Stephen Colbert Calls Out Warren for Dodging Middle Class Tax Question

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Adam Sabes on Wednesday, September 18th, 2019, 11:34 AM PERMALINK

In a face-to-face interview, CBS's Stephen Colbert called out Elizabeth Warren on The Late Show for repeatedly refusing to answer the question of whether or not she would impose tax increases on middle class Americans:

Here is the key exchange:

Stephen Colbert: "You keep being asked in the debates 'How are you going to pay for it? Are you going to raise the middle class taxes?' How are you going to pay for it? Are you going to raise the middle class taxes?"

Elizabeth Warren: "So, here's how we're going to do this. Costs are going to go up for the wealthiest Americans, for big corporations."

Colbert: "Taxes which will be in those costs?"

Warren: "Yeah. Hard working, middle class families are going to see their costs go down."

Colbert: "But will their taxes go up?"

Warren: "Well, but here's the thing."

Colbert: "No, but here's the thing. I've listened to these answers a few times before, and I just want to make a parallel suggestion for you about how you might defend the taxes that perhaps you're not mentioning."

This is at least the sixth time Warren has dodged the middle class tax question. 

In July, Warren got into a heated exchange with MSNBC's Chris Matthews while refusing to answer Matthews' question on middle class tax hikes. She also dodged the question during the CNN and ABC debates.

In POLITICO Jeff Greenfield noted that Warren could be holding back an admission that "Medicare for All" will lead to higher taxes for the middle-class because she is worried about losing voters.

Greenfield wrote:

This leaves an obvious question that will follow her through the campaign: “Bernie Sanders is frank enough to acknowledge the obvious, and then explain it. Why won’t you?” The answer may be as simple as: If you say you will raise middle class taxes, an unmeasurable but likely significant number of voters simply will not bother to wait for the rest of your explanation.

As ATR noted earlier, "Medicare for All" would require anywhere from $32 trillion and $36 trillion in higher taxes over the course of the next decade.

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

 


Video: Warren Dodges MSNBC’s Middle Class Tax Questions

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Adam Sabes on Tuesday, September 17th, 2019, 2:49 PM PERMALINK


Warren's contentious exchange with MSNBC's Chris Matthews

Elizabeth Warren keeps dodging the middle class tax question. In the most recent Democrat debate on Sept. 12 in Houston, Warren dodged the question twice.

But an especially heated exchange between Warren and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews took place on July 30 following the CNN Dem debate. Matthews grilled warren asking if she would increase taxes on the middle class in order to shovel money to “Medicare For All.”

[Click here to view]

Chris Matthews: "Your pay won't go up. You dodged that tonight. Jake Tapper kept saying how much are your taxes going to go up.”

Elizabeth Warren: "How much are your costs going to go down?"

Matthews: "No, no, no, different question. How much will your taxes go up?"

Later in the interview, Matthews explicitly asked Warren: "Will you pay more in taxes?"

When she dodged the question, Matthews fired back and stated "Why don't you want to answer that question?”

During the CNN debate, Warren repeatedly dodged Jake Tapper's question asking if the middle class would pay more in taxes as a result of Medicare for All.

Warren is avoiding the reality that middle-class Americans would have to pay more in taxes, as Bernie sanders notes is necessary to fund Medicare for All.

"Yeah, [we'd have to] raise taxes on the middle class," Sanders told a CNN reporter after the July debate.

In POLITICO Jeff Greenfield noted that Warren could be holding back an admission that Medicare for All will lead to higher taxes for the middle-class because she is worried about losing voters.

Greenfield wrote:

This leaves an obvious question that will follow her through the campaign: “Bernie Sanders is frank enough to acknowledge the obvious, and then explain it. Why won’t you?” The answer may be as simple as: If you say you will raise middle class taxes, an unmeasurable but likely significant number of voters simply will not bother to wait for the rest of your explanation.

As ATR noted earlier, Medicare for All would require anywhere from $32 trillion and $36 trillion in higher taxes over the course of the next decade.

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

See more:

Elizabeth Warren is Still Dodging the Middle Class Tax Question

Video: 2020 Democrats Promise Higher Taxes

Biden Caught Lying about GOP Tax Cuts

Bill De Blasio: “As President, I Would Issue a Robot Tax”

Bill De Blasio: “As President, I would issue a robot tax”

Biden Endorses Carbon Tax

Kamala Harris Calls for Ban on Plastic Straws

Elizabeth Warren's Climate Plan Calls For "Reversing" GOP Tax Cuts

Sanders: We’re Going to “Absolutely” Raise the Corporate Tax Rate

Elizabeth Warren on Corporate Tax Cuts: “I really want to see them rolled back.”

Bill de Blasio Calls for Corporate Tax Rate Hike

Amy Klobuchar: Raise the Corporate Tax Rate to 25%

Biden on capital gains tax: “We should raise the tax back to 39.6 percent”

Kamala Harris Threatens to Repeal GOP Tax Cuts 3 Times in August

Joe Biden: “I’m going to eliminate most all” of GOP Tax Cuts

Cory Booker Calls for Repeal of "Toxic" GOP Tax Cuts

Marianne Williamson Joins Dems Calling for TCJA Repeal

Kamala Admits Her Plan Would End Employer Insurance

“Medicare for All” is a Middle Class Tax Increase, Say Dems

Elizabeth Warren Can’t Dodge the Middle Class Tax Question Forever

Dem Socialized Healthcare Plan Will Lead to Middle Class Tax Hikes

Elizabeth Warren "Wealth Tax" was described by the WaPo editorial board as having "a certain authoritarian odor"

Supposed “Moderate” Democrat John Delaney Wants to Impose Carbon Tax on the American People

Klobuchar Suggests Capital Gains Tax Hike and “Doing Something” About TCJA

VIDEO: 2020 Democrats Will Raise Your Taxes

Kamala Harris Campaign Headquarters Located in Opportunity Zone Created by GOP Tax Cuts

Julian Castro: “We’re going to have to raise taxes.”

Biden and Harris: Raise the Corporate Tax Rate

Biden tweet: Ignore the fact I’ve already called for middle class tax hikes

Kamala Harris: “I Will Reverse” Trump’s Tax Cuts

Kamala Harris Calls for Repeal of Tax Cuts Four Times in Three Minutes

Julian Castro Caught Lying about GOP Tax Cuts

NYT: Bidencare Will be Funded by “rolling back” GOP tax cuts

Kamala Harris: I Will Repeal “That Tax Bill”

Cory Booker: “I do support” Imposing Carbon Tax on Americans

Harris: “We are Going to Repeal That Tax Bill”

Biden: I Will Raise Corporate Tax Rate to 28%

Kamala Harris Continues to Lie about Tax Cuts

Jay Inslee: “Repeal the Trump Tax Cuts”

Biden Running Ads to “Repeal Trump’s Tax Cuts.”

VIDEO: Ten Times Biden Threatened to Repeal Tax Cuts

Here’s what happens if Dems repeal tax cuts

VIDEO: 10 Times 2020 Democrats Have Threatened to Repeal TCJA

Kamala Harris: When I Enter Office "I Will Repeal" the TCJA

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.”


ATR Supports Trump Administration's Schedule B Reform

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Samantha Capriotti on Monday, September 16th, 2019, 10:30 AM PERMALINK

The Trump Administration has proposed a rule to streamline the nonprofit filing process and prevent future administrations from targeting organizations by leaking sensitive information.  Under this proposal, many nonprofits including 501(c)(4)s, 501(c)(5)s, and 501(c)(6)s would no longer be required to submit a Schedule B form to the IRS.

The IRS has no need for the donor information and can enforce tax laws without it.  On top of having no use for it, the IRS has inappropriately used the information. In 2014, the IRS had to pay the National Organization for Marriage $50,000 after disclosing their donors to an oppositional organization who published it. 

Further, according to a 2016 study by the Government Accountability Office, the IRS has disproportionately targeted organizations based on religious, educational, and political views, specifically Tea Party groups.

Today, tax exempt organizations must disclose the name, address, and amount donated for each donation above $5,000. Schedule B forms are submitted to the IRS, redacted of names and addresses, and then the redacted version is made public. Under the proposed rule, “Guidance Under Section 6033 Regarding the Reporting Requirements of Exempt Organizations,” only 501(c)(3)s and 527s would still have to file the Form 990, Schedule B, but all non-profits would need to present the information upon IRS request.

The information that is public will not change under the proposed rule, though money and time will be saved on both sides by eliminating this tedious process.  In fact, The Institute for Free Speech estimates that nonprofits would save about  $63 million if Schedule B were repealed. 

Critics have falsely stated that the rule will allow for illegal foreign transactions.  However, there are already measures in place to track these transactions, and it is highly unlikely that anyone will admit to funneling illegal money on the form.  Even if the IRS did suspect laws were being broken, it has no authority to share the information it collects with the FCC and the DOJ, the two agencies with the ability to enforce campaign finance laws.

The proposed rule would hold the IRS more accountable and protect free speech of donors and those working for non-profits.  American citizens have the right to associate with and donate to organizations freely and privately.  If a Schedule B is leaked, the IRS can and has faced legal consequences.  In 2014, the IRS had to pay the National Organization for Marriage $50,000 after disclosing their donors to an oppositional organization who published it. 

The proposed rule, “Guidance Under Section 6033 Regarding the Reporting Requirements of Exempt Organizations” will be open for comments until December 9.  ATR urges support for Schedule B reform to eliminate the unnecessary time and effort of the process, while protecting privacy and free speech.

Photo Credit: Flickr - Martin Haesemeyer


60+ Groups to Congress: Defend American Workers from Union Coercion and Oppose the PRO Act


Posted by Olivia Grady on Monday, September 16th, 2019, 10:00 AM PERMALINK

Today, a coalition of more than 60 groups and activists, led by Americans for Tax Reform, sent a letter to Congress. The letter urged members of Congress to vote against the PRO Act because of the harm the Act would do to American workers.

The full letter can be found here or below:

September 16, 2019

Dear Member of Congress,

We are writing in opposition to the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. Senator Patty Murray and Congressman Bobby Scott introduced the PRO Act in the Senate (S. 1306) and House of Representatives (H.R. 2474) on May 2, 2019. 

We oppose the PRO Act because the legislation would harm workers and taxpayers by codifying many of the Obama-era rules and decisions that led to higher unemployment and a stagnant economy. Representatives who vote for this bill are simply helping labor union bosses, their campaign contributors, at the expense of American workers. 

For example, one of the Act’s harmful provisions would codify the National Labor Relations Board’s 2015 Browning-Ferris Industriesdecision. That decision expanded the definition of joint employer and increased liability for many businesses, especially franchises. In fact, the International Franchise Association has found that the expanded joint employer rule costs the franchise sector as much as $33.3 billion annually and has led to 376,000 lost job opportunities. Codifying this NLRB decision would effectively eliminate this business model, putting many employees and small businesses out of work. However, big labor would benefit from this provision because they could unionize these employees more easily.

This bill would also force all private sector workers to pay fees to labor unions, whether they wanted to support them or not. This would effectively invalidate all state Right-to-Work laws and would deny First Amendment rights to these workers. This provision hurts workers because right-to-work laws have benefited workers. From 2008 – 2018, for example, the percentage growth in the number of people employed in right-to-work states was 10.8%, while the percentage for those in forced-unionism states was much lower at 5%. Invalidating these laws would, therefore, hurt workers and employers, but would provide more dues to unions. 

Another business model that is severely threatened by this legislation is the gig economy. The PRO Act would codify California’s new “ABC” test to determine who is an independent contractor and who is an employee. This test makes it harder for employers to hire independent contractors, but makes it easier for unions to unionize workers. According to the Federal Reserve, about 3 in 10 Americans work in the gig economy, and these workers would be at risk for losing their jobs. 

One final example is the provision that would codify the Obama-era ambush elections rule. That rule shortened the time frame of an election to unionize workers and provided the contact information of workers without their consent to labor unions. This rule harmed workers by providing them with an inadequate amount of time to learn how unionization would affect them. In addition, unions would be able to violate the privacy of workers once they had their contact information. Once again, with a shortened time frame and the contact information of workers, labor bosses could more easily unionize these workers.

Because the legislation harms workers in order to help labor union bosses, we strongly urge Members of Congress to vote against the PRO Act.

Sincerely,

Grover G. Norquist 
President, Americans for Tax Reform

James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman, 60 Plus Association 

Melodie Bowler
Associate Director, Alaska Policy Forum

Phil Kerpen
President, American Commitment

Lisa B. Nelson
CEO, ALEC Action

Tom Giovanetti
President, Americans for a Strong Economy

Rick Manning
President, Americans for Limited Government

Scot Mussi
President, Arizona Free Enterprise Club

John Palatiello
President, Business Coalition for Fair Competition

Garrett Ballengee
Executive Director, Cardinal Institute for WV Policy

Andrew F. Quinlan
President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity

Timothy Lee
Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs, Center for Individual Freedom

Olivia Grady
Senior Fellow, Center for Worker Freedom

Catrin Wigfall
Policy Fellow, Center of the American Experiment (Minnesota)

Bob Luebke 
Director of Policy, Civitas Institute (North Carolina)

David McIntosh
President, Club for Growth

Russell Hollrah
Executive Director, Coalition to Promote Independent Entrepreneurs

Nathan Benefield
Vice President & COO, Commonwealth Foundation (Pennsylvania)

Trey Kovacs
Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Matthew Kandrach
President, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy (CASE)

Tom Schatz
President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Katie McAuliffe
Executive Director, Digital Liberty

Grant Callen
President, Empower Mississippi

Peter J. Ferrara
Dunn Liberty Fellow in Economics, The King’s College
Senior Fellow, Heartland Institute
Senior Fellow, National Tax Limitation Foundation 

Brian Minnich
Executive Vice President, Freedom Foundation (California, Oregon, Washington)

Adam Brandon
President, FreedomWorks

Victor Riches
President and CEO, Goldwater Institute (Arizona)

J. Scott Moody
CEO, Granite Institute (New Hampshire)

Tim Chapman
Executive Director, Heritage Action for America

Mario H. Lopez
President, Hispanic Leadership Fund

Fred Birnbaum
Vice President, Idaho Freedom Foundation and Idaho Freedom Action

Heather R. Higgins
CEO, Independent Women's Voice 

F. Vincent Vernuccio, J.D.
President, Institute for the American Worker

Chris Ingstad
President, Iowans for Tax Relief

Sal J. Nuzzo
Vice President of Policy, The James Madison Institute (Florida)

Brett Healy
President, The John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy (Wisconsin)

Becki Gray
Senior Vice President, John Locke Foundation (North Carolina)

Dave Trabert
President, Kansas Policy Institute

Connor Boyack
President, Libertas Institute (Utah)

Michael J. Reitz
Executive Vice President, Mackinac Center for Public Policy (Michigan)

Matthew Gagnon
CEO, Maine Heritage Policy Center

Carl Copeland
Executive Director, Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance

Jameson Taylor, Ph.D.
Vice President for Policy, Mississippi Center for Public Policy 

Robert Fellner
Policy Director, Nevada Policy Research Institute

Douglas Kellogg
Executive Director, Ohioans for Tax Reform

Daniel J Erspamer
CEO, The Pelican Institute for Public Policy (Louisiana)

Lorenzo Montanari
Executive Director, Property Rights Alliance

David Y. Denholm
President, Public Service Research Council 

Mike Stenhouse
CEO, Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity

Paul J. Gessing
President, Rio Grande Foundation (New Mexico)

Bette Grande
CEO, Roughrider Policy Center ND

Karen Kerrigan
President & CEO, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Maureen Blum
Founder and Principal, Strategic Coalitions & Initiatives, LLC

Tim Andrews
Executive Director, Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Lynn Taylor
President, Tertium Quids (Virginia)

Christian N. Braunlich
President, Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy (Virginia)

Carl Bearden
CEO, United for Missouri

Suzi Voyles
Georgia President for Eagle Forum
Georgia State Director for Maggie’s List

Rick Esenberg
President and General Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty

Worker Rights Alliance (Washington)

Heather Greenaway
Executive Director, Workforce Fairness Institute

Carol Platt Liebau
President, Yankee Institute for Public Policy (Connecticut)


Norquist Letter to Romney Regarding Capital Gains

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch on Friday, September 13th, 2019, 5:49 PM PERMALINK

Today, ATR President Grover Norquist sent a letter to Senator Mitt Romney (R-Utah) regarding indexing capital gains taxes to inflation. The full text of the letter can be found here and below: 

To: Senator Mitt Romney
From: Grover Norquist
Cc: Republican Members of Congress

September 13, 2019 

Dear Senator Romney,

A few weeks ago you said you were “looking at” joining the hard left in the Democrat party in imposing a national energy tax on all Americans – a carbon tax – along with Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, and Pete Buttigieg.

Today in a letter you not only undermined Senator Ted Cruz and 20 other Senate Republicans, you misstated President Trump’s position on ending the taxation of inflation in capital gains.

President Trump has repeatedly, correctly stated that he knows he has the legal authority to end the taxation of inflation in capital gains by allowing taxpayers to calculate cost as “cost plus inflation.”  

The President is aware that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that agencies have that power in Verizon v. FCC in 2002. Even before that finding, Supreme Court lawyer Chuck Cooper made it clear that the President and Treasury Secretary have this authority. That was only made more obvious with the 2002 Verizon decision which Cooper detailed in his updated 2012 legal memo.

You also used regrettable left-wing rhetoric. According to the IRS 24,139,920 American households had a capital gains filing in the most recent year of available data. Eighty-two percent of these households made less than $200,000 that year and 56 percent made less than $100,000.

In your home state of Utah, 181,300 households had a capital gains filing. Eighty-four percent of these Utah households made less than $200,000 per year and 57 percent made less than $100,000 per year.

As noted by the Tax Foundation, “the lower rate on capital gains does not mitigate the inflation issue, as taxpayers still face tax liability whether they made a real gain or real loss.”

As also noted by the Tax Foundation: “Indexing provides important protection for all citizens, even those who have no capital gains, by reducing government’s ability and incentive to raise effective tax rates by inflating the currency.”

White House economists and Congressional Republicans together with free market groups and the business community in all 50 states will continue to push this initiative forward and get it enacted before the 2020 election.

You are putting yourself on the wrong side of the two biggest divisions between the two parties today: Democrats want to tax energy with a carbon tax while Republicans are unified in opposition. Democrats like Joe Biden want to increase the capital gains tax burden, and Republicans want to reduce the capital gains tax burden. The only way to reduce the capital gains tax burden between now and 2020 is through executive action.

It is wrong for the government to tax inflation. Ending the inflation tax will help create jobs and raise wages. ATR will continue to highlight the tens of millions of Americans who will benefit directly from ending the inflation tax, many of whom live in Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Good policy is good politics. 

Ending the inflation tax on capital gains has broad and deep support. The growing list of supporters will not be discouraged by your letter.

Sincerely, 

Grover G. Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore


Czech Republic Introduces Digital Tax on American Tech Companies

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Andreas Hellmann on Friday, September 13th, 2019, 5:42 PM PERMALINK

The Czech Republic joins a growing number of European countries that are imposing a harmful digital services tax on American tech companies. The Czech Ministry of Finance has drafted a law introducing a 7 % digital tax on revenue from online advertising, the sale of user data, and inter-mediation services, following the European Commission’s similar proposal from 2018. 

The Czech government expects the levy to be introduced in mid-2020 and estimates the tax will generate CZK 2.1billion ($90 million)  in additional revenue in 2020, and CZK 5 billion ($215 million) annually after that.
 
The tax hits companies with global turnover higher than 750 million euro annually and with sales within the Czech Republic over 1.9million euro.
Finance Minister Alena Schillerova is following the French approach saying that the tax will apply until global tax measures are agreed at the OECD level. 

Make no mistake that the Czech digital tax is discriminatory. By using revenue as a proxy for nationality, the Czech Republic is looking to pillage the accounts of American tech companies in order to get their “fair share” of tax. While the OECD is working to develop a global consensus on the issue, the Czech have decided to go ahead and follow France, risking worsening the Czech-American relationship and a massive blow back on future trade.

Photo Credit: 3D_Maennchen


Podcast: Lessons from the Battleground. Ohio Cuts Taxes, Regs, But Ups Spending.

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted on Friday, September 13th, 2019, 5:39 PM PERMALINK

The Buckeye State is making progress for taxpayers, with some tax cuts, regulatory reform, and more. While setting some good examples, the state's Medicaid expansion and rising spending levels aren't examples other states want to follow. Buckeye Institute's Greg Lawson joins the podcast to talk about all this and more.


Elizabeth Warren is Still Dodging the Middle Class Tax Question

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Adam Sabes on Thursday, September 12th, 2019, 9:19 PM PERMALINK

Democrat presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren yet again dodged questions asking if the middle class would see a tax increase under her proposed “Medicare for All” plan during the ABC debate on Thursday night.

Here is the key exchange:

George Stephanopoulos: “Senator Warren, let me take that to you, particularly on what Senator Biden was saying there about health care. He's praised Bernie Sanders about being candid, says that Senator Sanders has been candid about the fact that middle class taxes are going to go up and most of private insurance is going to be eliminated. Will you make that same admission?” 

Elizabeth Warren: [dodge]

Stephanopoulos: “Direct question. You said middle class families are going to pay less. But will middle class taxes go up to for pay for the program? I know you believe the deductibles and premiums go down.” 

Warren: [dodge]


Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist said: "If Elizabeth Warren will not admit the obvious—that her wild spending will require broad-based tax hikes on the middle class—in a Democrat debate, will she ever tell the truth in a general election?"

While Warren won't admit that the middle class will pay more in taxes as a result of Medicare for All, Sanders openly admits it.

“Yes, [the middle class] will pay more in taxes,” Sanders said during the June Democratic debate on NBC.

Jeff Greenfield from Politico noted that Warren could be holding back an admission that Medicare for All will lead to higher taxes for the middle class because she is worried about losing voters. Greenfield wrote:

"This leaves an obvious question that will follow her through the campaign: “Bernie Sanders is frank enough to acknowledge the obvious, and then explain it. Why won’t you?” The answer may be as simple as: If you say you will raise middle class taxes, an unmeasurable but likely significant number of voters simply will not bother to wait for the rest of your explanation."

As ATR noted earlier, Medicare for All would require anywhere from $32 trillion and $36 trillion in higher taxes over the course of the next decade.

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

See more:

Video: 2020 Democrats Promise Higher Taxes

Biden Caught Lying about GOP Tax Cuts

Bill De Blasio: “As President, I Would Issue a Robot Tax”

Bill De Blasio: “As President, I would issue a robot tax”

Biden Endorses Carbon Tax

Kamala Harris Calls for Ban on Plastic Straws

Elizabeth Warren's Climate Plan Calls For "Reversing" GOP Tax Cuts

Sanders: We’re Going to “Absolutely” Raise the Corporate Tax Rate

Elizabeth Warren on Corporate Tax Cuts: “I really want to see them rolled back.”

Bill de Blasio Calls for Corporate Tax Rate Hike

Amy Klobuchar: Raise the Corporate Tax Rate to 25%

Biden on capital gains tax: “We should raise the tax back to 39.6 percent”

Kamala Harris Threatens to Repeal GOP Tax Cuts 3 Times in August

Joe Biden: “I’m going to eliminate most all” of GOP Tax Cuts

Cory Booker Calls for Repeal of "Toxic" GOP Tax Cuts

Marianne Williamson Joins Dems Calling for TCJA Repeal

Kamala Admits Her Plan Would End Employer Insurance

“Medicare for All” is a Middle Class Tax Increase, Say Dems

Elizabeth Warren Can’t Dodge the Middle Class Tax Question Forever

Dem Socialized Healthcare Plan Will Lead to Middle Class Tax Hikes

Elizabeth Warren "Wealth Tax" was described by the WaPo editorial board as having "a certain authoritarian odor"

Supposed “Moderate” Democrat John Delaney Wants to Impose Carbon Tax on the American People

Klobuchar Suggests Capital Gains Tax Hike and “Doing Something” About TCJA

VIDEO: 2020 Democrats Will Raise Your Taxes

Kamala Harris Campaign Headquarters Located in Opportunity Zone Created by GOP Tax Cuts

Julian Castro: “We’re going to have to raise taxes.”

Biden and Harris: Raise the Corporate Tax Rate

Biden tweet: Ignore the fact I’ve already called for middle class tax hikes

Kamala Harris: “I Will Reverse” Trump’s Tax Cuts

Kamala Harris Calls for Repeal of Tax Cuts Four Times in Three Minutes

Julian Castro Caught Lying about GOP Tax Cuts

NYT: Bidencare Will be Funded by “rolling back” GOP tax cuts

Kamala Harris: I Will Repeal “That Tax Bill”

Cory Booker: “I do support” Imposing Carbon Tax on Americans

Harris: “We are Going to Repeal That Tax Bill”

Biden: I Will Raise Corporate Tax Rate to 28%

Kamala Harris Continues to Lie about Tax Cuts

Jay Inslee: “Repeal the Trump Tax Cuts”

Biden Running Ads to “Repeal Trump’s Tax Cuts.”

VIDEO: Ten Times Biden Threatened to Repeal Tax Cuts

Here’s what happens if Dems repeal tax cuts

VIDEO: 10 Times 2020 Democrats Have Threatened to Repeal TCJA

Kamala Harris: When I Enter Office "I Will Repeal" the TCJA

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.”

 


Trump repeals Obama's Waters of the U.S. regulation

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Mike Palicz on Thursday, September 12th, 2019, 6:02 PM PERMALINK

President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule today repealing the Obama Administration's 2015 Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, an overreaching federal regulation which defined what natural features are considered federal waters. The new rule is projected to deliver $1.3 billion in regulatory savings and is in line with President Trump’s Executive Order directing the EPA to review and possibly replace the Obama administration’s definition.

The previous administration’s regulation went beyond the intended purpose of the law and amounted to a power grab designed to place control in the hands of the government over private landowners and developers.

Under the Obama rule, regulation expanded to include ephemeral features in its definition of federal water, meaning land that only temporarily held water could be regulated as federal water if the water eventually flowed into a navigable water. Expanding the scope of the definition gave the federal government greater control in permitting in certain activities such as land development.

Today’s action restores the regulatory text prior to the Obama administration’s 2015 rule and sets the table for the Trump EPA to issue a second, still forthcoming, rule intended to provide states greater flexibility and local control.

“Today’s action is “Step 1” of our response to the president’s executive order. Step 1 repeals the 2015 rule and recodifies the longstanding and familiar regulatory text that existed previously. It also sets the stage for “Step 2” – our new proposed “waters of the United States” definition,” EPA Administrator Wheeler explained in an op-ed released today.

Americans for Tax Reform applauds President Trump and Administrator Wheeler for taking a crucial first step towards revising the Obama Administration’s overreaching definition of federal waters. ATR also encourages the administration to finalize its Step 2 rule and provide landowners greater certainty regarding what is, and what is not, a federal water.

Photo Credit: Valery Balievich

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Elizabeth Warren's New Tax Would Crush Millions of Americans and Small Businesses

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tom Hebert on Thursday, September 12th, 2019, 4:43 PM PERMALINK

Massachusetts liberal and 2020 Democrat presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren today released yet another proposal that would raise taxes on millions of Americans and businesses. This proposal would disproportionately impact small businesses that operate on tight margins, and the plan’s multiple tax hikes will eventually hit every American. 

Warren’s plan, entitled “Expanding Social Security,” imposes a new 14.8 percent payroll, or “FICA,” tax on individuals making more than $250,000 a year. The Warren tax is evenly split between employers and employees at 7.4 percent each. This new tax is levied on top of the current 12.4 percent FICA tax, which is split evenly between employees and employers at 6.2 percent each. 

The plan also imposes a new 14.8 percent tax on investment income for individuals making over $250,000 a year and families making more than $400,000 a year. This new tax is modeled after Obamacare’s disastrous National Investment Income Tax (NIIT), a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income that ended up targeting retirees and the disabled.

The Warren plan levies these new taxes to fund an unsustainable benefit increase. Under her proposal, beneficiaries will receive an extra $200 a month or $2,400 a year. This benefit increase applies to all current and future beneficiaries. 

The Warren plan is nonsensical on its face. Instead of working sensibly to reform Social Security by raising the retirement age or means testing benefits, Warren doubles down on the existing failed structure.

As it stands right now, the Social Security Trust Fund is heading towards complete collapse. A recent report from the nonpartisan Social Security Trustees forecasts that the fund will be totally depleted by 2035. This insolvency will automatically trigger 20 percent across-the-board benefit cuts for retirees. As of 2018, Social Security provides income to approximately 67 million Americans

While Warren claims that her plan targets the rich to “fix” Social Security, her misguided tax hikes would eventually ensnare every taxpayer. As mentioned before, the annual salary cap for FICA increases year over year. Eventually, the 12.4 percent payroll tax cap will reach $250,000. This will lead to Americans making between $0 and $250,000 in wages paying a 6.2 percent tax every dollar they earn, and Americans making more than $250,000 paying an additional 7.4 percent tax on every dollar they earn in perpetuity. This assumes that Warren does not immediately raise the wage cap to $250,000 (she is unclear about this in her proposal) or does not raise the FICA payroll tax. 

This plan is simply one amongst many tax hikes that Warren has proposed. Since launching her campaign, Warren has proposed a wealth tax, a gun tax, a $1 trillion business tax hike, a carbon tax, and full repeal of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Warren has also endorsed socialist Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) Medicare for All proposal and far-left Rep. Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez’s (D-N.Y.) Green New Deal, plans that would raise taxes on millions of Americans. 

The Warren plan for Social Security is simply another tax hike on American individuals and businesses alike. While Warren frames her proposal as raising taxes on the wealthy, the reality is that it would eventually ensnare all Americans and small businesses in a massive tax hike trap. 

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore


×