Marketplace Fairness Act: Taxing Questions Remain Unanswered

Posted by Katie McAuliffe on Monday, May 6th, 2013, 5:24 PM PERMALINK

Dear Senator Enzi & Senator Alexander,

Thank you for your reply to our letter dated May 3, 2013 regarding the Marketplace Fairness Act. We appreciate you taking the time to answer; however, we do not think the most glaring issues have been addressed:

We have strong concerns about the preemption in section 6, which is the cause of a number of our questions (Questions 1, 3, 5, and 8).

Section 6 states: “this Act shall not be construed to preempt or limit any power exercised or to be exercised by a State or local jurisdiction under the law of such State or local jurisdiction or under any other Federal law.”

Under Section 6 preemption, states can choose not to subscribe to the SSUTA or the MFA minimum simplification requirements, create their own nexus laws, and collect taxes on out-of-state sales that way. These laws, which dubiously create nexus standards, would be outside of the minimum simplification requirements and also not require that a state subscribe to the $1 million small-seller threshold. Meaning that states could tax all remote sales regardless of the businesses revenue or gross receipts.

By stating that the federal MFA does not preempt or limit any power exercised or to be exercised by a state, states are now free to pursue out-of-state tax collection through their own means. For example, the New York affiliate marketers law; the Michigan, Arizona, or California privilege tax; California economic nexus; or the Oklahoma and Kentucky reporting requirements.

In its Quill decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged that Congress had the power to act on the issue of remote-seller tax collection. The MFA, as written, would allow states the ability to pass constitutionally questionable laws that attempt to expand nexus. The Supreme Court has never addressed the affiliate aspect of the New York law. The Supreme Court may have addressed the effect of “affiliates,” companies with partially shared ownership, on creating a physical presence nexus, but it has never addressed the effect of “affiliates” as term for online advertisers as used in the New York state law to create a physical presence nexus.

The MFA explicitly ignores this issue by allowing state laws to preempt the MFA. The fact that there are conflicting state court opinions on the effect of affiliate marketers creating a physical presence nexus – New York courts say they do, while Illinois courts say they don’t – is a reason that Congress should have the MFA preempt state law on the subject. Otherwise, remote retailers will continue to operate under a patchwork of conflicting state, and would be federal, law.

While these laws may be constitutionally questionable, a small-seller who does not have any physical presence in the state will most likely not have the resources to bring their claims to court.

The Section 6 preemption language was not included in the bill until this Congress. It is dangerous language that allows states to define nexus as they see fit and impose their taxation laws across their own physical borders. Removing this language would be helpful.

We are still concerned with the procedure for audits, dispute resolution, and collection authority.

Sales tax is passed on to the customer by the business; however, the business is the entity responsible for remitting the tax and therefore the entity beholden to tax collectors and taxation. A business owner being taxed by and out-of-state revenue department is subject to taxation without representation. Under the single audit authority, businesses would still be left open to audit possibilities from around 45 different tax jurisdictions, and it is not clear that tribal lands would be part of the single state auditing entity.

In your answer to the question about international taxation, you say that states can impose audits and liens on foreign businesses, by extension this authority would apply to businesses in other states as well.

We are also fearful that the limits on state audit ability and personal liability are not strong enough. There must be some way to prevent businesses from having to deal directly with out-of-state tax collection audits. Even if audits happen rarely, the possibility still exists. Language expressly protecting business from this sort of court proceeding would be very helpful in addressing our concerns

While there is a 90-day waiting period for states to begin collecting remotes sales tax, we believe that the Section 6 preemption, means that states can retroactively enforce their tax collection laws on their own citizens, regardless of the MFA’s prospective nature and waiting periods. Again, removing the Section 6 language would also be helpful to put in the bill, in addition to a removal of use tax collection should a state decide to participate in the MFA structure.

Our concerns about participation and simplification standards.

If a state chooses not to participate, that means they choose not to participate in collecting tax from other states, but there is not way for a state to choose not to comply with out-of-state sales taxes. Allowing states, especially those that have chosen not to enact a sales tax, to choose not to participate by simultaneously denying collection and remittance would offer states the greatest amount of choice and recognition of federalism under this crafting of remote sales tax collection.

To truly address federalism we must look at remote sales tax collection from both angles: not just the majority of states collecting sales tax, but also from the position of a minority of states who have elected against a sales tax.

Even if the Section 6 preemption is removed, we still find the simplification standards problematic. While software is often cited as the way to solve many simplification problems, the MFA allows states to continue with dubious rounding rules that will certainly apply to digital goods, allows taxation on daily deals at the full voucher value not the paid value, and does not require that remote sellers get the same tax holidays or deals that in-state sellers receive. These special deals are provided to all physically present sellers including big box stores

Including tribal lands adds around 550 new tax jurisdictions that can audit out-of-state retailers. These tribal lands were not included as taxation jurisdictions in S.336 of 2013, or S.1832 of 2011.

Even though the software is offered free of charge, sellers could end up with more than 45 different software products to integrate into their systems. When adding new software to a system, licenses are a fraction of the cost. Businesses must also pay for integration, mapping within the business’ existing system and any additional hardware that may be necessary.

Our concerns about taxation of financial services and digital products.

When looking at financial services products, we have to say that no state imposes taxes on financial services yet. Many at the federal level have looked to taxing financial services and in the European Union they already have financial transaction taxes. There is nothing in the MFA that prevents states from extending its authority to tax stock trades made online. There is no distinction between products and services, and there is no exemption for sales tax on specific products.

Additionally without clarification and inclusion of the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act of 2011 (S.971) in the bill language that the MFA does not apply to digital goods, the MFA could be construed as proscribing the manner in which digital goods are taxed.

In summary, the preemption language is most problematic. It allows states to neglect the simplification requirements and pursue cross-border taxation in a way that is not simple, easy, or fair. Even though Congress has the authority to legislate in matter of remote taxation, the preemption language will likely make remote sales tax collection overly burdensome to interstate commerce and therefore unconstitutional. In addition to removing the preemption language, Congress should include Representative Goodlatte’s Business Activity Tax Simplification legislation and Representative Lofgren’s Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness legislation to prevent state taxation overreaches in the digital sector and on business income.

Thank you again for your previous reply and concerns. Our questions and this reply are intended to flesh-out issues and present reasonable solutions to what are major issues for taxpayers. We look forward to working with you to address these issues and ensure no legislation is passed that harms taxpayers nationwide. Please have your staff contact Katie McAuliffe by email, kmcauliffe@atr.org, or phone, 202-785-0266, if you would like to continue the discussion.

Onwards,

Grover Norquist

More from Americans for Tax Reform

The Courts Are Cooked - EU Targets American Companies for Budget Shortfalls through Lawsuits

Oklahoma Ballot Measure Would Fix Harmful Sentencing Rules & Save Taxpayer Dollars

NJ Budget “Plan”: Another $1 Billion in Taxes and $4 Billion in Debt

Biden Adviser: Change Constitution to Impose Wealth Tax

Posted by John Kartch on Friday, December 4th, 2020, 9:30 AM PERMALINK Follow @JohnKartch

Heather Boushey, one of Joe Biden's picks for his Council of Economic Advisers, wants to impose a wealth tax and earlier this year suggested amending the Constitution in order to make it happen.

On Feb. 6, Boushey said:

“The United States [was] one of the first in the world to do a federal income tax. When we first passed it into law it was deemed unconstitutional and it took decades to change the constitution to have a federal income tax. We might need to do that again on a wealth tax."

A "wealth tax" is wrong on principle and unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 states: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Wealth taxes have proven so unworkable, and raise so little money, and chase so many people away that even Sweden and Denmark abolished their wealth taxes.

Wealth taxes were also repealed in The Netherlands, Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Luxembourg, Ireland, and Italy.

Wealth taxes pushed by Democrats and left-leaning academics typically include an "exit tax" which even the Washington Post editorial board said "conveys a certain authoritarian odor."

Joe Biden is not exactly surrounding himself with "moderates."

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

Posted by Sheridan Nolen on Thursday, December 3rd, 2020, 3:49 PM PERMALINK Follow @snolen_ok

After just two years of a Democrat-run General Court – and multiple efforts to raise taxes and destroy the New Hampshire Advantage, which were fortunately vetoed by Governor Chris Sununu – voters put Republicans back in charge of the Granite State. Now, the people of New Hampshire can look forward to some much-needed tax relief.

Going into Election Day, Democrats controlled the state Senate with a 14-10 majority and the state House with a 230-157 majority (13 seats were vacant). Democrats also had a 3-2 advantage on the Executive Council, which approves expenditures in the state budget and provides oversight for receipts and spending for state departments and agencies.

With those majorities, Democrats proposed a number of tax increases, including an income tax and a sales tax. They also tried to impose a variety of burdensome regulations, such as raising the cap on the state’s net metering program, which would have increased the cost of monthly energy bills.

Granite Staters clearly had enough of the liberal tax and spend agenda, and they showed it on November 3rd.

In addition to reelecting Gov. Sununu – one of 13 Governors who have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a written commitment to New Hampshire taxpayers that he will oppose and veto any and all tax increases – for his third consecutive term, voters also handed both legislative chambers back over to the GOP. Republicans now control the state Senate with a 14-10 majority and the state House with a 229-171 majority. Buttressing this Republican trifecta, voters flipped the Executive Council to Republicans, with a 4-1 advantage.

“New Hampshire Republicans ran as a unified ticket that put New Hampshire first, and the result is an incoming Republican Majority in the Executive Council and both chambers at the State House,” tweeted Gov. Sununu. “I am pleased that Granite State voters rejected the DC style politics that had crept into the State House these last two years, and I am excited to get to work with our new Republican majorities to deliver results for the people of this state.”

Gov. Sununu is already showing the people of New Hampshire how Republicans will deliver results: Tax relief. On multiple occasions, Gov. Sununu has expressed strong support for reducing the meals and rooms tax and has also indicated that he would like to reduce other business taxes.

The New Hampshire meals and rooms tax is imposed on restaurants, hotels, and grocery stores that sell prepared food. Currently, the meals and rooms tax rate is 9% of the meal or room cost. Reducing this tax would be a huge win for New Hampshire’s tourism industry, which has been hit particularly hard by the forced shutdowns to slow the spread of the virus.

In addition to helping these struggling businesses, reducing the meals and rooms tax would actually be a win for all Granite Staters, as it would reduce the overall cost of purchasing food at restaurants and staying overnight in hotels, cabins, and other lodging facilities.

Gov. Sununu has also expressed interest in undoing Democrat-led increases to the tax Business Profits Tax (BPT) and Business Enterprise Tax (BET).

Prior to Democrats taking control of the General Court, the state’s BPT and BET rates were scheduled to be reduced in 2019 and 2021 thanks to a budget prepared by Republicans and Gov. Sununu in 2017.

The Democrats agreed to allow the 2019 tax cuts to take effect as planned, but made the 2021 tax cuts contingent upon two revenue triggers. The first trigger would have allowed the promised 2021 tax cuts to take effect if revenues had come in above a certain threshold. The second trigger would have increased the BPT and BET rates, effectively undoing the 2019 tax relief, if revenues had come in below a certain threshold.

While businesses across New Hampshire dodged the latter trigger – which would have resulted in them facing tax increases during the pandemic – the first trigger was not hit either. Now, because Democrats insisted on changing the law, New Hampshire taxpayers have been robbed of tax relief in 2021.

Fortunately, Gov. Sununu and Republicans in the General Court have expressed interested in reversing this tax hike and allowing the 2021 tax cuts to take effect as planned, regardless of revenue. This would result business across New Hampshire, who have already been making tough decisions over the past few months, having more money to invest in jobs, wages, and basic business operations.

Now that New Hampshire is totally controlled by Republicans, members of the House, Senate, and Executive Council can work with Gov. Sununu in providing much needed tax relief to the hard-working people across the Granite State.

Photo Credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture

More from Americans for Tax Reform

How the Trump Republican Tax Cuts Are Helping New Hampshire

Matt Mowers Becomes First Candidate to Make “No New Taxes” Commitment in NH-01

Are New Hampshire Lawmakers Going to Burden Ratepayers With Higher Energy Costs?

Posted by Tom Hebert on Thursday, December 3rd, 2020, 2:45 PM PERMALINK Follow @tomhebertdc

Lawmakers are in the process of negotiating the details of a new Coronavirus relief package.

While an agreement has not yet been reached, a recent $908 billion framework released by lawmakers in both parties contains two concerning provisions that should be removed from the final bill.

First, the current package contains $160 billion in bailout cash for state and local governments. Lawmakers should not use this crisis as an excuse to bail states out for past mistakes unrelated to the pandemic.

Congress has already provided funding for states and localities to be reimbursed for pandemic-related expenses. The CARES Act created the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), a $150 billion fund to help state and local governments with unplanned pandemic-related expenses like testing, acquiring and distributing personal protective equipment, and payroll expenses for first responders and other essential employees.

Blue state lawmakers want to use new bailout money to shore up their mismanaged pension systems. In 2017, the state pension gap was $1.28 trillion. This means that states would need $1.28 trillion just for their pension systems to break even.

Federal bailouts in times of crisis have historically led to expansions in state spending, creating a moral hazard and disincentivizing decision-makers from being prudent stewards of taxpayer resources. Following a $20 billion federal bailout for state budgets after a market downturn in 2003, state spending rose by 33 percent in the subsequent five years and state debts increased by 20 percent in the following four years.

Second, the framework provides $300-per-week in additional unemployment payments through March. These payments are on top of regular unemployment compensation that displaced workers receive from states.

Expanding unemployment payments have historically kept Americans out of work. On the heels of the Great Recession, Congress and President Obama expanded unemployment several times, eventually topping out at 99 weeks of payments.

Analysts from the New York Federal Reserve estimated that the unemployment rate would have been 2.2 percentage points lower in 2011 and 3 percentage points lower in 2010 if Obama’s benefit expansion did not exist. This means that the disincentive to work the benefit expansion created kept approximately 4 million Americans out of a job during the slowest economic recovery in modern history.

Democrats are pushing to revive the Pelosi temporary $600-per-week federal pandemic unemployment compensation (FPUC) benefit. Before the FPUC expired in July, it created a situation in which 68 percent of Americans got paid more on unemployment than in the workplace.

The subsidy of welfare over work will have lasting impacts on the economy that will only worsen if brought back, either at the $300 or $600 level. A recent study conducted by the Heritage Foundation found that the FPUC will reduce GDP by between $955 billion and $1.49 trillion.

While workers who have been displaced by the pandemic deserve a safety net, expanding these payments will endanger our economic recovery and discourage Americans from safely reentering the workforce.

Even if lawmakers reach an agreement in this lame duck session, President-elect Joe Biden has said that “any package passed in a lame-duck session is lucky to be at best just a start.” If lawmakers fail to hold the line now on wasteful spending, it will empower Democrats to spend trillions of dollars more in 2021.

As lawmakers continue to hash out the details of a potential new Coronavirus relief package, they should remove the $160 billion in bailout cash and $300-per-week in expanded unemployment payments from the final bill.

Photo Credit: Tim Rawle

Posted by Tom Hebert on Thursday, December 3rd, 2020, 10:45 AM PERMALINK Follow @tomhebertdc

If Democrat Senate candidates Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff win their runoff elections on January 5th 2021, they will rubber stamp the Biden-Harris agenda to raise taxes on families and businesses in Georgia and across the country.

Biden has promised to impose $4 trillion in new or higher taxes on the American people.

Under this plan, Georgia families and individuals will face a top tax rate of 55.09 percent. Georgia small businesses that operate as pass-through entities and pay taxes through the individual code would also face this new top rate.

The breakdown is below:

Biden top federal rate: 39.6 percent

Georgia top rate: 5.75 percent

Medicare payroll tax: 1.45 percent

Biden new payroll tax: 6.2 percent

Pease limitation: 1.188 percent

Additional Medicare tax: .9 percent

-------------------

55.09 percent

Biden would repeal the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which would raise the top marginal tax rate to 39.6 percent. A typical family of four with annual income of $73,000 will see a $2,000 tax hike.

Biden has also proposed implementing a new, 12.4 percent payroll tax on Americans earning above $400,000. This tax would be split evenly between employers and employees, resulting in a 6.2 percent tax hike on Americans. This new tax would not be indexed to inflation, meaning it would eventually hit all Americans.

Additionally, Biden would restore the Pease limitation, a provision that limits a filer’s itemized deduction by 3% of the amount that the filer’s AGI exceeds a certain threshold. The limitation can strip away up to 80% of the value of a taxpayer’s itemized deductions, an effective additional 1.188 percent tax when the top marginal rate is 39.6 percent. Biden would also cap itemized deductions at 28 percent.

While Ossoff and Warnock would support these tax increases on Georgians, Republican Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue will hold firm against the Biden plan of higher taxes on families and businesses.

Photo Credit: John Ramspott

Posted by Sheridan Nolen on Wednesday, December 2nd, 2020, 2:08 PM PERMALINK Follow @snolen_ok

Recently, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf signed into law a new budget that will carry state government operations through the remainder of the 2020-21 fiscal year. This legislation comes after lawmakers in Harrisburg approved a partial, stopgap budget amid the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic back in May.

This new plan will bring the total operating budget for June 2021 to $36.5 billion, which is about a 4% increase in spending from last year. Fortunately for taxpayers, the approved budget does not include any tax hikes for Pennsylvanians – for now.

Lawmakers approved the use of roughly $1.33 billion CARES Act relief and more than $2.1 billion in federal Medicaid funding to balance the budget. However, the plan to use CARES Act funding to plug budget holes could be blocked by the federal government, as CARES Act guidance limits funds to be used only for costs directly related to the pandemic. Back in September, Pennsylvania was denied allocation of its CARES Act funds to make up its shortfall in yearly payments to school districts.

According to the Commonwealth Foundation, using one-time sources of money could create challenges for next year’s state budget. Gov. Wolf could attempt to increase taxes in 2021 in the name of avoiding cutting state funding, even if that funding was supplemented by CARES Act funds.

In 2009, something similar happened after Gov. Ed Rendell and the legislature used federal stimulus money to fund public schools. A few years later, when that stimulus money expired, there was sudden a $1 billion “budget cut” from public schools and the blame was placed on then-Gov. Tom Corbett. Since Gov. Wolf already proposes to increase taxes on energy bills with a natural gas severance tax every year, this could give him another excuse for it.

Further, the state budget uses $431 million from “shadow budgets” and makes small cuts to balance the budget. While this is great news for taxpayers in the moment, as it does not call for an immediate tax hike, this is just a one-time reduction in spending and does not provide long-term solutions.

A “shadow budget” is a portion of state spending in “off-book” accounts (not accounted for in the General Budget Revenue) that are financed by dedicated revenue sources or transfers from the General Fund. One shadow budget example is the redirection of sales tax revenue to the Public Transportation Trust Fund in 2007.

Shadow budgets prevent public scrutiny of spending decisions made by the legislature.

Lastly, the approved budget fails to restrict supplemental appropriations, making it highly likely that Gov. Wolf will “accidentally” overspend again. In the past, Gov. Wolf has exceeded budgeted amounts for certain programs by hundreds of millions of dollars through “supplemental appropriations.” This is a bad habit that needs to be formally restricted by the legislature – something this budget has failed to do.

A no-tax hike budget is another win for Pennsylvanians, but next year's budget fight is right around the corner.

Photo Credit: spodzone

Posted by Tom Hebert on Wednesday, December 2nd, 2020, 12:30 PM PERMALINK Follow @tomhebertdc

House Democrats are demanding increased IRS funding. In a letter to Congressional leadership, two dozen Democrats called for $12.1 billion in funding for the IRS including $5.2 billion for “enforcement activities.”

The Democrats argued that strong enforcement actions should be a “priority” for Congress, a goal shared by the incoming Biden administration.

According to Biden Council of Economic Advisers member Jared Bernstein, Biden will seek “significant increases in IRS enforcement and auditing.” This could lead to a return to the era of the Obama IRS which wrongly used its authority to target and harass taxpayers, especially conservative non-profits.

Most notably, the Obama IRS was caught unfairly denying conservative groups non-profit status ahead of the 2012 election.

According to a Senate Finance Committee report, the process set up by IRS employee Lois Lerner resulted in only one conservative group being granted non-profit status over a three year period.

This was no coincidence. As the report noted, this delay was a result of Lerner’s personal political views:

“...directly resulted in disparate treatment for applicants affiliated with Tea Party and other conservative causes… Lerner showed little concern for conservative applicants, even when members of Congress inquired on their behalf, allowing them to languish in the IRS bureaucracy for as long as two years with little or no action.”

Not only did the IRS allow this to occur but they also allowed evidence to be destroyed. According to documentation released by the House Oversight Committee, backup tapes containing as many as 24,000 Lois Lerner emails were destroyed by an IRS entity officially known as the “Media Management Midnight Unit” located in Martinsburg, West Virginia. These tapes were destroyed via powerful magnets a month after top IRS officials learned that there were gaps in the Lerner email production.

While this was one of the worst cases of misusing taxpayer dollars, the Obama IRS routinely misused federal funds and failed to do its job.

According to a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report, the IRS rehired more than 200 employees who were previously employed by the agency, but fired for previous conduct or performance issues between January 2015 and March 2016.

The agency routinely released this private information in FOIA requests where it should have been redacted, lost track of over 1,000 laptops containing sensitive taxpayer information, and destroyed laptops containing similar information.

The IRS failed to screen 2.2 million tax returns for possible ID theft and illegally gave 57 contracts valued at $18.8 million to 17 corporations, who had outstanding tax debt or a felony conviction.

Clearly, the agency displayed a clear record of politicization and incompetence.

Ultimately, the House Democrat request for increased IRS funding for “enforcement” is only the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately for the American taxpayer, Biden is set to bring back all of the incompetence and corruption of the Obama IRS.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

Posted by Matt Owens on Wednesday, December 2nd, 2020, 12:17 PM PERMALINK

Ohio’s Senate bill 3 continues to proceed through hearings in the House, following its overwhelming passage in the Senate earlier this year. This has been a long process, and the bill deserves to get over the finish line before session ends, and a new session begins next year.

The bill would reduce many nonviolent drug offenses from a felony down to a misdemeanor, divert more addicts to treatment rather than just incarceration, and expand expungement so people are better able to get back on their feet.

While some opponents continue to bring up concerns about the impact on drug abuse should SB3 pass, the bill remains a conservative, tough and smart approach. A Pew research study found no correlation between imprisonment rates and rates of drug use. And a recent Buckeye Institute paper thoroughly puts concerns to bed:

“According to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), a prison sentence has little, if any, deterrent effect on future drug use by nonviolent drug offenders. The study found that “On average, incarceration in the United States costs approximately $22,000 per month, and there is little evidence that this strategy reduces drug use or drug-related re-incarceration rates for nonviolent drug offenders. … “A separate study of 15 states (including Ohio) by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that one-quarter of individuals incarcerated for drug crimes returned to prison within three years.”.

The reality is that the current system does little to improve the situation with drug addiction, and makes it worse by not addressing addiction while tagging people with life-altering criminal convictions that make finding work and building a life more difficult.

This is why prison alternatives should be strongly considered. Senate bill 3 could give those struggling a second chance to get back on track rather than send them into a negative feedback spiral.

Further Senate Bill 3 remains bad news for dangerous drug dealers. Mandatory minimums and strict enforcement would still be intact for high-level traffickers and offenders.

Getting these low level offenders out of the prison system could be prudent way to help Ohio’s already overcrowded prisons. The main focus is on reducing crime and helping individuals but, the fiscal benefits from this bill can’t be ignored. The Ohio legislative services commission estimates this bill could save the state $75 million per year.

The House and Governor DeWine should act swiftly to get SB3 passed and signed before the year is out. It would be a step towards reducing the size and scope of government power by administering proportional justice to nonviolent offenders, and reducing the need for government spending on prisons.

Photo Credit: https://www.urbanohio.com

Posted by Clara Diaz on Wednesday, December 2nd, 2020, 9:00 AM PERMALINK

If Democrat Senate candidates Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff win their runoff elections on January 5th, 2021, they will provide the deciding votes for the Biden-Harris agenda of tax increases on families and businesses in Georgia and across the country.

This will result in the reinstatement of the Obamacare individual mandate tax penalty, increasing taxes on over 100,000 low and middle-income Georgia families.

The individual mandate tax forced American families to purchase government approved health insurance or pay a $695 tax for an individual and $2,085 for a family. It was zeroed out in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) passed by Congressional Republicans and signed by President Trump.

When it was in effect, the tax was one of the regressive in the code and hit millions of low- and middle-income Americans across the country and in Georgia. According to IRS data:

In 2017, the tax hit 143,180 Georgia households.

127,620 of those households, or 89 percent, had annual income of $50,000 or less.
135,360 of those households, or 94 percent, had annual income of $75,000 or less.

In 2018, the tax hit 116,430 Georgia households.

100,800 of those households, or 86 percent, had annual income of $50,000 or less.
108,290 of those households, or 93 percent, had annual income of $75,000 or less

While Warnock and Ossoff support the Biden agenda of higher taxes, Senator Perdue and Senator Loeffler oppose efforts to reimpose the individual mandate.

By voting for the TCJA in 2017, Sen. Perdue voted to zero out the mandate and reduce taxes for middle class families.

While Sen. Loeffler was not in Congress for this vote, she has consistently opposed new tax increases on the American people. She recently released the “Modernizing Americans’ Health Care Plan,” a framework that directly repudiated the left’s plan to raise taxes and impose socialized healthcare. Instead, her proposal calls for increased healthcare choice and access through free market, patient-centered policies.

On January 5th, a vote for Ossoff and Warnock is a vote to reimpose the Obamacare mandate tax on over 100,000 middle class Georgia families.