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
California Democrats Seek to Introduce Yet Another Tax on California Gun Buyers
Despite current federal excise taxes on firearms and California’s already onerous gun laws, California lawmakers are eager to add another tax on guns and ammunition sales.
California Assemblyman Marc Levine (D) introduced legislation that would add an excise tax on gun retailers for firearm and ammunition sales. This bill would add a 25-dollar tax on the sale of every new gun purchased in California as well as a new tax on ammunition sales at a yet undetermined amount. The money raised by the tax would be used to fund violence prevention programs like California’s CalVIP program.
Assemblyman Levine explained his support for the bill arguing that “Gun violence will not end on its own” and that it is critical to “take responsible action to end the public health crisis that is gun violence in California and in our country.”
While stopping violence using guns is a worthwhile goal, the legislation proposed by Assemblymember Levine wholly misses its mark.
First, the legislation would do little to curb violence using guns. Citing multiple studies, RAND Cooperation in 2018 concluded that “moderate tax increases on guns or ammunition would do little to disrupt hunting or recreational gun use”
Similarly, the legislation would do little in discouraging legal and illegal gun purchases. According to a 2018 UC Davis Health survey, despite some of the nation’s strictest gun laws, “roughly 25 percent of those who purchased their most recent firearm in California reported that they did not undergo a background check.” Even with strict gun laws, increasing the price of guns has little to no effect on someone’s decision to obtain a firearm.
Finally, Levin’s legislation would only add another tax to the litany of other taxes and fees on Californians. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, “The federal government already imposes about $750 million in excise taxes on the import and retail sale of guns and ammunition. Handguns are taxed at 10 percent, and other guns and ammunition are taxed at 11 percent.” Even in California, the state annually collects $6 million in gun fees and requires fees like a $31 Dealer Record of Sale Fee and a $5 Safety and Enforcement Fee. Moreover, the violence prevention programs the bill would fund already received $30 million in state funding.
Levine’s bill does little to curb violence using guns. It is clear that this new bill is nothing more than a new tax and a cash grab by desperate California Democrats looking to take even more from Californian taxpayers’ wallets and to further infringe on their 2nd Amendment rights.
Photo Credit: Sacramento Press Media
More from Americans for Tax Reform
New Study Finds Biden Tax Hikes Would Eliminate 1 Million Jobs in First 2 Years
Joe Biden’s tax hikes would eliminate one million jobs in the first two years, according to a new study by economists John W. Diamond and George R. Zodrow. The study, which was commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers also found that the tax hikes would eliminate 600,000 jobs per year over the first decade and reduce GDP by $117 billion in the first two years.
The study assumed several Biden tax hikes would go into effect include raising the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, reinstating the corporate alternative minimum tax, eliminating most expensing of depreciable assets, repealing the 20% deduction for pass-through businesses, doubling the tax rate on capital gains and dividends, taxing unrealized capital gains at death, and increasing the top individual tax rate to 39.6 percent.
Biden’s tax hikes will reduce new investment and decrease capital in both the short and long term. As the study notes:
Investment in ordinary capital declines initially (two years after enactment) by 1.9 percent, by 1.3 percent ten years after enactment, and by 1.6 percent in the long run; this effect is only modestly affected by imports of ordinary capital into the United States, which increase in the long run by 0.2 percent.
The increase in the statutory corporate income tax rate results in a reallocation abroad of FSK, which declines initially by 2.7 percent, by 3.5 percent 10 years after enactment, and by 2.9 percent in the long run.
This reduction in investment and capital will not only have detrimental effects on the U.S. economy, it will also harm workers due to a decrease in household wages. As the study notes:
The decline in the stocks of ordinary capital and FSK gradually reduce the productivity of labor over time and thus real wages, which fall by 0.6 percent in the long run, while labor compensation falls by 0.6 percent initially, by 0.3 percent ten years after enactment, and by 0.6 percent in the long run…
These effects translate into a reduction of $638 in wage income per household…
The study also notes that Biden’s tax hikes will cost jobs each and every year after enactment:
The declines in hours worked would be equivalent to declines in employment of approximately just over 1.0 million FTE jobs two years and five years after enactment, and a decline of 0.1 million FTE jobs ten years after enactment.
In terms of the duration of the reduction in employment over the first ten years after enactment, the average annual reduction in employment would be equivalent to a loss of roughly 600,000 jobs, or 5.7 million total “job years” lost over the ten-year interval.
Other studies, on average, show that labor (or workers) bear an estimated 70 percent of the corporate income tax in the form of wages and employment, as ATR notes here.
At a time when American workers are still trying to regain employment and lost wages, it is hard to imagine a more harmful set of policies to enact. To have a strong economic recovery, it is imperative that we incentivize job creation, investment, and wage growth. Biden’s tax hikes do precisely the opposite.
Photo Credit: BIS UK
Joe Biden’s “Infrastructure” Plan is Packed Full of Wasteful Spending
The Biden administration has outlined the “American Jobs Plan,” a $2 trillion spending plan. While the proposal is purportedly for infrastructure, much of the plan is a liberal wishlist of policies that have little, or nothing to do with roads and bridges.
As noted by Republicans on the House Budget Committee, less than 13 percent of this spending plan is spent on repairing or creating roads, bridges, waterways, locks, dams, ports, airports, and broadband.
Some of the non-infrastructure provisions in Biden’s plan includes:
- 20 percent of the entire cost of the bill is for an expansion of Medicaid—approximately $400 billion.
- $213 billion for housing and to increase federal control of local housing markets
- $100 billion of additional funding for schools without requiring them to reopen
- $50 billion for a new office at the U.S. Department of Commerce
- $35 billion for climate science, innovation, and R&D
This plan would spend $10 billion in taxpayer dollars on a uniformed “Civilian Climate Corps” tasked with the vague mission of “advancing environmental justice.” This funding would be enough to hire 200,000 professional, progressive environmental activists. These Green New Deal hall monitors would be entitled to taxpayer-funded housing, clothing, feeding, allowance, and medical expenses.
Biden also wants to include the PRO Act in his “infrastructure” proposal. This would ban right-to-work laws, which 27 states have in place, allowing employers to force their employees to join a union as a condition of employment. The PRO Act would also force a mass reclassification of independent contractors, threatening the livelihoods of millions of contractors across the nation. When California implemented AB5, which established the same independent contractor reclassification as the PRO Act, countless people lost their jobs, had to flee the state, or saw a significant decline in income.
ATR has compiled 655 personal testimonials from independent contractors who detail the ways that AB5 has hurt them, which you can view here.
As it stands, the United States is on track to spend $5.8 trillion in 2021. Now, Biden wants to spend trillions of dollars more, including the second part of his infrastructure plan which is likely to cost an addition $2 trillion. With both parts of this spending package combined at about $4 trillion, this plan would be, in dollars, the largest spending increase in U.S. history.
The so-called “American Jobs Plan” seems eerily similar to the “American Rescue Plan,” which used coronavirus pandemic relief as a Trojan horse for leftist policy goals like a $350 billion state bailout, burdensome tax paperwork mandates, a state tax cut ban, and more.
Now, Joe Biden is attempting to implement a liberal wishlist under the guise of infrastructure, a historically popular government initiative.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
Pennsylvanians Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike
If Casey votes for Biden's corporate income tax rate increase, he will have to explain why he just increased your utility bills
If President Biden and Sen. Bob Casey raise the corporate tax rate, Pennsylvania households and businesses will get stuck with higher utility bills. Democrats plan to impose a corporate income tax rate increase to 28%, even higher than communist China's 25%.
Customers bear the cost of corporate income taxes imposed on utility companies. Corporate income tax cuts drive utility rates down, corporate income tax hikes drive utility rates up.
Electric, gas, and water companies must get their billing rates approved by the respective state utility commissions. When the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, utility companies worked with officials to pass along the tax savings to customers, including at least 17 Pennsylvania utilities:
- Citizens’ Electric Company of Lewisburg
- Metropolitan Edison Company
- Pennsylvania Electric Company
- Pennsylvania Power Company
- Pike County Light & Power Company
- PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
- Wellsboro Electric Company
- West Penn Power Company
- PECO Energy Company (Gas Division)
- National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation
- Peoples Gas Company LLC
- Peoples Natural Gas Company LLC -- Equitable Division
- UGI Central Penn Gas Inc.
- UGI Penn Natural Gas Inc.
- UGI Utilities, Inc.--Gas Division
- Pennsylvania-American Water Company
- Pennsylvania-American Water Company—Wastewater
As noted by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission:
“As economic regulators, it is the Commission’s responsibility to ensure that utility rates are just and reasonable. Further, it is necessary for utility rates to reflect relevant tax expenses,” noted PUC Chairman Gladys M Brown in a statement at today’s public meeting. “I believe this work (by PUC staff) has resulted in an innovative answer by this Commission to effectively flow-through the benefits of the TCJA back to customers.
Public utilities required to begin returning federal tax savings to consumers include Citizens’ Electric Company of Lewisburg, Metropolitan Edison Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, Pike County Light & Power Company, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, Wellsboro Electric Company, West Penn Power Company, PECO Energy Company (Gas Division), National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation, Peoples Gas Company LLC, Peoples Natural Gas Company LLC—Equitable Division, UGI Central Penn Gas Inc., UGI Penn Natural Gas Inc., UGI Utilities, Inc.--Gas Division, Pennsylvania-American Water Company and Pennsylvania-American Water Company—Wastewater. -- May 17, 2018 Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission Press Release
Conversely, a vote for a corporate income tax rate hike is a vote for higher utility bills right as the USA is trying to recover from the pandemic.
Sen. Casey would be wise to stay away from tax increases.
ATR Signs Coalition Letter Urging Congress to Oppose Interest-Rate Caps
Americans for Tax Reform joined a group of free-market groups and signed a coalition letter encouraging Congress to oppose interest rate caps on consumer borrowing. By restricting interest rates on financial products, Congress will limit consumer choices among affordable lending services.
Installing a cap on interest rates will price consumers out of the market, particularly many of the unbanked and underbanked who need access to affordable financial products the most. An interest rate cap on lending products will not reduce borrower demand and instead will force lenders to increase borrower eligibility requirements. Increased eligibility requirements could adversely discriminate against borrowers who lack even a basic credit score.
Many low-income borrowers who may not have access to traditional banking services and or credit history will not get quick credit from any legal lender. This has been demonstrated by economists at the Mercatus Center that shows government interest rate caps exclude borrowers from obtaining affordable lending products and does little to diminish the customers need for these products. Those borrowers will continue to seek credit through alternative forms of credit, which could come from illegal lenders known as "loan sharks.” Loan sharks operate outside regulatory supervision and have been known to use tactics like blackmail, coercion, and violence when borrowers fail to meet their aggressive repayment plans.
Legislation at the federal and state level should be conscious of whose lead they are following. Many of these proposals may resemble the legislation put forth by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.) in 2019.
Several states have tried an interest rate cap in the past with low-income households suffering the most. Arkansas, a state with a constitutionally mandated interest rate cap, has extremely low loan volume. Many of its residents drive out of state to acquire installment loans that offer increased lending options with interest rates appropriately tailored to service those borrowers. After Georgia and North Carolina implemented caps on interest rates, insufficient funds notifications and bounced check fees surged, harming lower-income consumers who may find it more challenging to afford these fees.
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) signed an interest rate cap into law last month even after lender organizations, including the Illinois Small Loan Association, warned that the interest rate ceiling effectively ends the short-term loan industry. Neighboring Indiana and Wisconsin have no interest rate cap and can expect to see an influx of new borrowers crossing state lines for loans as did the states like Oklahoma, Missouri, and Tennessee surrounding Arkansas.
Consumers are best able to make appropriate financial choices that meet their needs when they have more choices in credit markets. Americans for Tax Reform and the undersigned organizations strongly urge Congress to oppose regulation limiting credit markets and installing a ceiling on interest rates.
Click here to review the letter.
Photo Credit: Blue Coat Photos
Watch: What's Next for Sports Betting in the States?
Baseball season is here, NCAA basketball champions have been crowned, and state legislatures are still in session. It's the perfect time to talk sports betting.
Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, FanDuel's Andrew Winchell, and Jessica Feil with American Gaming Association join a special webinar to talk about how states can win with low taxes and good regulatory policies for sports betting. Watch here.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Montana Senate Passes Bill to Save Livelihoods – and Lives
Americans for Tax Reform today praised the Montana Senate for passing SB 398, a common sense, good governance reform that will save not only livelihoods – but also lives. SB 398 ensures appropriate transparency and accountability over decisions impacting public health while also safeguarding Montana’s state revenue base.
In response to the bill’s passage, Tim Andrews, Americans for Tax Reform’s Director of Consumer Issues, congratulated Montana legislators on this achievement and noted that: “It is the fundamental responsibility of state governments to protect their citizens. At times, these threats can come from local governments that act without any accountability or scrutiny and impose punitive taxes on the most vulnerable in their communities. SB 398 will put a stop to this.”
Montana state health officials testified during a hearing on SB 398 that, should the bill not be passed, laws will be enacted in twenty-six Montana localities that would outlaw stores selling e-cigarettes and vapor products. This would force the closure of over twenty establishments and cost more than one hundred jobs in the state. These local laws would also leave countless smokers looking to quit the deadly habit of cigarette use without access to scientifically proven reduced harm alternatives.
Andrews made sure to note the incredible public health benefits of SB 398, stating that “Not only will this bill stop businesses being closed by ill-informed, unaccountable bureaucrats, it will also save lives. According to the world’s leading cancer academics, E-cigarettes could save over 27,000 lives in Montana if a majority of the state’s cigarette smokers made the switch to vaping. SB 398 will preserve the ability of Montana residents to access these lifesaving products and will have a significant impact on decreasing socioeconomic disparities that exist in health.”
Andrews also recognized the leadership of Representative Ron Marshall noting that: "Rep. Marshall's tireless advocacy on behalf of consumers, taxpayers, and small businesses has been nothing short of remarkable and this achievement would not have been possible without his passion and dedication. Businesses across the state, as well as smokers desperately trying to quit their deadly habit, owe him and his team a great debt of thanks."
SB 398 will now be transmitted to the House, where Representatives will consider the bill in committee before it can be voted on by the full House. Americans for Tax Reform will continue our advocacy in support of SB 398 and encourages all Montana taxpayers, legislators, and consumers to voice their support for this legislation as well.
Photo Credit: Diego Delso
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Montanans Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike
If Tester votes for a corporate income tax rate increase, he will have to explain why he just increased your utility bills
If President Biden and Sen. Jon Tester raise the corporate tax rate, Montana households and businesses will get stuck with higher utility bills. Democrats plan to impose a corporate income tax rate increase to 28%, even higher than communist China's 25%.
Customers bear the cost of corporate income taxes imposed on utility companies. Corporate income tax cuts drive utility rates down, corporate income tax hikes drive utility rates up.
Electric, gas, and water companies must get their billing rates approved by the respective state utility commissions. When the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, utility companies across the country worked with officials to pass along the tax savings to customers.
As noted in a 2018 Montana Public Service Commission Release:
The Montana Public Service Commission voted unanimously to approve an agreement for Montana-Dakota Utilities’ electric business to refund to consumers the benefits they received from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The agreement, or Stipulation, calls for a $1.5 million consumer refund as a result of the TCJA.
NorthWestern Energy passed along their savings to Montana customers as well:
The tax savings stem from the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which Congress passed in December and was signed into law by President Donald Trump. Federal corporate tax rates fell from 35 percent to 21 percent.
Regulated utilities like NorthWestern cannot pocket the savings, which must be shared with ratepayers, who also pay the utilities' taxes. NorthWestern has about 345,000 customers in Montana.
NorthWestern is proposing that its natural gas customers receive direct refunds for the entire $3.154 million in tax breaks associated with the utility’s natural gas business. The company’s electric customers would receive half of the $10.8 million in tax breaks associated with NorthWestern’s electric business. Half the money would be spent removing hazard trees that pose a fire or outage risk.
“With what we proposed, for a natural gas customer, it would be about $1.18 a month. An electricity customer would be 67 cents per month,” said Butch Larcombe, NorthWestern spokesman. – April 3, 2018 Billings Gazette article excerpt
Conversely, a vote for a corporate income tax rate hike is a vote for higher utility bills right as the USA is trying to recover from the pandemic.
Sen. Tester would be wise to stay away from tax increases.
Missouri's Chance To Protect Businesses & Consumers From Rapacious Local Governments
Americans for Tax Reform submitted written testimony today for a hearing on Missouri’s House Bill 517 in the House Committee on Downsizing State Government.
HB 517 is a pro-taxpayer reform that will protect Missouri’s businesses and consumers from damaging regulations imposed by local governments on reduced harm tobacco alternatives. ATR urged lawmakers to support the legislation in the interests of safeguarding Missouri’s public health and state economy.
Tim Andrews, ATR’s Director of Consumer Issues, wrote “It is simply good governance that matters of this magnitude be decided at the state level, due to both the level of increased scrutiny, transparency and accountability it provides, but also the direct impact it has on state tax revenue should a product be banned.”
Andrews also urged legislators to consider the impact that HB 517 would have on state revenues, noting “State budgets would also be negatively affected through the forgoing of tax revenue from state income taxes caused by a burgeoning black market, caused by the smuggling of illicit products between different jurisdictions and sold without appropriate state taxes being paid. As such, protecting citizens from these policies is not only the moral thing to do, but also in the direct interest of lawmakers in Jefferson City.”
Andrews noted the importance of protecting the freedom of Missourians, writing “It is important to note that, contrary to some arguments made by opponents of this bill, “local control” at its core is about safeguarding individual liberties and restricting the growth of government; it is not a free pass for cities to do whatever they want. Localities are just as capable of being conduits for heavy-handed laws that will harm citizens. When that is at stake, state action is not only appropriate to safeguard individual freedoms – it is essential.”
Andrews concluded by stressing the benefits that HB 517 will have on public heath, stating that “Vapor products would save nearly 125,000 lives if a majority of Missouri smokers made the switch to vaping, extrapolating from a large-scale analysis performed by leading cancer researchers and coordinated by Georgetown University Medical Centre. HB 517 will have a tremendous impact on public health and would decrease socioeconomic disparities significantly as it will prevent localities from prohibiting life-saving treatment.”
The full testimony can be read here.
Photo Credit: Daniel Schwen
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Workers Will Pay for Biden’s Corporate Tax Hike
President Joe Biden has proposed at least $2 trillion in tax increases as part of his new spending plan. Biden has vowed to raise the corporate income tax from 21 percent to 28 percent, impose a 21 percent global minimum tax, and a 15 percent minimum tax on book income.
American workers, including those making less than $400,000 a year will bear a significant portion of Biden’s tax increases.
There is a strong consensus among the left and the right that the corporate income tax is borne by American workers through lower wages and fewer job opportunities:
- According to the Stephen Entin of the Tax Foundation, labor (or workers) bear an estimated 70 percent of the corporate income tax in the form of wages and employment. As Entin notes, 50 percent, 70 percent, or even 100 percent of the corporate tax is borne by workers.
- A 2012 paper at the University of Warwick and University of Oxford found that a $1 increase in the corporate tax reduces wages by 92 cents in the long term. This study was conducted by Wiji Arulampalam, Michael P. Devereux, and Giorgia Maffini and studied over 55,000 businesses located in nine European countries over the period 1996-2003.
- A 2015 study by Kevin Hassett and Aparna Mathur found that a 1 percent increase in corporate tax rates leads to a 0.5 percent decrease in wage rates. The study analyses 66 countries over 25 years and concludes that workers could see a greater reduction in wages than the federal government raises in new revenue from a corporate income tax increase.
- A 2006 study by William Randolph of the Congressional Budget Office found that 74% of the corporate tax is borne by domestic labor.
- A 2007 study by Alison Felix estimated that a 1 percentage point increase in the marginal corporate tax rate decreases annual wages by 0.7 percent. She concluded that the wage reductions are over four times the amount of collected corporate tax revenue.
- Even the left-of-center Tax Policy Center estimates that 20 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax is borne by labor.
- The Congressional Budget Office has said that about 25 percent of the cost of a corporate tax would be borne by workers. Though, they assert that it may be complicated to calculate this, as "the larger the decline in saving or outflow of capital, the larger the share of the burden of the corporate income tax that is borne by workers."
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
State news
Top Stories
