Small Business on Threat of Biden Tax Hikes: "We have already started a hiring freeze."

There are over one million small businesses organized as C-corporations and they will be directly hit by President Biden's corporate tax rate increase. These employers are vital members of the Main Street business community in cities and towns across America.
With Biden's threat to raise the corporate tax rate from 21 percent up to 28 percent, some small businesses are instituting hiring freezes.
As reported by Reuters, Michael Canty of Ohio-based Alloy Precision Technologies is very concerned about the Biden tax increases:
His manufacturing company employs roughly 85 people and is formed as a C-corp under the federal tax code and subject to the corporate tax rate.
He said the proposal amounts to a 33 percent increase is his company's taxes and warned that it will make companies like his less competitive in the global marketplace.
"We have already started a hiring freeze. Between the tax increase and what we see as a tough regulatory environment, we have to prepare," Canty said.
Biden doesn't want the public to know that his tax increases will wallop small businesses hard.
During his campaign, President Joe Biden promised the American people that he would not raise taxes on small businesses. Now safely in office, he is violating that promise. His tax plan imposes direct tax increases on small businesses.
The promise was made on Feb. 20, 2020 before a national audience during a Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC:
MSNBC's Hallie Jackson: "I want to ask you about Latinos owning one out of every four new small businesses in the United States. Many of them have benefited from President Trump's tax cuts, and they may be hesitant about new taxes or regulations. Will taxes on their small businesses go up under your administration?"
Biden: "No. Taxes on small businesses won't go up."
Click here or below to see Biden's broken pledge
But Biden is pushing a series of tax increases that raise small business taxes:
1. Biden's increase in the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6 percent will hit small business sole proprietorships, LLCs, partnerships and S-corporations.
Small businesses organized as pass-through firms don’t pay taxes themselves. Instead, the profits of the business “pass through” to the owners who pay individual taxes on their 1040 form. Biden wants to raise the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6 percent which will hit many small businesses.
From the Tax Policy Center:
"In 2017, individuals reported about $1.03 trillion in net income from all types of pass-throughs accounting for 9.3 percent of total AGI reported on individual income tax returns."
According to the Congressional Research Service, "The majority of both corporations and pass-throughs in 2011 had fewer than five employees (55% of C corporations and 64% of pass-throughs). Nearly 99% of both corporations and pass-throughs had fewer than 500 employees, the most common employment-based threshold used by the Small Business Administration (SBA)."
As noted in a Senate Finance Committee report, "in 2016, only 42 percent of net business income in the United States was earned by corporations, down from 78.3 percent in 1980."
2. Biden’s corporate income tax rate hike from 21 percent to 28 percent targets one million small businesses across the country organized as corporations.
As noted by the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, there are 31.7 million small businesses in the U.S. Of those, 25.7 million have no employees, while 6 million have employees. Of these 6 million small employers, 16.8 percent, or 1 million of these businesses are classified as c-corporations. The SBA classifies a small employer as any independent business with fewer than 500 employees.
Biden claims his spending plan makes large corporations pay their “fair share.” However, the plan will raise taxes on many small businesses that are structured as corporations.
3. Biden's elimination of stepped up basis: A second death tax on small business.
Biden is targeting small businesses with a second Death Tax: Biden will eliminate step-up in basis. This is a devastating tax increase on small businesses. In this video, you can see a sample of the many times Biden has threatened to eliminate step-up in basis.
Elimination of stepped up basis would impose an automatic capital gains tax at death -- separate from, and in addition to -- the Death Tax.
In a Forbes piece titled "This Biden Tax Hike Hike Will Hit Mom & Pop Hard" tax lawyer Robert W. Wood writes:
Under current tax law, assets that pass directly to your heirs get a step-up in basis for income tax purposes. It doesn’t matter if you pay estate tax when you die or not. For generations, assets held at death get a stepped-up basis—to market value—when you die. Small businesses count on this.
Wood notes:
Biden's proposal would tax an asset's unrealized appreciation at transfer. You mean Junior gets taxed whether or not he sells the business? Essentially, yes. The idea that you could build up your small business and escape death tax and income tax to pass it to your kids is on the chopping block. Biden would levy a tax on unrealized appreciation of assets passed on at death. By taxing the unrealized gain at death, heirs would get hit at the transfer, regardless of whether they sell the asset.
As reported previously by CNBC:
“When someone dies and the asset transfers to an heir, that transfer itself will be a taxable event, and the estate is required to pay taxes on the gains as if they sold the asset,” said Howard Gleckman, senior fellow in the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
As reported by Richard Rubin of the Wall Street Journal:
Manufacturers and farmers, who tend to be more asset-rich and cash-poor, are watching closely for those details, concerned they might have to sell illiquid businesses to pay the taxes.
Courtney Silver, president of Ketchie Inc., a family-owned, 25-employee machine shop in Concord, N.C. that started in 1947, said she was concerned about the potential impact.
“I really can’t imagine being hit with that decision of that potential tax implication,” said Ms. Silver, 40 years old, who took over the business when her husband, Bobby Ketchie, died in 2014. “That to me is really hard to wrap my head around.”
It could be challenging for asset owners to figure out their tax basis, which is what they paid for the property and invested in it. That complexity is part of what doomed a similar proposal in the late 1970s, which Congress passed, then delayed, then repealed.
As noted in an Ernst and Young study, if a small business is unable to provide sufficient evidence to prove the cost basis of an asset, then it may set to $0. In other words, tax would be applied to the entire value of taxpayer assets:
“Family-owned businesses may also find it difficult to comply because of problems in determining the decedent’s basis and in valuing the bequeathed assets. It seems likely that these administrative problems could lead to costly disputes between taxpayers and the IRS. Additionally, if sufficient evidence is not available to prove basis, then $0 may be used for tax purposes. This may result in an inappropriately large tax at death.”
To honor his small business tax pledge to the American people, Biden must forego the above tax increases.
JCT Analysis: Biden Corporate Tax Hike Would Hit the Middle Class

Increasing the corporate income tax would disproportionately harm American workers, retirees, and small businesses, according to an analysis performed by the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). The report, which was released by Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and House Ways and Means Ranking Member Kevin Brady (R-Texas) found within 10 years, 169 million taxpayers earning less than $500,000 or less will bear the burden of the corporate tax increase.
President Biden's FY 2022 budget proposed 29 tax increases on top of the 28 percent corporate tax proposal, including a global minimum tax, doubling the capital gains tax, creating a Second Death Tax, and more. In the Senate Democrat's $3.5 trillion plan, many of these tax hikes will be included.
Small businesses and working families would be hit by Biden’s plan to raise the corporate tax rate. About 1.4 million small businesses are organized as C-corporations, meaning they are hit directly by an increase in the corporate income tax.
Under a 28 percent corporate tax, as President Biden has proposed, almost 60 percent of the tax would be borne by taxpayers making less than $500,000. Of those impacted by a 28 percent corporate income tax hike, 98.4 percent earn less than $500,000.
“This study supports what we’ve long known--corporate tax hikes are primarily borne by workers and retirees, and certainly the middle class--those making well below $400,000 a year,” Sen. Crapo and Rep. Brady explained. “America’s health and economic recovery remain very fragile, and may get worse again before getting better. Unemployment is still too high and inflation is a real concern. Now is not the time to raise taxes on the very people we are asking to lead us out of this crisis.”
The analysis also detailed how low- and middle-income Americans have a stake in the success of U.S. corporations through ownership of stocks, bonds, pensions, IRAs and other retirement accounts. There are 107.8 million U.S. taxpayers with ownership stake in U.S. corporations, 97.7 percent of which earn less than $500,000 a year.
These findings should not come as a surprise. Several studies have previously proven that corporate tax hikes will increase consumer prices, reduce workers’ wages, and cost the economy jobs:
- 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 National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that 31 percent of the corporate tax rate is borne by consumers through higher prices
- 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 concluded that Biden’s budget would result in higher taxes for 74.1 percent of middle income-quintile households. By 2031, the TPC found that 95 percent of this income group will see a tax increase due to the expiration of middle-class tax cuts and corporate tax increase.
President Biden and Democrats continually claim their tax hikes will hold middle class families and small businesses harmless. However, the facts do not support this case. If Democrats have their way and raise taxes, millions of main street businesses, low- and middle-income workers, and retirees will be hit.
Photo Credit: Faces of the World
Senate Fails to Adopt Compromise Cryptocurrency Amendment

Americans for Tax Reform was disappointed to see the Senate fail to adopt the compromise cryptocurrency amendment (No. 2656) filed by Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) that would have significantly improved the tax reporting requirement provisions in the bipartisan infrastructure bill.
Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, stated:
“Cryptocurrencies should never have been put up as a pay-for in the infrastructure package. It was creative accounting in the part of the White House to try and pay for part of their spending spree. Now an entire industry which should be thriving in America is threatened by IRS agents and requirements to access private information.
It is very concerning that senators could not agree to common sense language on cryptocurrencies. It’s clear legislation, especially on emergent technologies, should go though regular order rather than being hidden in a massive package.”
This afternoon, Sen. Toomey asked for unanimous consent to include the amendment in the infrastructure package. This afternoon, Sen. Toomey asked for unanimous consent to include the amendment in the infrastructure package. Unfortunately, objections by other senators prevented the amendment from being adopted. In particular, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) blocked the amendment because it would have been paired with Senator Richard Shelby’s (R-Ala.) amendment to increase defense spending.
The compromise amendment was an agreement between Senators Toomey, Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mark Warner (D-Va.), and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) to narrow the definition of a broker for digital assets for reporting tax information to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). While not perfect, the amendment was a significant improvement from the language in the base text of the package.
We encourage members of the House of Representatives to fix the language in the base text and look forward to working with them in this endeavor. The last thing the United States government needs to do is regulate the cryptocurrency market to the point where the industry leaves the United States entirely.
Photo Credit: John Williams
Video: Americans stuck with higher costs despite Biden promise
President Biden promised Americans that, "You'll actually see your standard of living go up and your costs go down."
But as this video shows, Americans are struggling to pay the bills due to Biden's inflation:
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
CNN Visits Scranton and Finds Inflation Hitting Hard

"The price of just about everything is going up. Used cars, to gas, to food."
CNN visited Scranton, PA and found that residents are getting hard hit by President Biden's inflation.
Residents said:
"This is probably the worst it has been in a long time."
"My car usually takes around $25 to fill up. Now it is $10 more."
"We are seeing 10-15% increases -- things like flour, mayonnaise, a lot of oils, everything that we are experiencing now is unprecedented."
Click below to view:
Sweden is Not the Socialist Country Democrats Think It Is

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) erroneously link Sweden’s success to socialism. Sanders said, “we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway” while AOC noted, “my policies most closely resemble what we see in the U.K., in Norway, in Finland, in Sweden."
Sweden’s movement to liberalism started in the mid-nineteenth century led by Minister of Finance, Johan August Gripenstedt. The newfound freedom propelled Sweden’s economy and improved livings standards far above those under socialism.
Sweden’s GDP per capita increased yearly by 2 percent from 1870 to 1913 – 50 percent faster than Western Europe because of Gripenstedt’s policies to reduce tariffs, open free trade with France, and welcome immigration and emigration to incentivize investments and innovation.
However, after decades of improvement, a socialist experiment wreaked havoc on Sweden in the 1970s. The government monopolized education, healthcare, and social security which doubled public spending from 31 to 60 percent of GDP between 1960 and 1980. The marginal tax rate for the wealthy reached its highest at 85 percent in 1980. These policies caused a mass exodus on businesses like IKEA. Before the experiment, Sweden was 10 percent richer than the average G7 country. Now, Sweden was 10 percent poorer. The combined factors of rising unemployment, a ballooning deficit, and debt-driven inflation careened Sweden into a financial crisis with interest rates as high as 500%.
From 1991 to 1994, Prime Minister Carl Bildt returned Sweden to classical liberalism. Reforms included eliminating taxes on wealth, property, gifts, and inheritance. Sweden obtained tariff-free access to the European markets after becoming a member state of the EU in 1995. In addition, Bildt introduced a school voucher system, privatized healthcare, and replaced social security with a defined contribution and private pension plan. After socialism ended, inflation deflated, and real wages increased 65 percent. The lesson is clear: Sweden’s de-regulation, low tariffs, privatization, and free enterprise are responsible for Sweden’s journey to prosperity.
Democrats have an outdated view of Sweden. The socialist Sweden of the 1960s drowned free enterprise and living standards. The 1990 market reforms brought Sweden back from the brink. Take a look at the classical-liberal policies of Sweden today compared to those in the United States. Would Sanders and AOC endorse these?
Sources to Figure 1: Policies of Classical Liberalism present in the United States and Sweden
Top Corporate Income Tax Rate data point: Asen, Elke. "Corporate Tax Rates Around the World." Tax Foundation, Tax Foundation, 9 Dec. 2020, https://taxfoundation.org/publications/corporate-tax-rates-around-the-world/; “Taxes on Corporate Income.” Worldwide Tax Summaries PwC, PwC, July 2021, https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/quick-charts/corporate-income-tax-cit-rates.
MFN Simple Average Tariff Rate data point: “World Trade Profiles," WTO, 2021, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/tariff_profiles_e.htm
Dems Set Stage for Trillions in Tax Hikes, 87,000 IRS Agents, Woke Spending

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have introduced the Democrat Fiscal Year 2022 budget resolution. This budget includes instructions for the Democrats to fast-track their reckless $3.5 trillion ($3,500,000,000,000) tax and spending spree later this year.
ATR urges Senators to vote no on this resolution. If signed into law, it will tee off passage of the following proposals:
Trillions in new tax increases on working families and small businesses. This budget resolution will be the first step toward the Biden plan to raise taxes by $3 trillion over the next decade. Some of these tax increases include:
- Increasing the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent, which will be passed along to working families in the form of higher prices, fewer jobs, and lower wages. This will give the U.S. a combined state-federal rate of 32 percent, higher than our foreign competitors including China, which has a 25 percent corporate tax rate. This will also fall on over 1.4 million small businesses organized as c-corporations.
- Doubling the capital gains tax to 43.4 percent, a rate more than double China’s capital gains tax.
- Taking away step-up in basis and imposing a second death tax by taxing unrealized capital gains at death. This will disproportionately fall on family-owned businesses. Taking away step-up in basis has already been tried and failed. In 1976, Congress eliminated stepped-up basis, but it was so complicated and unworkable that it was restored in 1980.
- Imposing a 15 percent minimum tax on “book income” that will disallow the use of important deductions and credits that help promote job creation and economic growth.
- Increase the top income tax rate to 39.6%, a tax increase that will fall on small businesses. As noted in a recent Senate Finance Committee report, "... in 2016, only 42 percent of net business income in the United States was earned by corporations, down from 78.3 percent in 1980."
- New taxes on American energy including a tax on manufacturers based on their methane production and a carbon border tax. These tax increases will be passed along to families and businesses in the form of higher prices.
- Creating a 21 percent global minimum tax, higher than the 15 percent global minimum tax the Biden admin is pushing other countries to enact.
- Repealing the deduction for foreign-derived intangible income, a tax cut that encourages businesses to house their intellectual property in the United States.
$80 billion in new IRS funding to hire 87,000 new agents. This would allow the IRS to audit and harass small businesses and American families for an additional $787 billion. It would hire enough new IRS agents to fill Nationals Park twice.
It would help implement the Biden plan to create a new comprehensive financial account information reporting regime which would force the disclosure of any business or personal account that exceeds $600.
Not only would this include the bank, loan, and investment accounts of virtually every individual and business, but it would also include third-party providers like Venmo, CashApp, and PayPal.
New IRS funding will also be a boon to the union that represents IRS employees. This union, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), shovels 97 percent of their money into Democrat campaign coffers.
IRS employees also regularly perform union work on the taxpayer’s dime. In 2019, 1,421 IRS and other Treasury Department employees spent 353,820 hours of taxpayer-funded union time (TFUT), costing the federal government $17.27 million.
Socialist healthcare policies such as H.R. 3, the Pelosi plan to impose new taxes and government price controls on American medical innovation. This legislation creates a 95 percent excise tax on manufacturers and imposes an international reference pricing scheme that directly imports foreign price controls into the U.S.
This proposal will reduce access to new, lifesaving and life-preserving medicines. According to research by the Galen Institute, the U.S. had access to 90 percent of new cures launched between 2011 and 2018, a rate far greater than comparable foreign countries. For instance, The United Kingdom had access to 60 percent of medicines, Japan had 50 percent, and Canada had just 44 percent.
It will also threaten high-paying manufacturing jobs across the country at a time when we are just emerging from the economic wreckage from the pandemic. Pharmaceutical manufacturers invest $100 billion in the U.S. economy every year, directly supporting 800,000 jobs including jobs in every state.
Trillions in new welfare spending that will allow the federal government to promote woke policies. This includes:
- Hundreds of billions in funding for “free” pre-K and community college to “close the equity gap.” Part of this funding will ensure classroom environments that are “inclusive for all students.”
- $10 billion to create a Civilian Climate Corps. The program will help set the stage for the Green New Deal and give progressive activists free government housing, transportation, and salaries to “advance environmental justice.”
- New spending to make childcare “affordable,” and to promote “culturally and linguistically responsive environments.”
- New federal subsidies to improve “housing affordability and equity” and to encourage green and sustainable housing.
- Lowers the Medicare eligibility age and expands coverage to Dental, Vision, and Hearing.
The Democrat budget resolution is a reckless proposal that will lead to increased taxes on working families and small businesses and trillions in new spending on welfare programs and woke policies.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
Senators Should Reject Adding Grassley-Leahy Anti-Fraud Amendments Act to Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal

Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) have introduced the “Anti-Fraud Amendments Act,” as an amendment to the bipartisan infrastructure bill. This amendment (#2435) should be rejected by Senators.
The amendment would dramatically change the burden of proof standards in False Claims Act (FCA) cases. It would essentially require companies to prove their innocence, rather than requiring the government to prove its own case against defendants.
Specifically, the legislation requires defendants to disprove the plaintiff’s contention with a heightened “clear and convincing” standard of proof. In this way, the defendant’s burden to prove their innocence is higher than the plaintiff’s burden of proof to prove the defendant’s guilt. To make matters worse, this would apply retroactively to any FCA case that is pending on the date of enactment.
FCA cases are taken up when the government suspects a company has falsely billed the government, over-represented the amount of a delivered product, or under-stated an obligation to the government.
Adopting this new evidentiary standard ignores the views of a unanimous Supreme Court. Universal Health Servs. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar explained that the FCA materiality element is “demanding” and “rigorous” because of its potentially penal application, detailing that the FCA “is not ‘an all-purpose antifraud statute’ or a vehicle for punishing garden-variety breaches of contract or regulatory violations.”
In this case, the Court required the government to prove that the alleged false claim “went to the very essence of the bargain,” but imposed no additional burden on defendants in these cases. Imposing a higher burden of proof for defendants than for plaintiffs in these cases is the opposite of what the SCOTUS attempted to achieve in Escobar.
While this amendment makes it more difficult for companies to defend themselves, it also shifts the cost of government discovery to defendants. It would require defendants to pay the government’s attorney fees and discovery costs unless the defendant proves that the information sought is “relevant, proportionate to the needs of the case, and not unduly burdensome.” As the National Law Review notes, this would “effectively require defendants to pay for the costs of government discovery in nearly every case because of the practical impossibility of proving a negative – the absence of an undue burden on the government.”
Not only is the policy concerning, but it has also not received proper debate. The Grassley-Leahy amendment is a combination of S. 2428 and S. 2429. Neither has received a hearing or a markup. This is especially concerning given how substantive the legal changes are in this amendment.
The Grassley-Leahy amendment would establish an evidentiary standard that is antithetical to both the aforementioned 2016 SCOTUS case and the principles which guide the function of our court system. If lawmakers are serious about protecting defendants’ presumption of innocence, a principle core to this country’s judicial system, they should oppose this amendment to the bipartisan infrastructure bill.
Photo Credit: Jeffrey Zeldman
Taxpayer Funded WHO Colludes with Mike Bloomberg to Stop Smokers from Quitting

The coronavirus outbreak and resulting worldwide pandemic has resulted in more than four million deaths, including 612,000 Americans. In the early days of the pandemic, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) arrested journalists and doctors who dared to tell the world about the deadly virus that was spreading across China. The CCP blocked information about the virus on social media sites and removed news stories reporting accurate infection data. By the time the world was finally made aware of the danger Covid-19 posed, it was far too late.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the murderous and authoritarian CCP deserves recognition for the “transparency” and “leadership” they showed in the face of a deadly virus. WHO publicly said that China’s oppressive regime was “making us safer” from Covid. The four million people who have died thanks to CCP recklessness would surely disagree.
Unfortunately, WHO isn’t finished repressing opportunities to save lives. Just three days ago, on July 27, WHO released their eighth global tobacco report, focused on reducing global access to reduced harm tobacco products and alternatives to tobacco. There are 1.1 billion people in the world who smoke cigarettes every single day, an all-time high. In 2019, eight million people died as a result of smoking. Thanks to WHO, millions more will die without access to these lifesaving alternatives.
Just imagine how corrupt an organization would need to be to actively work against lifesaving technology. Fortunately, there is ample evidence demonstrating exactly who is influencing WHO tobacco control policy and how they are doing it. Mike Bloomberg, the billionaire former Mayor of New York City, and his multi-billion-dollar “charity” Bloomberg Philanthropies funded, and contributed to, the WHO report and have used their massive endowment to exert undue influence over low- and middle-income countries that are more vulnerable to philanthropic pressure.
The WHO report is only one example of Bloomberg using his wealth to global health policy. In January 2021, Philippine Food and Drug Administration officials revealed that they have been receiving money from the Bloomberg Initiative and The Union, charities funded by Bloomberg himself. According to reports, the funds were bestowed on the condition that the Philippine government implemented Bloomberg-sanctioned tobacco control policies. While the Philippines are one of the first countries where Bloomberg’s pseudo-colonialism have been publicly exposed, the former Mayor and failed 2020 Presidential candidate has been pouring money into dark money groups for years in pursuit of prohibitionist policies.
WHO’s report is filled with downright lies about e-cigarettes. In one section, the report states that “The outbreak of electronic-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) in the United States in 2019–2020 highlights the potential dangers associated with (e-cigarettes)”. There is zero evidence that EVALI is the result of nicotine-containing e-cigarette use. Rather, illicit THC vaping products containing Vitamin E-Acetate have been identified as the culprit behind the outbreak. This is common knowledge among the scientific and health community. The report also attempts to tie “popcorn lung” to e-cigarette use, even though there has never been a case of popcorn lung resulting from vaping. WHO is more interested in following Bloomberg’s misguided ideology than sharing the truth about vaping.
It is truly inconceivable that WHO would allow a prohibitionist like Mike Bloomberg to fund a report that will have incredible influence over the policies of dozens of countries. Bloomberg, and by extension WHO, would prefer to see the one billion global smokers die from cigarettes than switch to an alternative that reduces their exposure to harmful chemicals.
There are, however, countries that have embraced, or at the very least tolerated, vaping products and other safer alternatives and have seen incredible improvements in public health as a result.
WHO’s report claims that evidence is “inconclusive” that e-cigarettes help smokers quit, yet 2.4 million British smokers have quit cigarettes with vaping. Even as cigarette smoking has increased globally in the last few years, England has seen a dramatic decrease in smoking prevalence thanks to vaping. The British government has embraced vaping as a method of smoking cessation, publicizing data demonstrating that vaping is 95% less harmful than cigarettes and two to four times more effective at helping smokers quit than traditional nicotine replacement therapies.
In Japan, cigarette sales have decreased by 43% over the past five years, the greatest decrease in recorded history, as a result of heat-not-burn tobacco products that significantly reduces exposure to harmful chemicals compared to cigarette smoking.
A form of “clean” smokeless tobacco called snus contains less toxins than other tobacco products and is highly popular among Swedish men. Sweden has the lowest rate of lung cancer in the developed world.
The World Health Organization knows this, of course. Just how they knew that China was arresting journalists, making truth-telling doctors disappear, and shutting down the spread of information that would have alerted the world to the once-in-a-generation pandemic that would soon sweep the globe.
This much is clear, the World Health Organization is more interested in lining their own pockets than saving lives. The United States, currently the largest contributor to WHO’s budget, cannot in good conscience continue to fund their willful ignorance that continually costs lives all over the world. American taxpayers must demand that the U.S. defund, or at least suspend, funding to WHO until they commit to expanded transparency and true pro-science policies.
Photo Credit: United States Mission Geneva
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Crypto’s Taxing Predicament

The fight over the cryptocurrency tax reporting provision in the bipartisan infrastructure bill just got a lot more interesting.
After Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) publicly announced he supported a vote on Senator Wyden (D-Ore.), Toomey (R-Pa.), and Lummis’ (R-Wyo.) amendment (No. 2498), he switched gears and filed his own amendment with Senator Warner (D-Va.). Industry leaders and trade associations such as the Blockchain Association, Coinbase, and Coin Center have publicly supported the changes in Wyden-Lummis-Toomey but oppose Portman-Warner.
As currently drafted, the infrastructure bill would jeopardize the cryptocurrency and blockchain industry’s future in the United States.
The provision titled “Enhancement of Information Reporting for Brokers and Digital Assets” would likely lead to a host of unintended consequences, not only for the technology’s ability to operate in the United States but also for the privacy rights of all Americans. The last thing the United States government needs to do is regulate the cryptocurrency market to the point where the industry leaves the country entirely. Totalitarian regimes such as the Chinese Communist Party have already kicked out Bitcoin miners much to the benefit of states like Texas who welcome all kinds of business.
The cryptocurrency language in the bill was hastily thrown together in an act of desperation to pay for its large expenditures. The Congressional Budget Office’s announcement that the bipartisan bill would increase the federal deficit by $256 billion over 10 years underscores the lawmakers’ desire to shore up additional revenue, much to the dismay of the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the language in the bill would raise approximately $28 billion in revenue. This is curious since cryptocurrency brokers already report to IRS, so its hard to see where JCT is deriving these new numbers from.
The Wyden-Lummis-Toomey Amendment addresses a significant concern in the underlying bill. The amendment removes the obligation of network participants, such as miners and software developers, who don’t have—and shouldn't have—access to customer information to report tax information to the Internal Revenue Service. It does so without affecting the reporting obligations placed on brokers and traders of digital assets.
On the other hand, the Portman-Warner Amendment excludes proof-of-work mining and blockchain validators. However, the amendment makes no mention of software developers, node operators, and aggregators thus requiring them to report to the IRS. Interestingly, singling out proof-of-work only exempts one technology and does not allow blockchain technology to continue to innovate in the US. These technologies are changing, and the newer proof-of-stake technology is more energy efficient but would not be exempt in the Warner-Portman amendment. It's surprising that the White House and Democrats would put these kinds of limitations on the ability of technologies to become more energy efficient.
The White House has signaled their support for Portman-Warner in an effort to maximize revenue and crack down on digital asset tax avoidance. Unfortunately, this is par for the course for an administration that is obsessed with regulating digital assets all in the name of “investor protection”.
Tomorrow, the Senate is expected to vote on both of these amendments. What the Senate should not do is be complacent and vote down both of the amendments. The Wyden-Lummis-Toomey amendment is best suited to clarify the definition of brokers for crypto purposes without unnecessarily exposing Americans' private information; however, allowing the language in the base text to pass without any changes will undoubtedly require numerous individuals in the cryptocurrency ecosystem to suddenly hand over information to the IRS that they do not possess.
Photo Credit: QuoteInspector.com
S. 1981, the “Accelerate Charitable Efforts Act,” Would Impose Unnecessary Burdens on Charitable Giving

In June, Senators Angus King (I-Maine) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced S. 1981, the “Accelerating Charitable Efforts (ACE) Act.” Rather than increase charitable giving, this bill would impose unnecessary burdens on giving and create a new, 50 percent tax.
Specifically, the bill would require that all donor-advised funds (DAFs) be paid out within 15 years, or 50 years for those not claiming the charitable tax deduction. If DAFs do not pay out within the arbitrary 15-year timeline, they would face a 50 percent tax on the charitable funds. The ACE Act would also implement new rules against anonymous giving, threatening donor privacy and create more tax complexity for charities.
Donor-advised funds (DAFs) are giving accounts created and maintained by individual donors. Many DAF donors keep money in these funds for long periods of time in order to strategically plan their giving and allow it to appreciate over time, enabling them to make even larger donations. Perhaps, they wish to pass on their funds to their children, save up for a huge charitable project they’ve always dreamed of organizing, or save funds so they can donate in their retirement.
Ultimately, donors’ plans are their business. Once money is put into these funds, it is irrevocably committed to charitable giving. The government has no place deciding when it’s best these funds are paid out, especially when these funds must eventually be used for charitable giving.
It is untrue that DAFs are falling short in paying out their funds. Historically, the DAF payout rate is higher than private foundations. While private foundations often payout the legally required minimum of 5 percent, the DAF payout rate has been over 20 percent for the last 10 years.
DAF accounts are open and accessible to donors of all income levels: the accounts average $166,000. The Philanthropy Roundtable describes DAFs as, ‘small, personal foundations for middle-class donors.” While the wealthy might also use these funds, they certainly do not define these funds. Middle-class donors should not be punished simply because wealthy donors also use DAFs.
Imposing a 15-year payout requirement stifles donors’ ability to plan their giving and grow their assets over time. Imposing a 50 percent tax on these funds if donors do not comply is especially troubling. This bill will, in turn, stifle charitable giving itself.
This bill would also force private foundations to disclose DAF gifts in detail and would prohibit anonymous contributions of non-cash assets to DAFs. This new requirement should be alarming given that the IRS has failed miserably at protecting donor information. During the Obama administration, there were several cases where agency officials leaked the sensitive donor information contained on Schedule B forms for political purposes, such as leaking of the schedule B belonging to the National Organization for Marriage. Exorbitant donor reporting requirements threaten the safety of donors and blatantly violates their right to privately support causes.
The ACE Act creates more tax complexity for charities. This bill treats all anonymous gifts as if they were coming from one person, making it difficult for charities to attain public charity status under the tax code. In addition, several provisions in the bill would place more regulatory and administrative burden on DAFs, creating overhead costs ultimately borne by donors at the expense of those the money would have otherwise helped.
If lawmakers are serious about promoting accessible, carefully-planned charitable giving, protecting donor privacy, and preventing tax complexity, they should oppose S. 1981, the “Accelerating Charitable Efforts (ACE) Act.”
Photo Credit: DC Central Kitchen, Volunteers Hard at Work
















