Obamacare: Taxpayers Must Report Personal Health ID Info to IRS
The new form will require disclosure of a taxpayer’s personal identifying health information in order to determine compliance with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.
As confirmed by IRS testimony to the tax-writing House Committee on Ways and Means, “taxpayers will file their tax returns reporting their health insurance coverage, and/or making a payment”.
So why will the Obama IRS require your personal identifying health information?
Simply put, there is no way for the IRS to enforce Obamacare’s individual mandate without such an invasive reporting scheme. Every January, health insurance companies across America will send out tax documents to each insured individual. This tax document—a copy of which will be furnished to the IRS—must contain sufficient information for taxpayers to prove that they purchased qualifying health insurance under Obamacare.
This new tax information document must, at a minimum, contain: the name and health insurance identification number of the taxpayer; the name and tax identification number of the health insurance company; the number of months the taxpayer was covered by this insurance plan; and whether or not the plan was purchased in one of Obamacare’s “exchanges.”
This will involve millions of new tax documents landing in mailboxes across America every January, along with the usual raft of W-2s, 1099s, and 1098s. At tax time, the 140 million families who file a tax return will have to get acquainted with a brand new tax filing form. Six million of these families will end up paying Obamacare’s individual mandate non-compliance tax penalty.
As a service to the public, Americans for Tax Reform has released a projected version of this tax form to help families and tax specialists prepare for this additional filing requirement. Taxpayers may view the projected IRS form at www.ObamacareTaxForm.com. On the form, lines 3-4 show where taxpayers will disclose their personal health ID information.
View PDF here.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
ATR Supports Trump Administration's Schedule B Reform
The Trump Administration has proposed a rule to streamline the nonprofit filing process and prevent future administrations from targeting organizations by leaking sensitive information. Under this proposal, many nonprofits including 501(c)(4)s, 501(c)(5)s, and 501(c)(6)s would no longer be required to submit a Schedule B form to the IRS.
The IRS has no need for the donor information and can enforce tax laws without it. On top of having no use for it, the IRS has inappropriately used the information. In 2014, the IRS had to pay the National Organization for Marriage $50,000 after disclosing their donors to an oppositional organization who published it.
Further, according to a 2016 study by the Government Accountability Office, the IRS has disproportionately targeted organizations based on religious, educational, and political views, specifically Tea Party groups.
The information that is public will not change under the proposed rule, though money and time will be saved on both sides by eliminating this tedious process. In fact, The Institute for Free Speech estimates that nonprofits would save about $63 million if Schedule B were repealed.
Critics have falsely stated that the rule will allow for illegal foreign transactions. However, there are already measures in place to track these transactions, and it is highly unlikely that anyone will admit to funneling illegal money on the form. Even if the IRS did suspect laws were being broken, it has no authority to share the information it collects with the FCC and the DOJ, the two agencies with the ability to enforce campaign finance laws.
The proposed rule would hold the IRS more accountable and protect free speech of donors and those working for non-profits. American citizens have the right to associate with and donate to organizations freely and privately. If a Schedule B is leaked, the IRS can and has faced legal consequences. In 2014, the IRS had to pay the National Organization for Marriage $50,000 after disclosing their donors to an oppositional organization who published it.
The proposed rule, “Guidance Under Section 6033 Regarding the Reporting Requirements of Exempt Organizations” will be open for comments until December 9. ATR urges support for Schedule B reform to eliminate the unnecessary time and effort of the process, while protecting privacy and free speech.
Photo Credit: Flickr - Martin Haesemeyer
60+ Groups to Congress: Defend American Workers from Union Coercion and Oppose the PRO Act
Today, a coalition of more than 60 groups and activists, led by Americans for Tax Reform, sent a letter to Congress. The letter urged members of Congress to vote against the PRO Act because of the harm the Act would do to American workers.
The full letter can be found here or below:
September 16, 2019
Dear Member of Congress,
We are writing in opposition to the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. Senator Patty Murray and Congressman Bobby Scott introduced the PRO Act in the Senate (S. 1306) and House of Representatives (H.R. 2474) on May 2, 2019.
We oppose the PRO Act because the legislation would harm workers and taxpayers by codifying many of the Obama-era rules and decisions that led to higher unemployment and a stagnant economy. Representatives who vote for this bill are simply helping labor union bosses, their campaign contributors, at the expense of American workers.
For example, one of the Act’s harmful provisions would codify the National Labor Relations Board’s 2015 Browning-Ferris Industriesdecision. That decision expanded the definition of joint employer and increased liability for many businesses, especially franchises. In fact, the International Franchise Association has found that the expanded joint employer rule costs the franchise sector as much as $33.3 billion annually and has led to 376,000 lost job opportunities. Codifying this NLRB decision would effectively eliminate this business model, putting many employees and small businesses out of work. However, big labor would benefit from this provision because they could unionize these employees more easily.
This bill would also force all private sector workers to pay fees to labor unions, whether they wanted to support them or not. This would effectively invalidate all state Right-to-Work laws and would deny First Amendment rights to these workers. This provision hurts workers because right-to-work laws have benefited workers. From 2008 – 2018, for example, the percentage growth in the number of people employed in right-to-work states was 10.8%, while the percentage for those in forced-unionism states was much lower at 5%. Invalidating these laws would, therefore, hurt workers and employers, but would provide more dues to unions.
Another business model that is severely threatened by this legislation is the gig economy. The PRO Act would codify California’s new “ABC” test to determine who is an independent contractor and who is an employee. This test makes it harder for employers to hire independent contractors, but makes it easier for unions to unionize workers. According to the Federal Reserve, about 3 in 10 Americans work in the gig economy, and these workers would be at risk for losing their jobs.
One final example is the provision that would codify the Obama-era ambush elections rule. That rule shortened the time frame of an election to unionize workers and provided the contact information of workers without their consent to labor unions. This rule harmed workers by providing them with an inadequate amount of time to learn how unionization would affect them. In addition, unions would be able to violate the privacy of workers once they had their contact information. Once again, with a shortened time frame and the contact information of workers, labor bosses could more easily unionize these workers.
Because the legislation harms workers in order to help labor union bosses, we strongly urge Members of Congress to vote against the PRO Act.
Sincerely,
Grover G. Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform
James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman, 60 Plus Association
Melodie Bowler
Associate Director, Alaska Policy Forum
Phil Kerpen
President, American Commitment
Lisa B. Nelson
CEO, ALEC Action
Tom Giovanetti
President, Americans for a Strong Economy
Rick Manning
President, Americans for Limited Government
Scot Mussi
President, Arizona Free Enterprise Club
John Palatiello
President, Business Coalition for Fair Competition
Garrett Ballengee
Executive Director, Cardinal Institute for WV Policy
Andrew F. Quinlan
President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Timothy Lee
Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs, Center for Individual Freedom
Olivia Grady
Senior Fellow, Center for Worker Freedom
Catrin Wigfall
Policy Fellow, Center of the American Experiment (Minnesota)
Bob Luebke
Director of Policy, Civitas Institute (North Carolina)
David McIntosh
President, Club for Growth
Russell Hollrah
Executive Director, Coalition to Promote Independent Entrepreneurs
Nathan Benefield
Vice President & COO, Commonwealth Foundation (Pennsylvania)
Trey Kovacs
Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Matthew Kandrach
President, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy (CASE)
Tom Schatz
President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Katie McAuliffe
Executive Director, Digital Liberty
Grant Callen
President, Empower Mississippi
Peter J. Ferrara
Dunn Liberty Fellow in Economics, The King’s College
Senior Fellow, Heartland Institute
Senior Fellow, National Tax Limitation Foundation
Brian Minnich
Executive Vice President, Freedom Foundation (California, Oregon, Washington)
Adam Brandon
President, FreedomWorks
Victor Riches
President and CEO, Goldwater Institute (Arizona)
J. Scott Moody
CEO, Granite Institute (New Hampshire)
Tim Chapman
Executive Director, Heritage Action for America
Mario H. Lopez
President, Hispanic Leadership Fund
Fred Birnbaum
Vice President, Idaho Freedom Foundation and Idaho Freedom Action
Heather R. Higgins
CEO, Independent Women's Voice
F. Vincent Vernuccio, J.D.
President, Institute for the American Worker
Chris Ingstad
President, Iowans for Tax Relief
Sal J. Nuzzo
Vice President of Policy, The James Madison Institute (Florida)
Brett Healy
President, The John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy (Wisconsin)
Becki Gray
Senior Vice President, John Locke Foundation (North Carolina)
Dave Trabert
President, Kansas Policy Institute
Connor Boyack
President, Libertas Institute (Utah)
Michael J. Reitz
Executive Vice President, Mackinac Center for Public Policy (Michigan)
Matthew Gagnon
CEO, Maine Heritage Policy Center
Carl Copeland
Executive Director, Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance
Jameson Taylor, Ph.D.
Vice President for Policy, Mississippi Center for Public Policy
Robert Fellner
Policy Director, Nevada Policy Research Institute
Douglas Kellogg
Executive Director, Ohioans for Tax Reform
Daniel J Erspamer
CEO, The Pelican Institute for Public Policy (Louisiana)
Lorenzo Montanari
Executive Director, Property Rights Alliance
David Y. Denholm
President, Public Service Research Council
Mike Stenhouse
CEO, Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Paul J. Gessing
President, Rio Grande Foundation (New Mexico)
Bette Grande
CEO, Roughrider Policy Center ND
Karen Kerrigan
President & CEO, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
Maureen Blum
Founder and Principal, Strategic Coalitions & Initiatives, LLC
Tim Andrews
Executive Director, Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Lynn Taylor
President, Tertium Quids (Virginia)
Christian N. Braunlich
President, Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy (Virginia)
Carl Bearden
CEO, United for Missouri
Suzi Voyles
Georgia President for Eagle Forum
Georgia State Director for Maggie’s List
Rick Esenberg
President and General Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty
Worker Rights Alliance (Washington)
Heather Greenaway
Executive Director, Workforce Fairness Institute
Carol Platt Liebau
President, Yankee Institute for Public Policy (Connecticut)
Norquist Letter to Romney Regarding Capital Gains
Today, ATR President Grover Norquist sent a letter to Senator Mitt Romney (R-Utah) regarding indexing capital gains taxes to inflation. The full text of the letter can be found here and below:
To: Senator Mitt Romney
From: Grover Norquist
Cc: Republican Members of Congress
September 13, 2019
Dear Senator Romney,
A few weeks ago you said you were “looking at” joining the hard left in the Democrat party in imposing a national energy tax on all Americans – a carbon tax – along with Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, and Pete Buttigieg.
Today in a letter you not only undermined Senator Ted Cruz and 20 other Senate Republicans, you misstated President Trump’s position on ending the taxation of inflation in capital gains.
President Trump has repeatedly, correctly stated that he knows he has the legal authority to end the taxation of inflation in capital gains by allowing taxpayers to calculate cost as “cost plus inflation.”
The President is aware that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that agencies have that power in Verizon v. FCC in 2002. Even before that finding, Supreme Court lawyer Chuck Cooper made it clear that the President and Treasury Secretary have this authority. That was only made more obvious with the 2002 Verizon decision which Cooper detailed in his updated 2012 legal memo.
You also used regrettable left-wing rhetoric. According to the IRS 24,139,920 American households had a capital gains filing in the most recent year of available data. Eighty-two percent of these households made less than $200,000 that year and 56 percent made less than $100,000.
In your home state of Utah, 181,300 households had a capital gains filing. Eighty-four percent of these Utah households made less than $200,000 per year and 57 percent made less than $100,000 per year.
As noted by the Tax Foundation, “the lower rate on capital gains does not mitigate the inflation issue, as taxpayers still face tax liability whether they made a real gain or real loss.”
As also noted by the Tax Foundation: “Indexing provides important protection for all citizens, even those who have no capital gains, by reducing government’s ability and incentive to raise effective tax rates by inflating the currency.”
White House economists and Congressional Republicans together with free market groups and the business community in all 50 states will continue to push this initiative forward and get it enacted before the 2020 election.
You are putting yourself on the wrong side of the two biggest divisions between the two parties today: Democrats want to tax energy with a carbon tax while Republicans are unified in opposition. Democrats like Joe Biden want to increase the capital gains tax burden, and Republicans want to reduce the capital gains tax burden. The only way to reduce the capital gains tax burden between now and 2020 is through executive action.
It is wrong for the government to tax inflation. Ending the inflation tax will help create jobs and raise wages. ATR will continue to highlight the tens of millions of Americans who will benefit directly from ending the inflation tax, many of whom live in Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Good policy is good politics.
Ending the inflation tax on capital gains has broad and deep support. The growing list of supporters will not be discouraged by your letter.
Sincerely,
Grover G. Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
Czech Republic Introduces Digital Tax on American Tech Companies
The Czech Republic joins a growing number of European countries that are imposing a harmful digital services tax on American tech companies. The Czech Ministry of Finance has drafted a law introducing a 7 % digital tax on revenue from online advertising, the sale of user data, and inter-mediation services, following the European Commission’s similar proposal from 2018.
The Czech government expects the levy to be introduced in mid-2020 and estimates the tax will generate CZK 2.1billion ($90 million) in additional revenue in 2020, and CZK 5 billion ($215 million) annually after that.
The tax hits companies with global turnover higher than 750 million euro annually and with sales within the Czech Republic over 1.9million euro.
Finance Minister Alena Schillerova is following the French approach saying that the tax will apply until global tax measures are agreed at the OECD level.
Make no mistake that the Czech digital tax is discriminatory. By using revenue as a proxy for nationality, the Czech Republic is looking to pillage the accounts of American tech companies in order to get their “fair share” of tax. While the OECD is working to develop a global consensus on the issue, the Czech have decided to go ahead and follow France, risking worsening the Czech-American relationship and a massive blow back on future trade.
Photo Credit: 3D_Maennchen
Podcast: Lessons from the Battleground. Ohio Cuts Taxes, Regs, But Ups Spending.
The Buckeye State is making progress for taxpayers, with some tax cuts, regulatory reform, and more. While setting some good examples, the state's Medicaid expansion and rising spending levels aren't examples other states want to follow. Buckeye Institute's Greg Lawson joins the podcast to talk about all this and more.
Elizabeth Warren is Still Dodging the Middle Class Tax Question
Democrat presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren yet again dodged questions asking if the middle class would see a tax increase under her proposed “Medicare for All” plan during the ABC debate on Thursday night.
Here is the key exchange:
George Stephanopoulos: “Senator Warren, let me take that to you, particularly on what Senator Biden was saying there about health care. He's praised Bernie Sanders about being candid, says that Senator Sanders has been candid about the fact that middle class taxes are going to go up and most of private insurance is going to be eliminated. Will you make that same admission?”
Elizabeth Warren: [dodge]
Stephanopoulos: “Direct question. You said middle class families are going to pay less. But will middle class taxes go up to for pay for the program? I know you believe the deductibles and premiums go down.”
Warren: [dodge]
Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist said: "If Elizabeth Warren will not admit the obvious—that her wild spending will require broad-based tax hikes on the middle class—in a Democrat debate, will she ever tell the truth in a general election?"
While Warren won't admit that the middle class will pay more in taxes as a result of Medicare for All, Sanders openly admits it.
“Yes, [the middle class] will pay more in taxes,” Sanders said during the June Democratic debate on NBC.
Jeff Greenfield from Politico noted that Warren could be holding back an admission that Medicare for All will lead to higher taxes for the middle class because she is worried about losing voters. Greenfield wrote:
"This leaves an obvious question that will follow her through the campaign: “Bernie Sanders is frank enough to acknowledge the obvious, and then explain it. Why won’t you?” The answer may be as simple as: If you say you will raise middle class taxes, an unmeasurable but likely significant number of voters simply will not bother to wait for the rest of your explanation."
As ATR noted earlier, Medicare for All would require anywhere from $32 trillion and $36 trillion in higher taxes over the course of the next decade.
If you want to stay up-to-date on Democrats and their threats to raise taxes, visit www.atr.org/HighTaxDems.
See more:
Video: 2020 Democrats Promise Higher Taxes
Biden Caught Lying about GOP Tax Cuts
Bill De Blasio: “As President, I Would Issue a Robot Tax”
Bill De Blasio: “As President, I would issue a robot tax”
Kamala Harris Calls for Ban on Plastic Straws
Elizabeth Warren's Climate Plan Calls For "Reversing" GOP Tax Cuts
Sanders: We’re Going to “Absolutely” Raise the Corporate Tax Rate
Elizabeth Warren on Corporate Tax Cuts: “I really want to see them rolled back.”
Bill de Blasio Calls for Corporate Tax Rate Hike
Amy Klobuchar: Raise the Corporate Tax Rate to 25%
Biden on capital gains tax: “We should raise the tax back to 39.6 percent”
Kamala Harris Threatens to Repeal GOP Tax Cuts 3 Times in August
Joe Biden: “I’m going to eliminate most all” of GOP Tax Cuts
Cory Booker Calls for Repeal of "Toxic" GOP Tax Cuts
Marianne Williamson Joins Dems Calling for TCJA Repeal
Kamala Admits Her Plan Would End Employer Insurance
“Medicare for All” is a Middle Class Tax Increase, Say Dems
Elizabeth Warren Can’t Dodge the Middle Class Tax Question Forever
Dem Socialized Healthcare Plan Will Lead to Middle Class Tax Hikes
Supposed “Moderate” Democrat John Delaney Wants to Impose Carbon Tax on the American People
Klobuchar Suggests Capital Gains Tax Hike and “Doing Something” About TCJA
Kamala Harris Campaign Headquarters Located in Opportunity Zone Created by GOP Tax Cuts
Julian Castro: “We’re going to have to raise taxes.”
Biden and Harris: Raise the Corporate Tax Rate
Biden tweet: Ignore the fact I’ve already called for middle class tax hikes
Kamala Harris: “I Will Reverse” Trump’s Tax Cuts
Kamala Harris Calls for Repeal of Tax Cuts Four Times in Three Minutes
Julian Castro Caught Lying about GOP Tax Cuts
NYT: Bidencare Will be Funded by “rolling back” GOP tax cuts
Kamala Harris: I Will Repeal “That Tax Bill”
Cory Booker: “I do support” Imposing Carbon Tax on Americans
Harris: “We are Going to Repeal That Tax Bill”
Biden: I Will Raise Corporate Tax Rate to 28%
Kamala Harris Continues to Lie about Tax Cuts
Jay Inslee: “Repeal the Trump Tax Cuts”
Biden Running Ads to “Repeal Trump’s Tax Cuts.”
VIDEO: Ten Times Biden Threatened to Repeal Tax Cuts
Here’s what happens if Dems repeal tax cuts
VIDEO: 10 Times 2020 Democrats Have Threatened to Repeal TCJA
Kamala Harris: When I Enter Office "I Will Repeal" the TCJA
Biden: “First thing I would do as President is Eliminate the President’s Tax Cut.”
Bernie Sanders claims people would be “delighted to pay more in taxes”
Biden: Tax Cuts Will be “Gone” If I’m Elected
Kamala Harris: I Will Repeal Tax Cuts “on day one”
Biden again says capital gains tax is “Much too Low”
Biden: Capital gains tax “much too low”
VIDEO: Five Times Biden has Threatened to Repeal Tax Cuts
Biden: “First thing I’d do is repeal those Trump tax cuts.”
Joe Biden broke his middle class tax pledge
“Mayor Pete” Calls for Steep Tax Hike on Homes and Businesses
Kamala Harris Vows Repeal of Tax Cuts “on Day One”
Biden: “When I’m President, if God willing I am, we’re going to reverse those Trump tax cuts.”
Trump repeals Obama's Waters of the U.S. regulation
President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule today repealing the Obama Administration's 2015 Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, an overreaching federal regulation which defined what natural features are considered federal waters. The new rule is projected to deliver $1.3 billion in regulatory savings and is in line with President Trump’s Executive Order directing the EPA to review and possibly replace the Obama administration’s definition.
The previous administration’s regulation went beyond the intended purpose of the law and amounted to a power grab designed to place control in the hands of the government over private landowners and developers.
Under the Obama rule, regulation expanded to include ephemeral features in its definition of federal water, meaning land that only temporarily held water could be regulated as federal water if the water eventually flowed into a navigable water. Expanding the scope of the definition gave the federal government greater control in permitting in certain activities such as land development.
Today’s action restores the regulatory text prior to the Obama administration’s 2015 rule and sets the table for the Trump EPA to issue a second, still forthcoming, rule intended to provide states greater flexibility and local control.
“Today’s action is “Step 1” of our response to the president’s executive order. Step 1 repeals the 2015 rule and recodifies the longstanding and familiar regulatory text that existed previously. It also sets the stage for “Step 2” – our new proposed “waters of the United States” definition,” EPA Administrator Wheeler explained in an op-ed released today.
Americans for Tax Reform applauds President Trump and Administrator Wheeler for taking a crucial first step towards revising the Obama Administration’s overreaching definition of federal waters. ATR also encourages the administration to finalize its Step 2 rule and provide landowners greater certainty regarding what is, and what is not, a federal water.
Photo Credit: Valery Balievich
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Elizabeth Warren's New Tax Would Crush Millions of Americans and Small Businesses
Massachusetts liberal and 2020 Democrat presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren today released yet another proposal that would raise taxes on millions of Americans and businesses. This proposal would disproportionately impact small businesses that operate on tight margins, and the plan’s multiple tax hikes will eventually hit every American.
Warren’s plan, entitled “Expanding Social Security,” imposes a new 14.8 percent payroll, or “FICA,” tax on individuals making more than $250,000 a year. The Warren tax is evenly split between employers and employees at 7.4 percent each. This new tax is levied on top of the current 12.4 percent FICA tax, which is split evenly between employees and employers at 6.2 percent each.
The plan also imposes a new 14.8 percent tax on investment income for individuals making over $250,000 a year and families making more than $400,000 a year. This new tax is modeled after Obamacare’s disastrous National Investment Income Tax (NIIT), a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income that ended up targeting retirees and the disabled.
The Warren plan levies these new taxes to fund an unsustainable benefit increase. Under her proposal, beneficiaries will receive an extra $200 a month or $2,400 a year. This benefit increase applies to all current and future beneficiaries.
The Warren plan is nonsensical on its face. Instead of working sensibly to reform Social Security by raising the retirement age or means testing benefits, Warren doubles down on the existing failed structure.
As it stands right now, the Social Security Trust Fund is heading towards complete collapse. A recent report from the nonpartisan Social Security Trustees forecasts that the fund will be totally depleted by 2035. This insolvency will automatically trigger 20 percent across-the-board benefit cuts for retirees. As of 2018, Social Security provides income to approximately 67 million Americans.
While Warren claims that her plan targets the rich to “fix” Social Security, her misguided tax hikes would eventually ensnare every taxpayer. As mentioned before, the annual salary cap for FICA increases year over year. Eventually, the 12.4 percent payroll tax cap will reach $250,000. This will lead to Americans making between $0 and $250,000 in wages paying a 6.2 percent tax every dollar they earn, and Americans making more than $250,000 paying an additional 7.4 percent tax on every dollar they earn in perpetuity. This assumes that Warren does not immediately raise the wage cap to $250,000 (she is unclear about this in her proposal) or does not raise the FICA payroll tax.
This plan is simply one amongst many tax hikes that Warren has proposed. Since launching her campaign, Warren has proposed a wealth tax, a gun tax, a $1 trillion business tax hike, a carbon tax, and full repeal of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Warren has also endorsed socialist Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) Medicare for All proposal and far-left Rep. Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez’s (D-N.Y.) Green New Deal, plans that would raise taxes on millions of Americans.
The Warren plan for Social Security is simply another tax hike on American individuals and businesses alike. While Warren frames her proposal as raising taxes on the wealthy, the reality is that it would eventually ensnare all Americans and small businesses in a massive tax hike trap.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
Democrats Have One Message, higher taxes
Americans for Tax Reform Communications Fellow Adam Sabes wrote an op-Ed in The Washington Times, arguing that Democrats have one message, which is higher taxes on Americans.
Read his op-Ed below:
Like your tax cut? If a Democrat is elected as our next president, don’t expect that to last long. Top Democrats running for president have vowed to repeal the entire Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) passed in 2017, which would set back millions of middle-income Americans.
Americans for Tax Reform has recorded 28 occasions on which Democratic presidential candidates have threatened to eliminate the TCJA, which has lowered taxes for every income level in every congressional district.
It’s not just the TCJA, either. Democrats running for president have also proposed increasing the corporate tax rate, increasing the capital gains tax, imposing a carbon tax, gun tax, wealth tax, payroll tax increase, a middle-class tax increase to pay for “Medicare for All,” as well as various financial transaction taxes.
If Democrats succeeded with their promise to repeal the TCJA, for starters, a family of four earning the median income of $73,000 would see a $2,000 tax increase, and millions of households would see their standard deduction slashed in half.
A single parent with one child making a $41,000 annual income would see a tax increase of $1,300. Small businesses would suffer by a repeal of the TCJA and see a tax increase due to the 20 percent deduction for small business income being taken away.
Think that’s bad enough? This is just a small portion of the negative impacts that a repeal of the TCJA would have.
Top Democratic candidates such as former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris have endorsed a corporate tax increase, which would put the United States at the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, and would directly cause utility bills to go up in all 50 states.
Mr. Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar both support an increase in the capital gains tax, which would ultimately limit Americans’ ability to build a nest egg in addition to hurting the value of their houses, farms and businesses.
Most Democrats running for president also support Medicare for All, which its architect, Sen. Bernie Sanders, admits that the middle class is “going to pay more in taxes,” in order to pay for its $36 trillion price tag.
Just last month, Sen. Elizabeth Warren proposed a national gun tax, which would place a 30 percent federal excise tax on rifles and handguns, in addition to a 50 percent federal excise tax on ammunition. She has also proposed a wealth tax which has been described by The Washington Post editorial board as having a “certain authoritarian odor.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Cory Booker, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Congressman John Delaney have all proposed a carbon tax, which would require a large bureaucracy to implement.
The carbon tax has been proven to be a major burden in other countries, such as Canada, where in one school district, the tax forced 400 kids off the school bus program in order to pay for the massive $3.3 million price tag of the school district’s carbon tax costs.
While Democrats claim the TCJA didn’t help middle-income Americans, even the mainstream media has called them out on that lie.
The New York Times flatly stated in an article that “Most people got a tax cut.”
Proposing more and more taxes may prove to be effective in a Democratic primary where voters are hungry for more government control, but will ultimately fail when put before the rest of America.
Photo Credit: info ideal/Flickr
Norquist: Elizabeth Warren’s “Wealth Tax” is a Tax on Lifetime Savings
Wednesday on CNBC’s Squawk Box, ATR president Grover Norquist discussed Elizabeth Warren’s “Wealth Tax” with host Joe Kernen.
Norquist said, “Look, this is a tax on savings. They call it a wealth tax, it’s a tax on savings.”
He also pointed out how tax hikers always say their new tax will only hit “the rich” but eventually grow to hit everyone:
“Of course, they advertise it as only hitting billionaires to start with, that's the way the income tax was sold [in 1913]. The top rate of the income tax of 7% hit you if you made $11 million in today's dollars -- it was only going to hit rich people now it hits everybody,” Norquist said. “The trickle-down effect of taxes, they always start by saying we're only going to hit the rich people. The Spanish American War tax on phones, which only rich people had [in 1898] because they cost $4,000 in today's dollars. By the time it was done, every American was paying that tax.”
Norquist added:
“If you're a millennial, you will be paying it and your children will be paying it. They'll advertise it as only hitting rich people to start with, but it's a tax on savings.”
State news
Top Stories
