Consultants often try to convince elected officials that Americans don’t mind tax increases. Such consultants cite questionable opinion polls. But the most accurate polls are elections, and the ballot box results show Americans consistently reject tax increases.

A review by Americans for Tax Reform of the past three election cycles -- 2018, 2016, and 2014 -- shows that voters nationwide have rejected every major tax increase ballot measure:

2018

Arizona voters prevent new tax hikes - Proposition 126, which prohibited the state and local governments from enacting new taxes or increasing tax rates on services performed in Arizona, was passed with 64% voting YES.

Washington state carbon tax defeated - For the second time in a row, blue state Washington voters firmly rejected a carbon tax. Initiative 1631 was defeated by a 56.3% - 43.7% margin.

Missouri voters reject gas tax hike - Proposition D, which would have hiked Missouri's gas tax by more than 58%, raising the rate from 17 to 27 cents per gallon, was rejected by more than 54% of Missouri voters.

Utah voters reject gas tax hike - Utah voters sent a clear message to state lawmakers they do not want them to even think about raising the state gas tax. Non-binding Question 1 asked Utah voters if they wanted to advise the legislature to raise the state gas tax. Utah voters rejected the question with more than 65% voting NO.

Colorado voters reject massive personal and corporate income tax hikes -  Amendment 73, which would've imposed personal and corporate income tax hikes, was rejected by voters, with 56% voting NO.

Colorado voters defeat sales tax increase - Proposition 110, which would've raised the state sales tax, was rejected by voters, with 60% voting NO.

Maine voters reject payroll tax hike - Question 1, which would’ve enacted a payroll tax and non-wage income tax to fund a Universal Home Care Program was rejected by voters, with 62% voting NO.

South Dakota voters reject tobacco tax hike - Initiated Measure 25, which would have increased the excise tax on cigarettes, was rejected by voters, with 55% voting NO.

2016

Washington state rejects carbon tax - Initiative 732 got rejected by a 58.5% to 41.5% margin. The initiative would have phased in a $25 per metric ton carbon tax over a period of two years. After reaching $25 it would have continued to increase by 3.5% plus the rate of inflation until the tax reached $100.

Colorado rejects payroll and income tax hike – By a 79.9% to 20.3% margin, Colorado voters rejected Amendment 69, a massive tax increase that would have imposed a 10% payroll tax and a 10% tax on all non-payroll income.

Oklahoma rejects 22 percent sales tax hike  - State Question 779 got rejected by a 59.4% to 40.6% margin. State Question 779 would have hiked the sales tax by 22% (from 4.5% to 5.5%).

Oregon rejects business tax increase - By a 59.2% to 40.8% margin, Oregon voters rejected Measure 97 which would have implemented a 2.5% gross receipts tax on all corporate sales exceeding $25 million.

Colorado rejects tobacco tax increase - By a 53.7% to 46.3% margin, Colorado voters rejected Amendment 72, which would have increased the tobacco excise tax by $1.75 per 20-pack. Additionally, all other tobacco products excluding e-cigarettes would have been taxed at 62 percent of the manufacturer's list price.

Missouri rejects 23-cent cigarette tax increase - Missouri voters rejected Proposition A by 55.3% to 44.7% margin, which would have increased the cigarette tax by 23 cents per pack by 2021. Further, all other tobacco products would have been subject to an additional 5% sales tax.

Missouri rejects 60-cent cigarette tax increase  - By a 59.2% to 40.8% margin, Missouri voters rejected Constitutional Amendment 3, which would have raised the cigarette tax by 60 cents per 20-pack in 15 cent increments by 2020. Additionally, an 'equity assessment fee' of 67 cents per pack would have been imposed on manufacturers who did not sign the Tobacco Masters Settlement Agreement (TMSA) of 1998.

North Dakota rejects Tobacco Tax Increase - North Dakota voters rejected Initiated Statutory Measure 4 by 61.7% to 38.3%, which would have increased the state tobacco tax from 44 cents to $2.20 per pack. Also, it would have raised the tax on other tobacco products (including liquid nicotine and electronic vapor products) from 28 percent to 56 percent of the wholesale purchase price.

2014

Massachusetts voters eliminate a vote-less backdoor tax hike on taxpayers - Question 1: In deep blue Massachusetts, voters repealed a law that indexed the state gas tax to inflation by 53% – 47% 

Nevada voters defeat a two percent “margin tax” on businesses -  Question 3: In Harry Reid’s home state, voters defeated a proposed two percent "margin tax" on businesses by 80% – 20% . The revenue from the new tax was to be granted to the state’s public school districts.

Tennessee voters enshrined a prohibition on state and local income taxes in the state constitution by a vote of 66% – 34%

Georgia voters passed a state constitution cap on the state income tax - Amendment A: Voters enshrined in the state constitution a cap on the state income tax at the effective rate on January 1, 2015 by a vote of 74% – 26% . Therefore the state legislature is now constitutionally prohibited from increasing the state income tax rate any higher.

The Trump administration announced that it would no longer be in talks with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) over the Obama-era fuel economy standards. California holds a significant chip in these negotiations, as the state holds a waiver to establish its own standards for tailpipe emissions.

In a series of discussions, CARB has been defending Obama’s regulation, mandating that new cars average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2026. The Trump administration, however, has moved forward with its plan to freeze standards at 2020 levels.

The move to freeze standards ensures that consumers will not be burdened by new, unattainable, and costly government regulations. Under Obama’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, the cost of new automobiles would skyrocket. A 2016 analysis conducted by the Heritage Foundation suggested that the previous auto mandate increased the price of cars by $6,800 when compared to pre-regulation trends. The Trump administration’s plan to freeze current CAFE standards at 2020 levels will save $2,340 to the average cost of owning a new car, according to the EPA.

Not only does this decision save money; it saves lives. In deregulating the market, the Trump administration is opening the door for many consumers to purchase new cars. New cars are generally safer, and include options for safety features, like blind side detection and backup cameras. Figures from the administration suggest that the freeze could save upwards of 1,000 lives annually.

In ending these talks, Trump has signaled that he will not jeopardize the savings and safety of Americans in exchange for a regulation that does little for its intended outcome. Advocates for these standards suggest that the regulations decrease greenhouse gas emissions, but consumer behavior would suggest otherwise.

Because of the price increases associated with CAFE, many consumers are priced out of the market for new cars. This sector of the market continues in driving their old vehicles, which naturally are less fuel-efficient. By holding onto old vehicles, and in some cases, purchasing used cars, 13-16% of the expected fuel savings leak into the used car market. Additionally, the increased fuel efficiency of cars encourages those who can afford the new models to drive more. This phenomenon, known as the “rebound effect,” reduces estimated fuel savings by 32%.

Had the White House folded under California’s demands, the effect on climate change would be negligible. The DOT and the EPA have reported that in the best-case scenario, the difference between Trump’s 37 mpg number and Obama’s 54.5 mpg number would be 0.00004 degrees annually.

CAFE standards fail to serve the public good. They serve as another example of overregulation in the free market. Their dismissal is a win for the American consumer. For this decision, Americans for Tax Reform applaud President Trump, the EPA and the DOT.  

March 7, 2019

To: Members of the Ohio House of Representatives

From: Americans for Tax Reform

Dear Representative,

I write on behalf of Americans for Tax Reform and our supporters across the state of Ohio to urge you to avoid approving a straight-up gas tax increase as you move forward with the state budget process.

There are many opportunities to improve Ohio’s tax and regulatory climate, like pursuing reductions in income tax rates, it’s important to first do no harm. As such, I urge that you reject the aggressive, but misguided push to hike the state gas tax.

A gas tax hike does the greatest harm to households who can least afford it.

Coupled with gas tax prices that have been creeping up in Ohio, a gas tax hike would have especially adverse effects on the state’s lower income earners. The 2003 gas tax increase failed to meet revenue projections.

Also consider that a state gas tax increase would counteract the benefits of federal tax reform and eat into Ohio taxpayers’ federal tax cut savings. This is one of the reasons why Congress has declined to raise the federal gas tax, despite pressure for them to do so.

According to Strategas Research Partners, 60% of the federal income tax cut would be wiped out by a $0.25 gas tax increase and rising prices.

In addition to being bad policy, a gas tax increase is bad politics. Ballot measures to hike state gas taxes were resoundingly rejected in Missouri, Utah, and Washington State just last year. Between that and the throngs of French citizens now protesting President Emmanuel Macron’s gas tax hike, which he just suspended, it’s clear that gas tax hikes are a political loser, both at home and abroad.

A significant gas tax increase is also being proposed in Minnesota, by a new Democrat Governor, with a Democrat-controlled House. Ohio’s Republican-led government can definitely do better.

We thank you for your past, and continued efforts on reforms that enhance the liberty of Ohioans and their opportunities for success, like licensing reform, criminal justice reform, tax relief, and regulatory reform. We trust a better option than a straight-up gas tax increase will be found.

If you have any questions or if ATR can be of assistance, don’t hesitate to contact me or Doug Kellogg ATR State Projects Director, at dkellogg@atr.org or 202-785-0266. 

Sincerely,

Grover G. Norquist

President, Americans for Tax Reform

Choice and competition are what drive better options at lower prices for consumers. But a bill in the Nevada legislature would add regulations that would limit competition in the auto parts market, driving up costs for consumers, and crushing small businesses.

The legislation in question, Assembly Bill 173, is up for a vote in committee Thursday. It would stop Nevada residents from benefiting from the savings they can achieve when using non-Original Equipment Manufacturer automotive parts.

The government would get in the way of perfectly happy consumers and businesses who are doing just fine right now by adding hurdles, like permission slips, endless forms, and even outright banning the use of non-OEM parts in various cases.  Lower costs for consumers, healthy market competition, and lower insurance premiums would be placed at risk under AB 173.

Small businesses in the industry already face heavy regulation, and pay a hefty tax burden. Attacking them with even more restrictive regulation threatens their existence, and hurts the Nevada economy.

Nevadans who need to replace a car part should have the same choices and competitive market they enjoy today. Misguided, heavy-handed government regulation would only make their lives more expensive.