Joe Biden would force semiautomatic rifle owners to either participate in a gun buyback program, or register their firearm under the National Firearms Act, which requires the payment of a $200 tax. This would extend to AR-15s and other common household rifles. Those who do not comply would face up to 10 years in federal prison, and a potential $10,000 fine.

This is yet another violation of Joe Biden's pledge against any tax increase on anyone making less than $400,000 a year.

As detailed on Biden’s campaign website, “Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.” This triggers the $200 tax.

In order to register a firearm (or a magazine, under Joe Biden's plan), you have to send in a 13-page, complicated application form with the $200 tax included, your fingerprints, and a photograph of yourself. In this way, the hurdles to legally own your weapon or high-capacity magazine go far beyond the expensive tax. 

Given there are nearly 18 million AR-15s privately owned in the United States, gun owners could potentially be forced to pay a collective $3.6 billion in taxes. This figure doesn’t even include other weapons the left considers “assault weapons” and the additional magazines many gun owners would have to register.

Many families who have already been struggling due to the economic damage done by the coronavirus would find themselves incapable of paying for the ability to practice a constitutional right of theirs.

According to the Biden campaign, any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is a “high capacity” magazine. Even if someone owns only one AR-15, if they have just four standard capacity magazines, they would owe the federal government $1,000.

Suddenly, gun control becomes less about mere firearm ownership and more about controlling working-class Americans. In urban areas, where people are most vulnerable to crime, it’s not hard to imagine how crushing this could be. There is nothing new about leftist politicians taxing urban residents in order to dictate behavior, ownership, and lifestyle.

In poor rural areas, the ability to hunt, fend off dangerous animals, etc. would be especially compromised. In Time Magazine, one article explains that "leaders of 15 state shooting groups said semiautomatic rifles are popular with hunters in their states. Hunters say they favor the gun for its versatility, accuracy and customizable features for shooting animals. The semiautomatic feature, which allows these guns to shoot up to 45 rounds a minute, is not always necessary, but useful in some situations, hunters say. “It’s the most capable tool for the job at this time,” said Eric Mayer, who runs AR15hunter.com. “Bar none. Period. It is.”" This group explains that AR-15s and AR-10s can be effective in hunting feral pigs, feral goats, antelope jackrabbits, elk, coyotes, and deer. In Pennsylvania, where semiautomatic rifles are allowed for hunting, 374,690 deer were harvested in 2019. 

Kim Kelly, a labor organizer in Brooklyn, explained the economic implications of this law in the Washington Post: “Regardless of one’s opinion on guns and gun control, it is obvious that this proposal will disproportionately impact poor and working-class communities. Those within those communities who already own firearms would be robbed of their ability to protect themselves and their loved ones, while their wealthier counterparts would skate by on their ready piles of cash… In effect, Biden’s plan sets in motion a “war on guns,” the same way his predecessors declared wars on “poverty,” “crime” and “terror” — wars in which it was inevitably black and brown people who were the real targets."

The $200 gun tax suggests certain assumptions by Biden and other leftist politicians, made about working-class Americans and their ability to responsibly own firearms. The Second Amendment is a right held by all Americans, not just wealthy ones.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richie Neal (D-Mass.) and Republican Leader Kevin Brady (R-Texas) today released the “Securing a Strong Retirement Act of 2020,” legislation that contains numerous provisions that expand defined contribution plans like 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts (IRAs). 

The legislation contains several tax cuts for families and businesses in order to increase the utility of 401(k)s and IRAs. The bill gives Americans increased flexibility over required minimum distributions so that they can continue saving for longer. The proposal also contains several other commonsense provisions to incentivize increased retirement savings such as allowing businesses to provide matching contributions to a retirement account when a worker makes student loan payments.

Members of Congress should support and co-sponsor this legislation.

The legislation expands the saver’s credit making it available to millions of American families. Currently, the credit is available in three different income thresholds:

• Single filers with AGI of $19,500 or less and joint filers with $39,000 of AGI or less can claim a credit of 50 percent on 401(k)/IRA contributions of up to $2,000. 
• Single filers with AGI of less than $21,500 and joint filers with AGI of less than $43,000 can claim a 20 percent credit. 
• Single filers with AGI of less than $32,500 and joint filers with AGI of less than $65,000 can claim a 10 percent credit.

While this credit incentivizes some Americans to save for retirement, the low threshold levels mean that many Americans cannot utilize the saver’s credit. The Securing a Strong Retirement Act addresses this by expanding the credit. 

Under the legislation, the 50 percent credit is available to single filers with less than $40,000 in AGI and joint filers with less than $80,000 in AGI and can be claimed for 401(k)/IRA contributions of up to $3,000. This credit begins phasing down through $60,000 of AGI for single filers and $100,000 for joint filers. This will dramatically increase utilization of the credit and provide another incentive for Americans across the country to save for retirement.

The proposal also increases incentives for small businesses to offer retirement plans. Specifically, the start up credit, which is currently available to businesses with 100 employees or less, is increased from 50 percent of startup costs to 100 percent of costs. Employers with 50 workers or less are eligible for a credit for employer contributions of up to $1,000 per employee. This credit is also available for businesses with between 51 and 100 employees but phases out by 2 percent for every employee above 50. 

The legislation contains several provisions granting savers more flexibility to avoid making required minimum distributions (RMDs). Currently, Americans must begin taking RMDs from their 401(k)s and IRAs beginning at aged 72. RMDs are typically calculated based on a fraction of the total account balance and the individual’s life expectancy.

The legislation increases the RMD age to 75, so that Americans can keep their savings in retirement plans for longer. Individuals with account balances of $100,000 or less would be exempt from RMDs. In addition, the bill makes it easier for annuity payments to count toward the RMD amount and reduces the excise tax for failing to tax RMDs from 50 to percent to 25 percent or 10 percent.

The legislation also contains a number of other provisions designed to increase in retirement savings. For instance, the bill would allow employers to make matching contributions to a retirement account when an employee makes student loan payments. This will serve as another way that businesses can help their employees save more for retirement.

In addition, the legislation allows employers to offer their workers small financial incentives to join and contribute to a retirement plan. Lastly, the proposal indexes the $1,000 IRA catch-up contribution to inflation and creates an additional catch-up contribution for employer sponsored plans for Americans aged 60 and above of $10,000 so that those approaching retirement can save more.

The Securing a Strong Retirement Act of 2020 contains a number of important provisions that increase the flexibility and utility of 401(k)s and IRAs including several tax cuts for American families and businesses in order to encourage retirement savings. Members of Congress should support this important legislation.

New Hampshire has filed a lawsuit in the United States Supreme Court over Massachusetts’ unconstitutional effort to raise taxes on residents of the Granite State.

Before the pandemic, roughly 80,000 people chose to live in New Hampshire and commute into Massachusetts for work every day. This arrangement has allowed them and their families to benefit from the New Hampshire Advantage – New Hampshire is one of nine states that do not tax wage income, one of five states with no statewide sales tax, and also prohibits local governments from collecting sales taxes.

“Households can keep more of their hard-earned income than if they lived in Massachusetts, which imposes a 5% income tax rate,” wrote Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform in a recent OpEd in the Union Leader. “Living in New Hampshire also allows them to avoid the Bay State’s 6.25% combined state and local sales tax rate.”

For years, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have had an agreement in place for these New Hampshire commuters. “New Hampshire residents who work in Massachusetts must pay Massachusetts income taxes for days spent physically working in the Bay State; income earned on days spent working from home in New Hampshire is NOT taxed by Massachusetts,” explained Norquist.

But now, an emergency order from Gov. Charlie Baker’s (R-Mass.) Administration changed that deal. Through at least the end of the year, Massachusetts is forcing New Hampshire commuters who are teleworking due to the coronavirus to pay Massachusetts income taxes. “Even if New Hampshire teleworkers do not step one foot into Massachusetts while the order is in place, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue says they still have to send over a chunk of their paycheck,” wrote Norquist.

Fortunately for these commuters – and all taxpayers, for that matter – Gov. Chris Sununu (R-N.H.) and Attorney General Gordon MacDonald (R-N.H.) are fighting back against Massachusetts’ aggressive tax collectors. New Hampshire has filed a lawsuit against Massachusetts in the United States Supreme Court in hopes of stopping this tax grab.

“This is not just New Hampshire’s fight,” warned Norquist. As taxpayers continue to move from high to low tax states, money hungry lawmakers will continue to search for new ways to export their state’s tax burden.

To read Norquist’s full OpEd, click here.

Earlier this year, Nevada held an emergency session to deal with a budget gap related to COVID-19. By imposing a tricky tax hike, accelerating the collection of mining taxes, and moving money around, Governor Sisolak and the legislature supposedly addressed this gap.

This is unlikely to hold, and Nevada, like many states, will have tough decisions to make on the budget. Democrat leaders continue to refuse to make government sacrifice, even as millions of private sector workers lose their jobs. Some Democrat governors are awaiting a federal bailout, others have already increased taxes and borrowing.

To stop Nevada’s Governor from passing the bill to taxpayers for an expensive state government, Assembly candidate, and Taxpayer Protection Pledge Signer, Annie Black is proposing an “Anti-Appropriations Committee to methodically sort through the states expenditures, bring them fully into the light, and cut waste.

In writing about her proposal, Black slammed Sisolak for refusing to make government workers sacrifice: “What he DIDN’T do was cut non-essential government programs, agencies and departments or lay off non-essential government workers.  And by refusing to inflict on the government the same agonizing pain he’s inflicted on the rest of us, the ongoing situation is far worse than it should be.”

The committee would be based off the federal Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures, which “cost less than $20 for every million dollars saved,” and a private committee that offered savings recommendations in Nevada previously, called the SAGE Committee.

The SAGE commission recommendations were never adopted. An anti-appropriations committee would have real teeth to advance savings recommendations, providing ready-made options for cuts whenever someone starts pining for tax hikes and pretending there are no other options available.

Black’s "Cut Out Non-Essential Spending Act" is a great policy, and example to other state legislators who will have to face down demands for tax hikes and bailouts from politicians who are fighting tooth and nail to protect their money-hungry constituencies.