7,200 to the price of the average new car.

The original standards also would have significantly increased roadside casualties and injuries. In order to achieve a higher fuel efficiency, automakers have to continually decrease the size and weight of automobiles. However, larger and heavier automobiles are better able to absorb the impact of a collision and provide extra cushion space in the event of a collision. The National Academy of Sciences conducted research concluding the CAFE standards contributed to between 1,300 and 1,600 deaths a year and about ten times as many injuries.

Moreover, the standards significantly interfere with a consumer’s basic right to choose the best product. By limiting the types of automobiles a consumer can purchase, the CAFE standards significantly distort the automobile market by forcing automakers to manufacture expensive automobiles that consumers do not want to purchase.

Finally, the CAFE standards have a negligible impact on the environment and global warming. Even Obama’s EPA conceded that the original stringent standards, if implemented to the letter, would only affect the climate by two one hundredths of a degree.

ATR strongly supports Secretary Pruitt’s decision and applauds his effort to protect American consumers and drivers from yet another Obama-era regulatory overreach.

Photo Credit: Wallpaper.Wiki

More from Americans for Tax Reform


New York Democrats Propose $2 Billion in Tax Hikes

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tyler Tate on Monday, April 9th, 2018, 1:33 PM PERMALINK

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) and Assembly Democrats have joined together to champion $2 billion in tax hikes in the annual budget. The hikes target everything from ridesharing (Uber, Lyft) and electronic cigarettes to an internet sales tax and raising the state income tax. Just as federal tax reform is taking effect, the last thing New Yorkers need is for those savings to be confiscated through Albany’s high tax policies.

Here are a few of the more egregious of the $2 billion in tax hikes:

A $276 million tax on ridesharing services such as Uber and Lyft and limousine services. The tax will fund “transit sustainability,” presumably repairs to New York City’s deeply troubled subway system. Surprisingly, the tax targets ridesharing customers rather than subway customers to pay for the repairs. Unfortunately, all the tax will accomplish is making transit and transportation more expensive for New Yorkers.

*A $109 million internet sales tax. The tax would apply to all internet sales done by people or businesses located within New York to New York customers. The tax would put New York businesses at a disadvantage, as their products would be subject to a 4% sales tax that out of state products are not.

*Limiting the Property Tax Relief Credit, costing homeowners $505 million. The tax credit is currently limited to homeowners with annual income below $275,000. Governor Cuomo proposes slashing the credit to the 2017 rebate value. This reduction eliminates crucial relief from New York’s high taxes.

*A tax on e-cigarettes of 40 cents per fluid millimeter, costing vapors $12 million. The tax comes at a time when the international consensus is that e-cigarettes are 95% safer than traditional combustible cigarettes and help transition smokers away from more dangerous traditional cigarettes. Increasing e-cigarette prices through taxation only makes it harder for smokers to quit traditional cigarettes.

Given New York is ranked number one in the country for the highest tax burden, it’s no surprise that 1.75 million people with income exceeding $99.5 billion have fled the state over the past several decades. Rather than continue to push residents to flee to friendlier tax territories, Governor Cuomo would be wise to provide real tax relief to New York residents.

*New York’s budget passed the Assembly and Senate on Saturday, March 31st. Republicans, who hold a majority in the state senate, were able to block the tax hikes with asterisks. However, Cuomo successfully kept his $276 million tax on ridesharing services in the budget.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons


New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy Proposes $1.5 Billion in Tax Hikes

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tyler Tate on Wednesday, April 4th, 2018, 12:08 PM PERMALINK

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy (D) has proposed $1.5 billion in tax hikes in his first-ever annual budget. The hikes target everything from ridesharing (Uber, Lyft) and electronic cigarettes to increasing the state sales tax, corporate, and income tax. Just as federal tax reform is taking effect, the last thing New Jersey residents need is for those savings to be confiscated through Trenton’s high tax policies.

Here are a few of the more egregious of the $1.5 billion in tax hikes:

A $581 million tax increase through raising the state sales tax to 7.0%. This sales tax hike would disproportionately fall on low and middle-income Americans, since they spend a higher proportion of their budgets on everyday goods and services. The Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy estimates this budget difference results in lower and middle income Americans paying 4.7%-7% of their income on consumption sales taxes, compared to only .8% for upper income Americans.

A $110 million tax on businesses, including on one time funds repatriated back to the United States from abroad under federal tax reform. The costs of the business tax will be passed on to consumers, adding to the burden from the sales tax increase. Moreover, business funds have been held overseas because of the stiff tax penalty of bringing the funds back to invest in the United States. By increasing this tax penalty in the wake of its reduction in federal tax reform, Governor Murphy is increasing the likelihood these funds remain overseas permanently or are repatriated to another state with a more favorable tax climate.

A tax on e-cigarettes that is to be determined. The tax comes at a time when the international consensus is that e-cigarettes are 95% safer than traditional combustible cigarettes and help transition smokers away from more dangerous traditional cigarettes. Increasing e-cigarette prices through taxation only makes it harder for smokers to quit traditional cigarettes.

A to be determined tax on ridesharing services, such as Lyft and Uber. This tax will only serve to make transportation more expensive for New Jersey citizens simply trying to move from point A to point B.

A $765 million income tax hike. The proposal would raise the top marginal rate to 10.75%. This increase would continue to cause middle and upper-income residents to flee to friendlier tax territories, resulting in lost revenue to the New Jersey state government. Over the past several decades, New Jersey has lost more than 500,000 people with annual income exceeding $35 billion. This tax hike is double punishment for residents no longer able to write off more than $10,000 in state and local taxes as a result of federal tax reform.

Especially troublesome is that several of these tax hikes are to be determined. Their status demonstrates the intent is not to fund important budget priorities, but to raise funds for unannounced pet projects of Governor Murphy. Rather than continue to push residents to flee New Jersey through its enormous and punitive tax burden, Governor Murphy would be wise to provide real tax relief to New Jersey residents.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

More from Americans for Tax Reform


French Researchers Push American Meat Tax. Would Increase Beef Prices by 41%

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tyler Tate on Monday, March 19th, 2018, 3:20 PM PERMALINK

To meet the European Union’s goals of reducing carbon emissions by 50% by 2050, French researchers are proposing a whopping $247.83 per ton tax on carbon, methane and other greenhouse gases. The tax is targeted at the cattle industry and beef in particular as a direct tax on meat.

The idea of heavily taxing meat has broad support among environmental groups and other individuals who promote government coercion as a tactic for combating climate change, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Richard Conniff, a New York Times op-ed contributor with a new piece in support of the tax this week. They argue that because agricultural activities, such as raising cattle, are responsible for 14.5% of greenhouse gas emissions, governments across the globe must enact exorbitant “sin” taxes to make cattle-based goods too expensive for Americans to buy.

Not surprisingly, prices of common grocery items would skyrocket if meat tax proponents are successful. By their own admission, this targeted tax would increase beef prices by 41%, chicken by 32%, dairy by 26%, eggs by 23%, pork by 17%, and poultry by 15%. Rather than socially engineering consumer choices through regressive taxation, proponents should allow Americans to make their own grocery choices and focus on carbon-reducing and free market innovations in the marketplace instead.

The support for meat excise taxes on meat come at a time when similar excise taxes related to “public health” are being aggressively pushed across the country. In several cities, taxes on soda and other sweetened beverages been implemented, and taxes on snacks, fast food, and other disfavored foods are being considered.

Not surprisingly, these taxes result in higher prices, lost jobs, and do not reduce consumption of the products they target. For example, a soda tax enacted in Philadelphia caused 1,200 people to lose their jobs and did not significantly reduce consumption of soda. Instead, Philadelphians simply traveled to other cities to purchase their groceries, proving the results of the tax were to inconvenience consumers and cause others to lose their jobs. Currently, there are no estimates of how many people would lose their jobs if this tax went into effect.

Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of this recent carbon scheme is the targeting of methane from cattle. In addition to producing greenhouse gases from feed transportation and agricultural machinery operation, a key source of methane from cattle is flatulence and belching as byproducts of the digestion process.

Essentially, the proposed meat tax is a tax on the digestion process of cows designed to cause the prices of everyday food items to skyrocket so lower and middle income Americans can no longer afford to purchase them.

Needless to say, Americans for Tax Reform is strongly opposed to any type of new meat or greenhouse gas tax and believes Americans should be able to choose which foods they eat without needless government intervention.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons


ATR Applauds Arizona Legislature’s Preemption of Targeted Food Taxes

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tyler Tate on Friday, March 16th, 2018, 4:37 PM PERMALINK

Recently, the Arizona State Senate unanimously passed House Bill 2484, a bill which would prevent localities from imposing targeted taxes on soda, snacks, and even meat. HB2484 is now headed to Governor Doug Ducey (R) for a signature. ATR applauds the efforts of the legislature to protect consumers and taxpayers from harmful taxes at the local level.

The bill ensures that Arizona consumers face a uniform level of food taxation across the state, rather than a patchwork of punitive taxes varying by city and county. This uniformity is key to providing a stable tax environment to attract business investment and ensure consumers are not targeted based on the food or beverages they buy or the city they reside in.

The bill was precipitated by a well-funded effort by special spending interests to lobby local governments to target disfavored beverages and food with punitive taxes. Over the past several years, multiple cities and counties have enacted these taxes. These experimentations have provided definitive proof that these regressive taxes eliminate jobs, harm consumers, and are completely ineffective at reducing obesity.

For example, the city of Philadelphia enacted a 1.5 cents an ounce tax on sweetened beverages, mostly targeted to reduce soda consumption. An Oxford Economics study found the tax caused 1,200 people to lose their jobs and GDP decreased by $80 million.

However, the tax did not reduce consumption of sugary beverages. Although sales of these beverages fell 29% within Philadelphia, they rose 26% in communities surrounding the city. This indicates Philadelphians simply traveled to surrounding localities without the tax to buy beverages and other groceries.

The city of Berkeley, California implemented a similar tax on sweetened beverages. The tax actually ended up increasing the number of calories consumed, the exact opposite of what was intended.

These regressive taxes hurt lower income people the most. Food taxes are about four to five times as high for lower income families then upper income families.

Finally, small businesses and grocery stores also face revenue loss. After Philadelphia’s tax was enacted, 88% of affected businesses reported revenue losses due to the imposition of the tax. The tax may contribute to the creation of “food deserts,” low income neighborhoods, often in urban areas, that lack grocery stores. By driving down already low sales, targeted food taxes could lead to the expansion of food deserts in more struggling communities.

 ATR strongly applauds the effort of the Arizona legislature to protect consumers, workers, and businesses from these targeted food taxes.

[A copy of the letter ATR sent to the Arizona state Senate can be read here]

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

More from Americans for Tax Reform


West Virginia Teachers Demanded a Raise. Republicans Rejected Tax Hikes to Fund It

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tyler Tate on Friday, March 16th, 2018, 4:07 PM PERMALINK

Recently, Republicans in the West Virginia state legislature were able to end a nine day, statewide public school teachers strike by passing a 5% pay increase for teachers. The illegal strike, precipitated by complaints of comparatively low wages, was ended by a $110 million pay increase accomplished without raising taxes. Lawmakers instead agreed to cut spending by $110 million, with most of the money likely to be cut from tourism promotion and Department of Commerce funds.

Striking West Virginia teachers argued they were receiving the fourth lowest average wages in the country for teachers, ranking 48/51 (including Washington, D.C.). However, this statistic does not take pension contributions or other benefits into account. Factoring these benefits in, West Virginia ranks 32/51 in the country for work compensation.

This ranking, however, does not take cost of living into account. West Virginia pay with benefits would likely rank even better given West Virginia has a relatively low cost of living.

The strike destroyed the modern the argument that tax increases are necessary to sufficiently fund education. Rather, lawmakers dedicated to cutting wasteful spending and streamlining government can fund education.

The strike also demonstrates that tax cuts do not inevitably lead to cuts in education spending. While increasing total teacher pay by $110 million, Governor Jim Justice (R) maintained a push for a pro-growth $420 million tax cut designed to bring manufacturing investment and jobs to West Virginia. The bill would have phased out the business tangible personal property tax on manufacturing equipment, with West Virginia only one of fourteen states that levies the tax.

Proponents of teacher raises nationally will try to point to tax reform as a barrier for more significant investments in education. Nationally, however, that narrative falls flat. States like West Virginia, Florida, and Wisconsin have significantly increased education spending while also working to simplify and reduce their tax codes and burdens.

Equally important to these efforts is electing politicians with the fortitude to make tough decisions on which priorities to fund, and stand up to special spending interests to protect taxpayers against the demands for tax hikes at the state level.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons


ATR Urges Utah Legislators to Reject Punitive Tax on Vapor Products

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tyler Tate on Monday, February 26th, 2018, 10:16 AM PERMALINK

Recently, Utah Rep. Paul Ray introduced legislation (House Bill 88) to impose a whopping 86% excise tax on tobacco –free electronic cigarettes and vapor products. The tax, which was lowered to 29% in committee, serves as a harsh penalty on an estimated 110,000 Utahans who use e-cigarettes as a means for quitting or reducing their use of cigarettes.

The tax push comes at a time when the international consensus is that e-cigarettes are at least 95% less harmful than traditional combustible cigarettes. Unlike traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes are free from tobacco, tar, and other carcinogens that make cigarettes harmful.

Over the past decade, e-cigarettes have emerged as an innovative and effective market solution that empowers smokers to quit tobacco use by transitioning towards a significantly less harmful alternative. Notably, this is a goal public health advocates have failed to achieve for decades.

A punitive excise tax on these life-saving products threatens to put them out of the reach of those who need them most. Lower and middle-income consumers compose the overwhelming majority of smokers, and many spend up to 25% of their income on tobacco. Imposing a regressive and steep excise tax on e-cigarettes directly hinders the ability of low and middle income consumers to afford to try a safer alternative to smoking tobacco.

Proponents argue these attempts to tax e-cigarettes are based on increasing public health, however, the real motivation is to preserve the massive windfall from exorbitant tobacco excise taxes. Since 1998, more than $500 billion has been transferred from consumers and businesses to the government from tobacco taxes and the federal Master Settlement Agreement with tobacco companies.

As consumers continue to switch to tobacco-free products, politicians have scrambled to replace revenues from tobacco taxes with e-cigarette taxes. Rather than pursue damaging tax hikes on life saving products, legislators should allow the free market to empower individuals to better their health.

Representative Paul Rey's attempt to hike taxes on 110,000 Utahans in 2018 comes as no surprise, considering he has pushed this tax every year for the last several years. Rep. Ray has also declined to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a written commitment to voters to oppose tax hikes.  

ATR strongly urges Utah legislators to protect Utah e-cigarette consumers and public health by rejecting House Bill 88. ATR’s letter to the Utah Taxation & Revenue Committee can be found here.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Pages

×