Kamala Harris: I Will Repeal “That Tax Bill”

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Adam Sabes on Monday, July 15th, 2019, 4:23 PM PERMALINK

2020 Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris said she would repeal the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act if elected president, during a campaign event in Somersworth, New Hampshire on Sunday.

On day one, we’re going to repeal that tax bill that benefitted the top one percent and the biggest corporations in this country,” Harris said, according to a video on Facebook.

Since the start of her campaign, she’s called for repealing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act at least six times.

“On day one, we are going to repeal that tax bill that benefits the top one percent and the biggest corporations in our country,” Harris said in Gilford, NH on Sunday.

“On day one, we’re going to repeal that tax bill that benefits the top 1% and the biggest corporations in our country,” during a campaign stop in Florence, South Carolina on July 7.

“On day one, we’re going to repeal that tax bill that benefited the top 1% and the biggest corporations in our country,” during a campaign stop in Birmingham, Alabama on June 7.

“On day one, we gonna repeal that tax bill that benefited the top one percent and the biggest corporations in this country,” Harris said during a stop in New Hampshire on May 15.

While Harris was speaking at a NAACP fundraiser in May, she threatened to “get rid of the whole thing,” if elected president.

A promise to repeal the tax cuts is a promise to raise taxes. If the tax cuts were repealed:

  • A family of four earning the median income of $73,000 would see a $2,000 tax increase.
  • A single parent (with one child) making $41,000 would see a $1,300 tax increase.
  • Millions of low and middle income households would be stuck paying the Obamacare individual mandate tax.
  • Utility bills would go up in all 50 states as a direct result of the corporate income tax increase.
  • Small employers will face a tax increase due to the repeal of the 20% deduction for small business income.
  • The USA would have the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world.
  • Taxes would rise in every state and every congressional district.
  • The Death Tax would ensnare more families and businesses.
  • The AMT would snap back to hit millions of households.
  • Millions of households would see their child tax credit cut in half.
  • Millions of households would see their standard deduction cut in half, adding to their tax complexity as they are forced to itemize their deductions and deal with the shoebox full of receipts on top of the refrigerator.

 

In New Hampshire, where Harris promised to repeal the TCJA, households making the average income, $73,381, received an average tax cut of around $1,435, according to a recent Tax Foundation report. According to the same report, every congressional district in America received a tax cut.

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

More evidence of the benefits flowing from the tax cuts can be found in a recent H&R Block report, which stated, “overall tax liability is down 24.9 percent on average.”

In Harris’s home state of California, the report found that residents received a 27.1% reduction in their taxes, on average. In the state where Harris made the tax hike threat – New Hampshire – residents received a 25.2 percent tax cut on average.

Even left-leaning and establishment media outlets confirm the good news arising from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act:

 

See also:

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 Cadillac Tax Repeal

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Spencer Peck and Alex Hendrie on Monday, July 15th, 2019, 4:12 PM PERMALINK

The House of Representatives will this week vote to repeal the tax on employer provided healthcare, or ‘Cadillac Tax.’ This is good news for American workers and businesses, as it is an opportunity to eliminate one of Obamacare’s most costly and unpopular tax hikes. Americans for Tax Reform fully supports repealing the Cadillac Tax.

Repealing the Cadillac Tax is a $193 billion tax cut over the next decade, according to a recent CBO report.

The provision imposes a 40% excise tax on employer-based coverage plans which exceed $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. Obamacare originally set the Cadillac Tax to go into effect in 2018, but Congress voted to delay it, and the tax has yet to see implementation. This upcoming vote will determine whether or not the tax should be repealed outright. 

The Cadillac Tax threatens the affordability and quality of health care for millions of Americans.  According to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation, nearly half of all companies which offer health insurance to their employees could face the tax by 2030. According to Cigna, the Cadillac Tax could cost families with high quality insurance plans as much as $3,400 per year.

Employers would be forced to raise deductibles/copays in the plans they offer their workers in order to avoid the Cadillac Tax thresholds, and any remaining costs from the tax could result in lower salaries. In fact, the left-leaning Tax Policy Center reported that, “70 percent of the revenue raised by the Cadillac tax will be through the indirect channel of higher income and payroll taxes, rather than through excise taxes collected from insurers.”

The Cadillac Tax penalizes quality health insurance. It raises taxes and reduces coverage for workers, while also making it harder for small businesses to offer healthcare to their employees. In short, it transfers money from workers to government officials who think they are best suited to manage your own healthcare. This is what makes the tax so unpopular, with 81% of respondents opposing it in a 2018 poll.

The Cadillac Tax is just one of Obamacare’s many tax hikes. The Health Insurance Tax, for example, taxes insurance premiums and could cost the middle class and small businesses more than $130 billion over a decade. The Medical Device Tax imposes a 2.3% excise tax on commonly used medical devices, reducing innovation and costing tens of thousands of jobs. Both of these taxes require urgent action, as they are set to go into effect on January 1, 2020. Congress should ideally repeal these provisions, but they must at least be delayed as soon as possible.

The House should vote to fully repeal the Cadillac Tax on Wednesday, and Congress should work to eliminate the myriad of tax increases Obamacare has foisted on the American people, without imposing new tax hikes in their place.

Photo Credit: Guy Middleton


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

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Adam Sabes on Monday, July 15th, 2019, 3:51 PM PERMALINK

2020 Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker said that “I do support” a carbon tax during a campaign event in Exeter, New Hampshire on Saturday. 

[Click here to watch] 

“Do you plan to institute a carbon tax and increase emission standards for businesses?,” a person asked the candidate at the event.

 “I don't think we can meet our climate goals with somehow without somehow pricing carbon....but yes, I do support that, okay, Booker responded.

Carbon taxes are so very unpopular with voters. In fact, carbon tax advocates can’t even get a carbon tax passed in a single blue state, as this timeline shows.

Booker’s comment is consistent with what he told the New York Times in April when asked if he supports a “federal carbon tax.”

A federal price on carbon should be one part of a comprehensive response by the federal government to the threat of climate change. The proceeds should be paid out as a dividend in a progressive way that ensures that our climate policies are also reducing inequality and not burdening everyday families.

However, Booker’s carbon tax plan would undoubtedly hurt “everyday americans,” and would require alarge bureaucracy to implement and run.

Most devastating for voters, however, is that it will impose severe tax increases on Social Security recipients.

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

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

report published by the pro-carbon tax Citizens' Climate Lobby acknowledges the following:

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

Regarding Social Security recipients, the report states:

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

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

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

Citizens' Climate Lobby was caught on tape admitting carbon tax cost and complexity is "something that we at CCL can tend to soft-pedal."

It's no wonder 75 conservative groups wrote a letter to congress stating: "We oppose any carbon tax."

Carbon taxes also saddle state and local governments with huge costs. For example, a school district in Calgary was forced to kick 400 kids off the school bus program in order to pay a $3.3 million carbon tax bill.


Clean Slate Will Change Lives & Improve Pennsylvania Criminal Justice System

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Laurel Duggan on Monday, July 15th, 2019, 3:31 PM PERMALINK

Pennsylvania has begun automatically sealing the criminal records of individuals who were either never convicted, or have served time for lower-level misdemeanors and kept a good record. This Clean Slate legislation will be life-changing for those who struggle to find jobs and housing because of old criminal records.

House Bill 1419 calls for the state to automatically seal criminal records for cases in which a person was sentenced to less than one year, once they have gone ten years without any new convictions punishable by more than one year in prison. Those sentenced to less than two years for second- or third-degree misdemeanors may apply for record-sealing after the same ten-year interim.

Important exceptions apply to violent crimes including murder, child endangerment, kidnapping, and sexual offenses. Note that the average offender in Pennsylvania serves 3.8 years; this bill will only apply to the lowest-level offenders in the system.

The bill also ends the system in which individuals carry criminal records for life for crimes that they were never convicted of.

When a person is charged with a crime but not convicted, the accusation and its stigma can follow a person around for life. Khalia Robinson experienced this firsthand.

While six months pregnant, Ms. Robinson visited a crowded Chinese restaurant, where she accidentally knocked over a pile of CDs with her large stomach. Before she could finish picking them back up, she was arrested and charged with selling bootleg CDs. She was never convicted, but the charges remained on her record and haunted her for years.

“When you pull up my FBI record, it looks like I have a rap sheet as long as a thief,” she said.

Sealing criminal records for charges that never resulted in convictions is a commonsense measure to protect due process will prevent people from being discriminated against for crimes they did not commit.

For those who did commit crimes, these reforms are just as important.

A person who commits a low-level crime, serves their sentence, and goes ten years without any serious new convictions has clearly demonstrated that they are not a danger to society and are very unlikely to recidivate. However, such individuals can struggle to find jobs due to their criminal records. Job applicants with criminal histories receive sixty percent fewer callbacks from employers than their peers.

Jobs bring about stability and security; they allow individuals to provide for their families and weave themselves into their communities. These are keys to incentivizing long-term good behavior, and they are some of the most important elements of a satisfying life.

The same is true for housing. Eighty percent of landlords conduct background checks, so criminal records can hurt a person’s chances of finding a place to live even when charges are decades old.

Without a job or a place to live, people with criminal records are likely to fall into government dependency, homelessness, or criminal activity.

Rep. Sheryl Delozier (R-88th District) and Rep. Jordan Harris (D-186th District) deserve recognition for their work on this legislation. An estimated one million people will have their records sealed now that the bill has gone into effect.  

Photo Credit: Harvey Barrison


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

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Adam Sabes on Monday, July 15th, 2019, 11:15 AM PERMALINK

Kamala Harris said that she would “repeal that tax bill” on “day one” during a campaign event in New Hampshire on Sunday.

[Click here to watch]

On day one, we are going to repeal that tax bill that benefits the top one percent and the biggest corporations in our country,” Harris said in Gilford, NH on Sunday.

Since the start of her campaign, she’s called for repealing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act at least five times.

“On day one, we’re going to repeal that tax bill that benefits the top 1% and the biggest corporations in our country,” during a campaign stop in Florence, South Carolina on July 7.

“On day one, we’re going to repeal that tax bill that benefited the top 1% and the biggest corporations in our country,” during a campaign stop in Birmingham, Alabama on June 7.

“On day one, we gonna repeal that tax bill that benefited the top one percent and the biggest corporations in this country,” Harris said during a stop in New Hampshire on May 15.

While Harris was speaking at a NAACP fundraiser in May, she threatened to “get rid of the whole thing,” if elected president.

A promise to repeal the tax cuts is a promise to raise taxes. If the tax cuts were repealed:

  • A family of four earning the median income of $73,000 would see a $2,000 tax increase.

  • A single parent (with one child) making $41,000 would see a $1,300 tax increase.

  • Millions of low and middle income households would be stuck paying the Obamacare individual mandate tax.

  • Utility bills would go up in all 50 states as a direct result of the corporate income tax increase.

  • Small employers will face a tax increase due to the repeal of the 20% deduction for small business income.

  • The USA would have the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world.

  • Taxes would rise in every state and every congressional district.

  • The Death Tax would ensnare more families and businesses.

  • The AMT would snap back to hit millions of households.

  • Millions of households would see their child tax credit cut in half.

  • Millions of households would see their standard deduction cut in half, adding to their tax complexity as they are forced to itemize their deductions and deal with the shoebox full of receipts on top of the refrigerator.

In New Hampshire, where Harris promised to repeal the TCJA, households making the average income, $73,381, received an average tax cut of around $1,435, according to a recent Tax Foundation report. According to the same report, every congressional district in America received a tax cut.

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

More evidence of the benefits flowing from the tax cuts can be found in a recent H&R Block report, which stated, “overall tax liability is down 24.9 percent on average.”

In Harris’s home state of California, the report found that residents received a 27.1% reduction in their taxes, on average. In the state where Harris made the tax hike threat – New Hampshire – residents received a 25.2 percent tax cut on average.

Even left-leaning and establishment media outlets confirm the good news arising from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act:

See also:

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.”


Expensive, Unnecessary Nuclear Bailout Must Be Avoided in PA

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Caroline Sayers on Friday, July 12th, 2019, 1:47 PM PERMALINK

Pennsylvania is currently home to one of the strongest energy markets in America, yet the state legislature has been considering legislation which would jeopardize the state’s future ability to stay competitive in the energy sector.

Luckily, plans to prop up two of Pennsylvania’s five nuclear plants with taxpayer dollars, have fallen on the back-burner.

The plan would update the Alternative Energy Portfolio to allow carbon-free energy producers, including nuclear plants, to gain access to more tax credits in order to further subsidize them. The state would add a category of zero-emission power reserved largely for nuclear producers to supply 50 percent of the state’s electricity demand. This intricate bailout request comes after nuclear plants were already subsidized to the tune of almost $10 million from taxpayers to cover “stranded costs”. 

It’s good the bill has sputtered, the bad news is the push is likely to be renewed in the fall, perhaps with different legislation. However, following Exelon’s announcement that Three Mile Island will close, pressure could be amped up to do something to save it.

Three Mile Island was the only plant out of five in the state that is not profitable, and the other four are projected to make more than $600 million in profit this year. Arguing for a bailout without Three Mile Island will be tougher going forward.

Though bill sponsors pegged the cost at $500 million, an independent analysis found that the plan will cost around $900 million a year. There is no end date, meaning ratepayers will pay more on their energy bills indefinitely, and the burden may increase over time.

Lawmakers will be putting other energy companies at a disadvantage. The state's natural gas industry and energy analysts say the bill will undermine the state’s competitive electricity market. The Industrial Energy Consumers of Pennsylvania and American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity say that the bailout would force them to cut jobs.

The plan would be merely putting a band-aid on the larger issue. Public Utility Commissioner Andrew Place sent a memo to members of the state Senate stating that the proposal does more harm than good, stating:

“While human health and environmental quality; job creation and retention; and maintaining a robust tax, base are all cornerstone public policy goals, this bill, in its current form, is far from the least cost mechanism to achieve these goals.”

Other states that have enacted similar schemes are already facing legal challenges over taxpayers dealing with higher electricity prices, and these policies have added billions of dollars in costs for consumers.

Pennsylvania legislators should let this sleeping dog lie. 

Photo Credit: Flicker - Brad K.


ATR Joins Free Market Coalition Supporting Trump’s CAFE Reform

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Mike Palicz on Friday, July 12th, 2019, 12:23 PM PERMALINK

A coalition of 30 free market organizations sent a letter to President Trump yesterday voicing full support for his administration’s proposed rule to reform the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) mandate.

The coalition was comprised of leading conservative and free market think tanks and organizations including Competitive Enterprise Institute, FreedomWorks and the American Energy Alliance along with a host of state-based think tanks from across the country.

In the letter, the signing organizations urged the President to revoke the waiver granted to the state of California under President Obama which allowed California to effectively dictate national standards at the expense of car buyers.

 Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, issued the following statement:

“California bureaucrats should not decide what kind of cars and trucks Americans are allowed to drive. That decision rightly belongs to consumers, not regulators. Californians may have to live under the thumb of California politicians and bureaucrats but no one in Iowa or Michigan voted for California’s nanny state rules.

Allowing the government of California to dictate national standards for the rest of the country has led to higher vehicle prices for consumers while forcing them to subsidize vehicles preferred by California’s regulators. ATR urges President Trump to maintain his stance on reforming the federal fuel mandate and to revoke the special waiver granted to California under the Obama administration.”

The full content of the letter and list of signatories can be read here.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

More from Americans for Tax Reform

There are no related posts.


Biden's Tax Hypocrisy

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch on Thursday, July 11th, 2019, 2:00 PM PERMALINK

(Op-ed by Ryan Ellis -- IRS Enrolled Agent and President of the Center for a Free Economy -- as published in The Washington Examiner)

Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden this week released several years of income tax returns, probably hoping the story would be that he did so and President Trump has not.

However, Richard Rubin from the Wall Street Journal found a much more interesting nugget: in 2017 and 2018, Joe Biden and his wife ran $13 million of profits through two subchapter-S corporations. In so doing, they avoided $500,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes they would have paid if they instead reported the income as sole proprietors directly on their 1040 income tax returns.

That’s because profits from an “S-corp” are subject to federal income tax, but not to the Social Security and Medicare tax. This is not true for sole proprietors, who are liable for both layers of tax in full.

Biden, incidentally, is campaigning in favor of an across-the-board tax increase.

If this all sounds familiar to veteran politicos, it’s the same tax problem that helped bring down Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards in 2004.

To be clear, the use of S-corps is a perfectly legal tax avoidance strategy deployed commonly in family businesses across the country. It is not tax evasion, but it most certainly is a tax strategy — and if one takes Biden’s history on the matter seriously, it's a tax strategy he thinks is a loophole.

To be equally clear, Joe Biden is a hypocrite for using S-corporations in this way for at least four reasons. This is, after all, a man who said that paying more in taxes was a “patriotic act." [Click here to continue reading]

Photo Credit: Marc Nozell


Norquist on French Digital Services Tax: An Unprecedented Danger to American Growth

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted on Thursday, July 11th, 2019, 12:46 PM PERMALINK

Today, ATR President Grover Norquist sent a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer in support of the Section 301 investigation into the French digital services tax. The full text of the letter can be seen below, and here

 

Dear Representative Lighthizer: 

I support and commend your efforts to initiate a 301 investigation into the French Government’s Digital Services Tax. 

France is trying to cheat the international rules governing taxable jurisdictions. It is the dream of every politician to tax people who cannot vote him or her out of office. 

The French government designed this tax in a way to exclusively target American companies as there is no comparable digital industry in France and the European Union. The tax will impose a huge financial burden on American companies and workers. 

The French Digital Services Tax poses unprecedented dangers to tax competition, innovation, and American and European economic growth. The new tax represents a dramatic and irreversible shift for the international tax system. We hoped that the escalation of this issue could be avoided. The tax damages the transatlantic relationship and could lead to a spiral of retaliation. 

It is of the utmost importance for the United States to make its voice heard on every level and to take stronger action in order to counsel France and the other European countries that are passing similar taxes to refrain from their unilateral actions and commit to the OECD negotiations. 

The focus should now be on multilateral solutions that are being developed by the OECD at a global level, but as always, we strongly caution against tariff remedies. 

I thank you again and encourage you to continue this process. Should you have any questions or comments please contact Andreas Hellmann at ahellmann@atr.org

 

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore


Trump Administration Strikes Back Against French Digital Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Andreas Hellmann & Kevin Adams on Thursday, July 11th, 2019, 11:28 AM PERMALINK

Just hours after France became the first major economy to implement a digital services tax (DST) on American companies, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer announced that the United States would investigate the proposal. The main concern that Lighthizer expressed in a statement Wednesday is that the tax would unfairly target American companies such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google.

Lighthizer will be able to investigate for up to one year to determine if the tax is explicitly discriminating against and harming U.S. technology companies. This is authorized under Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act, the same vehicle used by the Trump administration to impose tariffs on China.

The French DST is a 3% tax on the revenues of technology companies that earn at least 750 million Euros in worldwide revenue, of which at least 25 million is earned in France. The law was written in order to exempt smaller and French companies and only target the big American tech giants. The European Union previously considered a digital services tax to apply across all of its member states but scrapped the idea after opposition from the Nordic and other smaller low-tax EU member countries.

Praise came from both sides of the aisle on the administration’s move to launch a Section 301 investigation. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, released a joint statement applauding the decision. They also noted that “the United States would not need to pursue this path if other countries would abandon these unilateral actions and focus their energies on the multilateral process that is underway at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.”

The move by the Trump administration is to investigate the French DST under Section 301 is a smart one. If the French tax was allowed to be enacted without repercussion, it would send a signal to the world that American companies are open for pillaging. This strong, measured response from the administration serves as a warning that the United States will not tolerate the exploitation of its businesses by foreign tax authorities. 

Photo Credit: Amaury Laporte


×