House Blueprint Calls for Free Market, Patient Centered Healthcare Reform
Congressional Republicans recently unveiled their blueprint to repeal and replace Obamacare with commonsense free-market alternatives. Obamacare has approached healthcare with a “government knows best” mentality, and the GOP blueprint draws a sharp contrast by calling for increased choice and competition in order to lower costs, improve quality, and ensure all Americans have access to the healthcare that best suits their individual needs.
The blueprint starts by repealing Obamacare and its taxes, mandates, slush funds, and wasteful spending programs. The proposal replaces these failed policies with a series of conservative, free market reforms that end a number of distortions and promote individual choice and responsibility. The blueprint also strengthens Medicare and Medicaid to ensure these programs are equipped to provide for the most vulnerable in our society, and calls for promoting and protecting medical innovation to ensure America remains a leader in life-saving and life-improving medicines.
Repeals Obamacare Taxes, Mandates, and Slush Funds
The blueprint calls for repeal of ALL Obamacare taxes including the chronic care tax, the individual mandate tax, the tax on Flexible Savings Accounts, the tax on Health Savings Accounts, the Cadillac tax on employer health insurance, the tax on medical devices, the tax on prescription medicine, the tax on employers, and the tax on health insurers.
The proposal also ends wasteful spending programs by repealing the “Obamacare Public Health” slush fund, and stopping risk corridor and reinsurance corporate welfare payments. Finally, the plan repeals the individual and employer mandates which needlessly penalize individuals and businesses.
Provides Greater Flexibility
In place of Obamacare, the House GOP blueprint calls for a healthcare “backpack” – insurance that is tailored to individual needs and allows flexibility. One centerpiece of this proposal replaces the flawed and highly wasteful Obamacare tax credit with an efficient flat credit that is adjusted based on age. This credit is refundable so that if a plan costs less than the credit, the individual can spend whatever is leftover through an HSA-like account.
This replaces the restrictive approach taken by Obamacare with a flexible alternative that allows individuals to choose healthcare that best fits their needs.
Expands Health Savings Accounts
Health savings accounts, or HSAs are tax-advantaged accounts which are used to pay for routine, out-of-pocket medical expenses. They are used in conjunction with insurance plans which tend to cover large and/or unexpected health events and allow individuals to make choices that best fit their needs.
The plan first eliminates the many restrictions that Obamacare placed on HSAs and then expands them to eliminate needless restrictions on contribution limits and accessibility. These reforms will better encourage healthcare freedom so Americans have access to patient centered care that best fits their needs.
Promotes Innovation
It takes about 14 years and $2 billion in research and development medical costs with more than 95 percent of drugs failing to make it through this long process. While this process is lengthy and costly, it inevitably leads to significant long-term health benefits and savings within the medical system. Obamacare has only made this arduous process worse with a tax on new medical devices, further slowing innovation.
The GOP blueprint calls for reforms to medical innovation based off the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act passed by the House last year. This plan calls for streamlining the innovation process by reforming the FDA so that new medicines can come online faster. The plan also calls for modernizing clinical trials, providing more appropriate incentives, removing regulatory uncertainty, and increased collaboration between stakeholders.
By protecting and promoting medical innovation this plan will allow for the creation of the next generation life-saving and life-threatening medicines that will ensure stronger, most cost effective healthcare solutions in future decades.
Protects Seniors
Medicare spending will double within the next ten years and the program is projected to become insolvent by 2030. This looming insolvency is addressed through a three step approach that also strengthens the program.
First, the plan repeals the needless Medicare regulations contained in Obamacare, like the Independent Payment Advisory Board and cuts to Medicare Advantage. Second, it adopts a series of smart reforms and updating out-of-date regulations that protect the patient doctor relationship and patient choice. Third, the proposal implements reforms that ensure Medicare is around for future generations by transitioning to a more competitive premium support model that does not disrupt the current program.
Reforms and Preserves Medicaid
This year, total Medicaid spending will reach $545 billion, even as the program has been plagued by high risk of fraud and inadequate oversight. For years, federal watchdogs have warned of millions in fraudulent or improper payments and countless cases of patient abuse, neglect, and theft. Under Obamacare, millions of able bodied adults have been added to Medicaid, even as the program is failing to provide care for our most vulnerable.
The GOP blueprint calls for addressing these issues through reforms to the funding structure that set more appropriate incentives that encourage resources to the nations most vulnerable. The program also provides states with better tools, resources, and flexibility by giving them the choice of a block grant or a per capita allotment. Streamlining the funding process will not only ensure that Medicaid enrollees have access to more appropriate care, it will also cut down on waste and promote more efficient allotment of resources.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
New Study Confirms the Obvious: PFC Hike Would Raise Airline Ticket Prices.
Last week, Congress released a new study on airport infrastructure funding. The study in part focuses on the impact of the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) – a government-imposed fee collected from enplaned passengers at commercial airports controlled by local and state governments. Revenue earned through the PFC program is used to fund airport improvement projects and is currently capped at $4.50 per enplanement at a maximum of $18 per round trip.
The study comes as Congress is expected to consider raising the PFC in the coming weeks. As taxes and fees already account for over 20% of the cost of a domestic airline ticket, Congress should be focused on reducing this burden placed upon consumers rather than adding to it. Americans for Tax Reform has continuously opposed efforts to raise the PFC and urges lawmakers to reject any effort to raise the cap on the PFC.
Key findings from the study:
- Raising the PFC cap will increase ticket prices for airline travelers - The study concludes that “an increase in the PFC cap would likely result in higher ticket prices for passengers traveling through airports that raised their PFC collections.” This finding is in line with a past study conducted by the Government Accountability Office which also concluded raising the PFC cap would increases ticket prices, causing “reduced passenger demand” that “could also marginally slow passenger growth and therefore the growth in revenues to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF).”
- Inflation is an invalid argument to raise the PFC – The authors of the study note that although inflation has caused the purchasing power of a dollar of PFC revenues to erode, aggregate PFC revenues have grown to outpace inflation. Here is the finding straight from the report:
“It is important to note that increases in the number of airports that charge a PFC, the number of airports that charge the maximum allowable PFC of $4.50, and the number of passengers at these airports have resulted in the inflation-adjusted value of total PFC collections increasing over time despite declines in the value of a single passenger’s PFC.”
Translation: airports collectively have greater purchasing power from their total PFC collections in 2018 than they did in 2000, the last time the PFC cap was raised.
- No evidence the PFC promotes competition between airlines – Proponents of raising the PFC cap often claim a higher PFC would promote competition between airlines as projects funded from PFC revenues don’t require the same sign-off from airlines that alternative funding sources necessitate, thus handing more control over airport expansion decisions back to airports. Airports, the argument goes, would then be less beholden to large airlines benefiting from restrictive leases of gates and other essential facilities.
However, it remains unclear that there is any data backing up this pro-competition assertion from those advocating for a PFC hike. The authors of the study point out that they are “not aware of any analysis that estimates the effect of PFCs on competition or prices at airports or city markets.”
In fact, reality has proven the PFC to have the opposite effect, adding an additional barrier for smaller airline companies who operate under an ultra-low-cost business model. These smaller airlines have the most price-sensitive customers with a high demand-elasticity in reaction to price-increases. Higher ticket fees hit them hardest. This explains why ultra-low-cost carriers such as Spirit Airlines have testified in Congress against raising the PFC.
This argument against raising the PFC is only bolstered by the fact that the study’s authors concluded their analysis “cannot determine whether an individual PFC project affects competition and prices.” However, the study did find that “any effects of individual PFC projects are, on average, small relative to other factors, such as local economic conditions and airline hubbing decisions,” and that “no single PFC project is likely to significantly alter the competitive landscape in an individual market.” While PFC funded projects are unlikely to alter competition, the higher ticket prices caused by fee hikes will disproportionately impact smaller airlines, thus damaging competition between airline companies.
Despite these findings, the authors of study recommend raising the PFC and do so with no compelling reason offered.
While recommending that the PFC cap be raised from $4.50 per enplanement to $7.44 for passengers – a staggering 65% fee hike – the authors state, “We are not aware of compelling evidence or data justifying a particular level for a new cap. Any number could be chosen, but we note that if the $4.50 cap had been indexed to inflation in 2000 using the Producer Price Index for construction materials, it would now be set at $7.44.”
Despite completely debunking the inflation argument in their own study (as outlined above in key findings) the authors almost comically conclude that the PFC should be raised anyway. Rather than laying out a case justifying such a drastic fee hike for American travels, the authors just throw their hands in the air and highlight that this is what the cap would be had Congress initially pegged the PFC to inflation, which lawmakers at the time deliberately chose not to do.
Americans for Tax Reform urges lawmakers to reject this recommendation from the authors of the study and to protect American travelers and consumers from inflated ticket prices resulting from even more government taxes and fees. After all, as the authors themselves states, there is no “compelling evidence or data” justifying a hike to the PFC.
Photo Credit: Eric Salard
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Podcast: How Big City Transit Messes Get Passed to All Taxpayers
Heritage Foundation's David Ditch joins the podcast to discuss the boondoggles & union giveaways driving up mass transit project costs - and why all American taxpayers need to pay attention.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
MI Task Force Recommendations Offer Promise for Overcrowded, Costly Jails
The Michigan Joint Task Force on Jail and Pretrial Incarceration released long-awaited recommendations last week to reform the state’s overcrowded jails. Michigan’s jail populations have rapidly gone up, a sign of a system that is not delivering the public safety, justice, and efficiency that people deserve.
In 2017, taxpayers spent an estimated $478 million on county jails. It’s not just that high costs are unaffordable for taxpayers, but they are a warning sign that too many people are being jailed, often for bad reasons, and reform is needed.
The data-driven recommendations from the Joint Task Force on Jail and Pretrial Incarceration offer an extensive set of reforms needed to create the more efficient, effective, and affordable jails that Michigan communities deserve.
The reforms include:
Ending the practice of suspending driver’s licenses for offenses that aren’t related to safe driving, like owed court debt. Driving without a valid license was the third most common reason for admissions to a correctional facility. Reform in this area would mean people can get to work to pay their fines, and don’t rack up criminal charges and lose the ability to hold a job because of a lack of means.
Decriminalizing low-level traffic misdemeanors. Low level offenses that currently entangle people in the criminal system that pose no risk to the community can be better handled by traffic courts.
Taking into account one’s ability to pay when imposing fines. Fines are meant to be a punishment first, not a revenue raising tool. It makes sense to limit the amount of fines to something an offender can reasonably be expected to pay. Imposing an exorbitant fine that an offender can never reasonably pay ties them to the criminal justice system in perpetuity as they deal with
Diversion for behavioral, mental health issues. With addiction driving so many people into jails, diversion that gets people with mental health and addiction issues into programs that can help is a needed reform.
More alternatives to arrest for police officers. Allowing officers to use appearance tickets when arrest and jail are not warranted for the suspected crime is a smart step that empowers police, and avoids pulling people into the jail system unnecessarily.
Caps on jail time for technical parole violations. The possibility of being jailed is important to incentivize people who are on parole to keep up with their obligations. However, that should be weighed against the unintended consequences (losing a job for instance) for otherwise well-behaved parolees.
Defendants must be tried within 18 months of arrest. Ensuring the justice system delivers speedy trials and people are not left in jail for extended periods of time is a win for liberty and safety. Extended jail time can make people more likely to commit future crimes.
Improved data collection. It is vital taxpayers know what is happening in the criminal justice system. Better data collection accomplishes this, and it is also critical to tracking the impact of reforms. If something is not working as anticipated, citizens and legislators should know quickly, and be able to act with confidence.
There are a couple areas that are left to counties that will be important for the counties to implement in the right way. The task force recommends bail reform, with release unless the court determines that a defendant poses a risk to the community, themselves, a flight risk, or has committed certain crimes (violent or against children). Counties will have to ensure effective risk assessment fills in where reliance on cash bail is reduced to ensure public safety is not put at risk.
Michigan residents have every reason to be excited about the task force recommendations. Now, the road to reform turns toward hammering out legislation. ATR looks forward to working with the legislature to ensure the best version of these proposals becomes law.
Photo Credit: Livingston County, MI
More from Americans for Tax Reform
PA Legislators Look to Protect Taxpayers from Reckless Spending
It’s not rocket science, spending drives demand for tax hikes, and the ability to raise taxes fuels spending.
Focusing on the spending side of the ledger, legislators in Pennsylvania have proposed the Taxpayer Protection Act (Senate Bill 116/ House Bill 1316). The bill, sponsored by Senator Camera Bartolotta and Representative Ryan Warner, would limit overall spending increases to the rate of inflation, plus population growth. A supermajority vote could override the limit.
Revenues that come in above the spending cap would first go into the state’s shallow rainy day fund. The state will also need to thoroughly review state programs to ensure spending growth is kept within the TPA index.
This is a great, pro-taxpayer measure for any state, but is especially necessary for Pennsylvania.
The Keystone State has seen its population stagnate, and even shrink in some recent years – losing 260,000 residents in 2016. The state and local tax burden costs residents $4,589 per year. While that is more competitive than some of its eastern neighbors, taxes are still driving people away.
This trend of leaving the state is especially prevalent amongst people aged 20-35. The Pennsylvania Independent Fiscal Office reported that 47,000 people in this age bracket with at least an associate’s degree left the state in 2015.
The good news is that from 2012 to 2017 Pennsylvania’s spending declined relative to state GDP, dropping nearly 20% by that metric, fifth most in the nation. Republican legislators having control of the state purse strings is largely why. Democrat Governor Tom Wolf has certainly pushed for his fair share of bad tax and fiscal policy since taking office in 2015.
Passing the Taxpayer Protection Act now would go a long way to preserving this progress on spending restraint, limiting the ability of future legislatures to waste the public’s money.
Spending restraint is also broadly popular, Republicans, Democrats and independents each reported at least 67% support for the measure, according to Susquehanna Polling & Research.
Now is the perfect time to get the Taxpayer Protection Act done.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Buttigieg Lies About Trump Tax Cuts on MSNBC
Pete Buttigieg lied about the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act during an interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Wednesday, claiming that its benefits only go to the wealthy and corporations.
"As far as I can tell, the only promise that [Trump] has kept when it comes to economic policy was a giant tax cut for corporations and the wealthy," Buttigieg said.
Buttigieg is wrong, and if he and the Democrats repeal the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the following would happen:
- 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, higher than the United Kingdom (19 percent), China (25 percent), Canada (26.8 percent), and Ireland (12.5 percent).
- 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 Indiana, where Buttigieg is the mayor of South Bend, households who made the state average income of $55,476, received a tax cut of around $1,438.51, according to a recent Tax Foundation report.
Even left-leaning and establishment media outlets confirm the good news arising from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act:
- The New York Times flatly stated: "Most people got a tax cut."
- The Washington Post stated: “Most Americans received a tax cut.”
- CNN's Jake Tapper did his own fact check and concluded: "The facts are, most Americans got a tax cut."
- CNN's Jake Tapper also stated: "In fact, estimates from both sides of the political spectrum show that the majority of people in the United States of America did receive a tax cut."
- FactCheck.org stated: "Most people got some kind of tax cut in 2018 as a result of the law."
- FactCheck.org also stated: "The vast majority (82 percent) of middle-income earners — those with income between about $49,000 and $86,000 — received a tax cut that averaged about $1,050.
Buttigieg has also called for a full repeal of the TCJA as part of his "infrastructure" proposal.
If you want to stay up-to-date on threats to raise your taxes, visit www.atr.org/HighTaxDems.
Buttigieg Calls for “Wholesale” Rollback of Trump Tax Cuts
Pete Buttigieg called for a “wholesale” rollback of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act with a “special focus” on the corporate tax during an interview with the New York Times editorial board.
Here’s the key exchange:
NYT editorial board member: On raising taxes, what are your proposals?
Pete Buttigieg: “So a financial transactions tax, rollback wholesale of the Trump tax cuts with a special focus on what’s going on in the corporate-rate tax cut. Close the 199A loophole, deal with some of the enforcement deficiencies that are driving the big part of the revenue gap right now I think. I’m also open to a wealth tax. I just would not put my signature proposal in a position of being completely dependent on a tax that is constitutionally untested.”
Pete Buttigieg first called on repealing the TCJA as part of his “infrastructure” plan, which according to CNBC, would repeal the entire tax cut.
“His campaign said the plan will be paid for by reforming the capital gains tax and repealing the 2017 GOP tax overhaul, reforms that had been previously disclosed. The campaign will also raise the estate tax, with a top rate of 65% for billionaires,” CNBC reported.
Buttigieg’s 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, higher than the United Kingdom (19 percent), China (25 percent), Canada (26.8 percent), and Ireland (12.5 percent).
-
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 Indiana, where Buttigieg is the mayor of South Bend, households who made the state average income of $55,476, received a tax cut of around $1,438.51, according to a recent Tax Foundation report.
Even left-leaning and establishment media outlets confirm the good news arising from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act:
-
The New York Times flatly stated: "Most people got a tax cut."
-
The Washington Post stated: “Most Americans received a tax cut.”
-
CNN's Jake Tapper did his own fact check and concluded: "The facts are, most Americans got a tax cut."
-
CNN's Jake Tapper also stated: "In fact, estimates from both sides of the political spectrum show that the majority of people in the United States of America did receive a tax cut."
-
FactCheck.org stated: "Most people got some kind of tax cut in 2018 as a result of the law."
-
FactCheck.org also stated: "The vast majority (82 percent) of middle-income earners — those with income between about $49,000 and $86,000 — received a tax cut that averaged about $1,050.
If you want to stay up-to-date on their threats to raise taxes, visit www.atr.org/HighTaxDems.
See more:
Buttigieg Would Repeal the Entire Trump Tax Cut
Warren Dodges Private Healthcare Question Three Times During Morning Joe Interview
Biden: “Get Rid of the Trump Tax Cut”
Pete Buttigieg: “We Gotta Roll Back the Trump Tax Cuts for Corporations”
Biden: “Anybody Who Can Throw Coal Into a Furnace Can Learn How To Program”
Warren Contradicts Herself on Medicare for All, Again
Mayor Pete’s “Carbon Tax and Dividend” Will Raise Taxes on Social Security Recipients
Booker Praises Opportunity Zones While Planning to Repeal TCJA Which Created Them
Sanders: “Of Course” Medicare for All Will Cost You Something
Despite Steep Tax Hikes, Biden’s Numbers Don’t Add Up
Biden: Capital Gains Tax Rate “Could Go Higher” Than 40%
Biden on Medicare for All: “You’re Going to Have to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class”
Sanders Senior Adviser: “Yes, We Will Repeal the Trump Tax Scam”
Bloomberg Endorsed a Carbon Tax
Biden to Sanders and Warren: “Let’s Get Realistic” on Trillion Dollar Spending Plans
Booker: I Would Raise the Capital Gains Tax Rate
List of Buttigieg Tax Hike Proposals
2020 Dems: Warren's Medicare for All Will Raise Middle Class Taxes
Warren: Medicare for All Covers Illegal Immigrants
Elizabeth Warren Contradicts Herself on Taxes, Again
Biden: Imagine if I Told Elizabeth Warren ‘You Should Be In a Socialist Primary’
CNN Catches Warren in a Tax Lie
Bernie Sanders: Warren’s Medicare for All Plan Would Have “Very Negative Impact” on Jobs and Wages
Warren’s “Medicare for All” Repeals Trump Tax Cuts
Biden: Warren is "Making it Up" on How She'll Pay for Medicare For All
Biden: “It’s Impossible to pay for Medicare for All without middle class tax increases”
Biden Slams Medicare for All: “It’s Totally Unrealistic and Can’t be Done”
Warren: Two Million Lost Jobs from Medicare for All “Part of the Cost Issue”
Video Showing Every Time Elizabeth Warren Has Dodged the Middle Class Tax Question
Out of touch Biden calls Trump’s $2,000 middle class tax cut “negligible”
Biden Calls for 28% Corporate Tax Rate
Biden: “Every Single Solitary Person” Will Pay 40% Capital Gains Tax
Warren Dodges the Middle Class Tax Question Again
Buttigieg Says He Will Raise Corporate Tax Rate to 35%
Watch: CNN Analyst Gets Visibly Irritated as Warren Dodges Tax Hike Question
Andrew Yang to Elizabeth Warren: Wealth Tax Would Have “Massive Implementation Problems”
Biden on Warren Dodging Middle Class Tax Question: “This is Ridiculous. Absolutely Ridiculous.”
Buttigieg Grills Warren for Dodging the Middle Class Tax Question
Biden: I Will Raise the Capital Gains Tax to 39.5%
Elizabeth Warren Can’t Stop Dodging the Middle Class Tax Question
VIDEO: 17 Times Elizabeth Warren Has Dodged the Middle Class Tax Question
VIDEO: Warren Keeps Dodging the Middle Class Tax Question
Biden: “I’m Gonna Double the Capital Gains Rate to 40%”
Tax Hike Bernie Says He’ll Tax All Income Over $29K
Video: Warren Dodges Middle Class Tax Question Again
Biden Calls for Full Repeal of Trump Tax Cuts
Biden Attacks Warren: "She's Going to Raise People's Taxes”
Video: Media Fed Up with Elizabeth Warren Tax Dodge
Biden: End "Trump's Tax Cut for The Top Tenth of One Percent"
Booker: “My plan would reverse those toxic Trump tax cuts”
Stephen Colbert Calls Out Warren for Dodging Middle Class Tax Question
Video: Warren Dodges MSNBC’s Middle Class Tax Questions
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”
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
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.”
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore/Flickr
Arizona Supreme Court Could Find New Phoenix Uber/Lyft Airport Tax Unconstitutional
Phoenix’s onerous airport ride-sharing fee increase could soon be overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court.
State Representative Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) asked Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) to see if it violates a provision of the state Constitution – which was put in place by voters in 2018 – that prohibits both new and increased taxes on service. "It [the new airport ride-sharing fee increase] is such a blatant disregard of the will of Arizona voters who passed Prop. 126 in 2018," said Barto.
General Brnovich wants the court to issue a decision on the constitutionality of this Uber and Lyft fee increase. “Our office will promptly file a special action with the Arizona Supreme Court to strike down Phoenix’s unconstitutional rideshare fee and prevent the ordinance from taking effect,” tweeted General Brnovich.
“This is going to be a long-running fight with greedy politicians who want to tax transportation and take advantage of a monopoly – in this case access to an airport – to raise taxes. The attorney general did the right thing in noting this was unconstitutional. Every state should have constitutional protections against these abuses, but until then we are going to have to be vigilant and fight these tax hikes one after the other. They are coming to an airport near you,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
The airport ride-sharing fee increase to $4 – a rate that is among the highest in the country – for both pickups and drop-offs at Sky Harbor International Airport is set to take place on February 1 of this year. Adding insult to injury, the fee will increase by 25 cents per year until it reaches $5 in 2024. Under previous law, the airport ride-sharing fee was $2.66 and charged only on pick-ups.
The fee increase was imposed last month by a 7-2 vote of the Phoenix City Council, despite Uber and Lyft saying it would cause them to end their airport services. Councilman Jim Warring and Councilman Sal DiCiccio were the two no votes.
Grover Norquist On California's Latest Attempt to Raise Taxes
ATR president Grover Norquist joined Connell McShane on Fox Business Network's After the Bell to discuss California latest tax hike attempt, which could lead to the nation's highest state corporate income tax rate.
The bill would increase taxes on companies that post at least $10 million of taxable income. The size of the tax increase would be proportional to the pay gap between the CEO and employees. The larger the gap, the larger the tax increase.
Norquist responded:
"It's a massive tax increase. California has an 8.8 percent corporate income tax on top of the 21 percent national, federal tax. They want to take that up to 11 to 15 percent. So it's a massive tax increase to start with. But then they go, "Oh, but we'll hit you even more if you don't pay people the way we want you to."
Boards of Directors are responsible and shareholders are responsible for firing any CEO who overpays himself or herself. It shouldn't be the government's decision to tell you. Sometimes, somebody who's a CEO can be worth a lot of money, sometimes not... If you want to be in the business of setting pay, vote as a shareholder, work in the business of owning part of the company. The people who should care are the people who own it. They don't want to waste money. They don't want to waste millions of dollars on a CEO that's not any good."
California's brutal tax and regulatory environment continues to drive people and companies out of the state. State politicians don't seem to know or care.
ATR Signs Coalition Letter Urging the SEC to Pause the CAT
Americans for Tax Reform signed a coalition letter led by Heritage Action for America encouraging the Securities and Exchange Commission to refrain from implementing the Consolidated Audit Trail.
The CAT National Market System is a database established after the 2010 “Flash Crash”, when the SEC began requiring broker-dealers, trading venues and stock exchanges to report all securities transactions and customer information to a single database this year. The CAT is a Delaware company jointly owned by broker-dealers on a co-equal basis, with the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and 23 additional self-regulatory agencies having authority to access the database. The Heritage Foundation’s David Burton notes that as many as 3,000 regulatory users may be able to access the database.
ATR joined the coalition letter as we share the concerns of members of Congress, current SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, and organizations representing private businesses and everyday investors who fear the collection of personal identifiable information leaves the CAT a ripe target for cyber theft, and does little to stamp out fraud within the financial markets.
Additionally, if the CAT is breached by nefarious actors there is little recourse for consumers in terms of who or what entity bears the financial burden of making consumers and companies whole. Without additional consideration of electronic breaches, it could be the consumer or taxpayers who are left picking up the tab.
Photo Credit: Scott S
Pete Buttigieg Confuses Marijuana With Nicotine and Signals He'd Impose Harsher Regulations on Vaping
In Iowa this week, Democrat Pete Buttigieg signaled that if elected, he would place tighter regulations on the nicotine vapor industry, stating that “the burden has to be” on the vapor industry to prove that e-cigarettes and nicotine vapor products are safe, during a town hall in Winterset, Iowa on Monday. He went on to mischaracterize the value and intended purpose of products that are specifically flavored in nature and to blame nicotine products for recent vaping-related illnesses.
Here’s the key exchange:
Voter: “So, in 2019, more than 27% of high school students used an e-cigarette. How would you address this epidemic as it pertains to youth and young people?”
Buttigieg: “So, what we are seeing is e-cigarettes being marketed and sold to young people despite companies telling us otherwise. The way this was marketed and sold to the country is that it can be used for harm reduction. It can get people off smoking combustion cigarettes and into something that might be less dangerous than cigarettes. But that doesn't make them safe in their own right, and that doesn't answer why you would target them for people who aren't smokers at all. And I believe the burden has to be on these companies to demonstrate that they are not causing harm rather than on regulators to demonstrate that they are.
This means taking action on these flavored e-cigarette products that are clearly targeted towards children and making sure that we have a much higher bar for them demonstrating that they're not causing harm because we're seeing all these horrifying cases of people coming to harm because they use this product.
And it is why, whether its specific to e-cigarettes or whether its more generally when it comes to the way that we regulate food and drug and other products in this country that we have regulators who actually believe in protecting consumers rather than being beholden to those whose profits are at stake."
Not only does Buttigieg signal that he would impose rules more onerous than those recently implemented by the Trump administration, but he refused to acknowledge the harm reduction potential of a vast majority of vapor products that adults use to quit smoking which are in fact flavored.
Without evidence or context he asserted that e-cigarettes have caused harm to consumers. In fact, Mayor Pete seemed to purposely confuse the harm being inflicted on consumers by black market and illicit THC marijuana products, which have been identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as the culprit behind the recent vaping illnesses. Those THC products are generally already illegal in all instances, as opposed to legal nicotine vaping products available in convenience stores, vape shops, and other retail outlets.
Buttigieg’s comments come less than a week after Elizabeth Warren signaled that she would crack down on legal nicotine vaping if elected and on the heels of Joe Biden also suggesting that he would “eliminate” vaping if elected.
“I don't care what it does to a small business person who's selling this stuff. If it is damaging lungs, if it's causing the kind of damage that is said and that studies not been fully done yet. If it turns out that it is that I would eliminate it,” Biden said.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
State news
Top Stories
