Pacquiao Takes Fight in Macau, U.S. Federal Income Tax Rate Proves Too High
As reported by Yahoo! Sports, boxing superstar Manny Pacquiao’s next fight will take place on November 24; however, for the first time since 2006, the fight will take place outside of the U.S. The official destination of this multimillion dollar sporting event is The Venetian in Macau, China.
As ATR reported in February, the possibility of Pacquiao’s next fight not taking place on U.S. soil due to a punitive federal income tax rate of 39.6 percent was greater than most would suspect.
As boxing promoter Bob Arum told Yahoo! Sports in February, “Manny can go back to Las Vegas and make $25 million, but how much of it will he end up with – $15 million?"
Clearly, the answer is less than what he stands to earn after taxes in Macau.
By holding his next fight in Macau, Pacquiao would only be responsible for a top marginal income tax rate of 12 percent - that’s a whopping 27.6 percent less than the U.S. top marginal federal income tax rate.
As ATR wrote in February:
Since Pacquiao is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, he can keep a larger percentage of his fight earnings by taking fights outside of the U.S. The other options Pacquiao and his management team have considered are Macau and Singapore: both casino and gaming markets comparable to Las Vegas and ideal to host a grand boxing event.
If Pacquiao were to earn a hypothetical $20 million for this upcoming fight in Macau, his after tax earnings would be $17.6 million – as opposed to the $12.1 million he would earn for the same proposed scenario in the U.S.
The loss of major athletic and sporting events will have economic repercussions on the American economy specifically tourism.
Fewer boxing matches per year would mean fewer vendors, a decrease in tourism, and less money being spent in host cities. Hosting a major sporting event has proven to create jobs and insert economic life within the city. The federal government needs to follow the examples being set by GOP governors seeking to reduce their respective state’s income tax burden or risk losing investments across every industry.
Pacquiao’s decision to fight in Macau will establish a trend among other non-resident boxers – or any athlete that is a non-resident of the U.S. for that matter - seeking to earn more money during their relatively short professional careers.
Simply put, tax rates matter to everyone regardless of earnings. In Pacquiao’s case, his chief advisor, Michael Koncz said it best, “…the 39.6 percent tax rate Pacquiao would face if he were to fight again in the U.S. makes a fall bout in Las Vegas "a no go."
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Biden Would Resurrect Monster-Sized Version of Cash for Clunkers Disaster

Joe Biden’s infrastructure plan calls for spending an eye-popping $454 billion of taxpayer funds to take 63 million gas-powered cars off the road over ten years.
The campaign’s plan states a Biden administration would back legislation authored by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and provide “consumers rebates to swap old, less-efficient vehicles for these newer American vehicles built from materials and parts sourced in the United States.”
According to a summary of the legislation, consumer rebates would account for $392 billion of the plan’s total spending. The rebates would start at $3,000 per individual and could only be used for a “plug-in electric, plug-in hybrid, or hydrogen fuel cell car.” Additionally, any gas-powered car traded in for a rebate “must be at least 8 years old and in driving condition” to qualify and each consumer would only be eligible to receive one voucher.
However, the impact of a $3,000 voucher would only have a limited impact on consumer behavior given the average cost of a new electric vehicle is currently $55,600. Under current law, consumers are eligible to receive a $7,500 federal tax credit for the purchase of EVs in addition to various state-level tax credits. Despite this, EVs are only projected to account for 3.75% of new vehicle sales and only 2% of the total vehicle fleet in 2020.
According to E&E News, the Biden-Schumer plan “contains echoes of "Cash for Clunkers," a 2009 stimulus program unveiled by the Obama administration that many experts across the political spectrum view as a failure.”
The failure of Cash for Clunkers, which offered a vehicle rebate between $3,500-$4,500, is indeed widely viewed as a policy failure. A 2013 analysis conducted by the liberal Brookings Institute concluded that the “cost per ton of carbon dioxide reduced from the program suggests that the program was not a cost-effective way to reduce emissions.”
Brookings also found that the program only encouraged Americans to buy new vehicles that they would have bought anyway a few months later. This finding was backed up by an additional study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, which found “nearly 60 percent of the subsidies went to households who would have purchased during the two-month program anyway; the rest accelerated sales by no more than eight months. Moreover, the program’s fuel efficiency restrictions shifted purchases toward vehicles that cost on average $5,000 less. On net, Cash for Clunkers significantly reduced total new vehicle spending over the ten-month period.”
The Biden-Schumer plan is merely a massive expansion of the $3 billion failed Cash for Clunkers program. Now Biden is proposing a $400 billion version of the same disaster, offering a $3,000 taxpayer-funded bribe for consumers to trade in their current car that will actually decrease new vehicle spending.
In reality, the Biden campaign is adopting this plan to virtue signal to its wealthy-liberal donors in deep-blue states. Over 58% of the U.S.’s total EV sales occur in California and roughly 80% of current subsidies for EVs are paid to individuals with incomes of $100,000 or more per year.
Voters should learn from the past mistakes of Cash for Clunkers and reject Biden’s infrastructure plan.
Photo Credit: Tony Fischer
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Florida Minimum Wage Could Skyrocket with Ballot Question

Amendment 2, which would impose a $15 minimum wage, is on the ballot in Florida, posing a risk to jobs and businesses across the Sunshine State.
If approved, it would set a schedule to gradually hike the minimum wage from $8.56 per hour now, up to $15 an hour in 2026. After 2026, the minimum wage will continue to rise in proportion with inflation.
Voters have approved 24 of 26 minimum wage increases on the ballot since 1996. According to Saint Leo University Polling Institute, 41.8 percent of Florida residents strongly support a minimum wage increase while only 12 percent strongly oppose.
Few states and cities have experimented with such a high minimum wage. New York City and State created headlines when they first ramped up to the fabled $15 an hour. Seatac, WA was the first locality to push forward with a $15 minimum wage. The results have not been great, as the artificially high wage outlaws opportunities for people just starting out. Studies have shown that jobs are lost, yes, but hours being cut is perhaps the biggest effect.
Small business owners will also take a major hit. Certain types of restaurants, amusement parks, and other businesses that higher low skill workers could be seriously impacted or shut down.
Drew McLeod, owner of the restaurant Savour in Tallahassee said “There is no doubt that Amendment 2 will increase labor costs for my business significantly ($350,000 in the first 5 years of implementation and at least $100k/year thereafter)… and, with razor-thin margins as a rule, it would put my family-owned restaurant with 25 employees into a situation where we will be forced to close.”.
According to a Harvard Business School study, each one dollar increase in the minimum wage for a 3.5 star restaurant, Yelp average, results in a 14 percent increase in likelihood that a restaurant will go out of business.
Big unions also back this measure unsurprisingly, as high skilled labor would be more protected from competition if this Amendment passes, those who would suffer would only be those less established and educated. Professor Thomas Rustici articulates this point succinctly in his seminal work on the topic “Unions everywhere support the minimum wage, a fact that could be deduced from the above analysis of the labor substitution effect of the minimum wage law. Unions are labor cartels that attempt to restrict the supply of workers entering given occupations. Since nonunion labor is priced below the cartelized price of union labor, it is an attractive substitute for union workers.”
People may overlook the fact that this action will be an amendment to Florida’s constitution, and if citizens don’t like the economic impact of this minimum wage schedule, changing this or going back could be very difficult.
Florida’s minimum wage was already well above the federal wage requirement, and it is already tied to inflation. It should not be a target for the “Fight for 15” crew, but the state’s amendment process and ability for outside groups to push issues on the ballot was too enticing to pass up apparently.
The COVID 19 pandemic has shaken Florida’s economy, especially the hospitality industry. The last thing that Florida needs right now is an arbitrary minimum wage hike that will kill more jobs and crush struggling businesses.
Americans for Tax Reform has included this Amendment in the 2020 State Ballot Measure Guide, recommending a “no” vote, and discussed the measure in-depth with James Madison Institute’s Sal Nuzzo on the “From the Swamp to the States” podcast.
Photo Credit: WikiMedia
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Treasury Department Should Stop Obstructing Property Rights

For decades, tyrannical socialist leaders in Venezuela wreaked havoc on the country’s economy, raising taxes, and pursuing countless other job-killing policies that inflicted suffering on the Venezuelan people.
In one example of the attempt to nationalize the economy, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez seized a gold mine from a private company, Crystallex. Since that unlawful seizure, Crystallex has pursued legal action and was ultimately allowed to pursue a stake in oil company CITGO, Venezuela’s largest asset in the United States. While the legal process has been long, this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Venezuela’s latest attempt to get off the hook for the costs incurred by its former dictator.
Moving forward, this process should be allowed to proceed so that property rights and the rule of law are upheld. Any effort which results in the Treasury department interfering in this case by shielding Venezuela should be rejected.
The fact is, this is an important dispute that has major implications for the preservation of property rights around the world. Conservatives, including ATR have previously written to Secretary Mnuchin in opposition to Executive Action from the Trump Administration that would harm property rights owners.
While the Administration ultimately did not issue an Executive Order, the Treasury Department – through an obscure office called the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) - has refused to grant the necessary license needed by aggrieved property rights owners like Crystallex to move forward on reclaiming its due.
This bureaucratic blockade has continued in the face on numerous unanimous court decisions in favor of Crystallex and has the same effect of denying justice that an Executive Order would. Other Administration agencies, including the State Department and Department of Justice have made the case that the United States’ overarching foreign policy goals in Venezuela justify Treasury’s continued inaction.
These arguments from the United States and Venezuelan government are wrong and must be rejected. The Trump Administration must realize that the promotion of democracy abroad and property rights are not mutually exclusive goals, and that a license blockade by the Treasury Department sends a clear signal to dictators around the world that their confiscation of property will go unpunished.
Instead of continuing down this path, Secretary Mnuchin and the Treasury Department should end its use of OFAC to deny the pursuit of private property rights.
See also:
Photo Credit: Mattia Panciroli
Podcast: How Ranked-Choice Voting Twists Elections

Election Day is almost here! For voters in some states, ballot questions offer the chance to save taxpayer dollars, but others would drastically change the election process. How would radical reforms like ranked choice voting change elections forever? Former U.S. Representative Bruce Poliquin joins the podcast to discuss!
More from Americans for Tax Reform
New Report Finds Government Tax Prep Would Disproportionately Harm Low Income Americans

Government run tax preparation, often misleadingly described by the Left as “return free filing,” would disproportionately harm low and moderate income families, according to a recent study by Progressive Policy Institute.
As this report notes, the IRS does not have the information it needs to prepare tax returns for American families. This could deprive low-income Americans from important tax credits like the child tax credit and earned income tax credit (EITC). As the report notes, correctly filing would require the IRS to have a “deep knowledge” of the personal lives of a family:
“The IRS does not have the necessary information in its databases to accurately determine a low-income taxpayer’s eligibility for EITC and/or correctly calculate the amount of credit due to the taxpayer—indeed, far from it. The EITC is based on a stew of residency, family relationship, and income limits, with complex tie breaker rules. And like a giant puzzle, it requires deep knowledge of the personal lives of people living in the same household or family unit, with who else, for how long, and what their relationships and incomes are, just for a start.”
Far-left politicians such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren, (D-Mass.) routinely call for the government to take over tax preparation. This would a terrible idea. While supporters of government tax preparation routinely describe it as a way to streamline tax compliance, it is not as simple as they claim. As the PPI report notes, families that claim the EITC have complex tax returns, which the government would have no way of properly administering:
“Oddly enough, low- and moderate-income taxpayer returns that claim the EITC have been repeatedly described as “simple” returns by advocates of having the IRS take over tax preparation. But a study by the Tax Policy Center highlights the sheer complexity of low-income tax returns, noting that ‘…eligibility for child benefits has increasingly relied on the concept of a tax unit, which has not evolved with families…. The income tax law is based on annual filing and bases the definition of a filing unit primarily on legal relationships, child residency, and support. Consequently, families that change throughout the year may have difficulty correctly determining their filing status and who can properly claim a child for the purpose of receiving child-related benefits.’”
Government tax preparation is a terrible idea and would represent a huge conflict of interest for the government. Under this system, the IRS would assess taxes owed and process payments. This could create an incentive to overcharge or withhold information from taxpayers. It would require taxpayers to have an intricate understanding of their personal finances to ensure they are not being overcharged. It would empower the IRS to collect even more personal information and could even create a new pathway for the agency to target taxpayers.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, government tax preparation is unpopular. According to polling data by the Computer & Communications Industry Association, 60 percent of taxpayers oppose government tax preparation including 45 percent that “strongly oppose.” Just 8 percent of taxpayers strongly support government tax preparation.
Not only would government tax preparation harm low-income families, but there is already a solution to tax complexity. The Free File program – a public private partnership between the IRS and tax preparation companies – provides taxpayers with adjusted gross income of below $69,000 with access to free federal tax preparation software. Since its inception, this program has been used by more than 56 million families as a way to successfully navigate tax complexity.
Moving forward, policymakers should focus on improving Free File, rather than pushing for a government takeover of tax preparation. While the left claims that return free filing would be a simple way for the government to file and prepare tax returns for the American people, the reality is that this would be a near impossible task and would harm low and moderate income Americans.
Photo Credit: S.E.B.
Washington Advisory Vote 32 Will Show Public Opinion on New Bag Tax Law

The people of Washington have the opportunity on November 3rd to tell state lawmakers that they do not support efforts to raise taxes. Advisory Vote 32, which will appear before all Washington voters on the general election ballot, allows them to advise the legislature to either “maintain” or “repeal” a recently enacted bill that will soon impose a new statewide bag tax.
Advisory Votes in Washington are non-binding measures that give taxpayers the chance to share their opinions about recently enacted tax laws. However, they do not guarantee any actions will be taken.
AV 32 will show how the public feels about Senate Bill 5323, a new law that, on January 1, 2021, will force retailers to collect a “pass-through charge” of 8-cents per bag for recycled paper and reusable film plastic carryout bags. On January 1, 2026, that tax will increase to 12 cents per bag for film plastic bags. SB 5323 also bans retailers from distributing single-use plastic bags.
It is unsurprising that only a handful of states have such bag taxes and/or bans in place. A closer analysis of these misguided policies shows that bag taxes and bans result in a number of negative consequences, while failing to accomplish their ostensible goal of helping the environment.
Los Angeles experienced the adverse economic consequences associated with excessive bag regulations. Following the enactment of a bag ban there, Los Angeles retail stores decreased their employment by 10% and saw an average 6% decrease in revenues. A report from the National Center for Policy Analysis, A Survey on the Economic Effects of Los Angeles County’s Plastic Bag Ban, explains:
“Banning plastic bags reduces employment; provides an unfair advantage to retailers in one geographic area over another; leads to the theft of store shopping carts and shopping baskets; results in customers using more plastic produce bags (thus undercutting the effect of the ban); increases prices for consumers; decreases profit for producers; and decreases economic activity in the area.”
Indeed, the costs of providing more expensive reusable bags are often pushed onto consumers in the form of higher prices or are borne by workers in the form of fewer jobs and lower wages. This is likely already starting to affect the state of Washington.
Taxing the use of reusable paper and film plastic bags, as is currently set to happen in Washington under SB 5323, will only make matters worse. Particularly now, as the people of Washington have already been struggling from months of forced shutdowns to slow the spread of the virus. The last thing they need is to face higher costs at the grocery store due to an 8-cent per bag tax.
Adding insult to injury, numerous studies have found that efforts such as SB 5323 do not actually help the environment. The Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark, in a 2018 study, Life Cycle Assessment of grocery carrier bags, notes that, “[h]eavier multiple-use carrier bags such as composite and cotton bags obtain the highest environmental impacts across all impact categories.”
Specifically, the study finds that a polypropylene bag (the most common type of reusable bag) needs to be reused 37 times in order to balance its harmful environmental impact with that of a single-use plastic bag. Further, the study notes that a paper bag would have to be reused 43 times and a cotton bag – which these bans and taxes ultimately hope to force consumers to use – would have to be reused over 7,100 times in order to be considered more environmentally friendly than a single-use plastic bag.
Unfortunately for residents of the Evergreen State, SB 5323 is already taking effect. Single-use plastic bags will be banned at the end of the year, and the tax increases are on schedule to take effect. AV 32 will at least give voters an opportunity to tell lawmakers that they do not like the decision to raise taxes.
Photo Credit: hjl
Biden to young middle class taxpayer: "If you elect me your taxes are going to be raised, not cut."

In an exclusive to Americans for Tax Reform, here is the story of how Joe Biden told a young middle income voter that he would raise his taxes:
"My name is Nico Parisi, and I attended Joe Biden's campaign event at Coastal Carolina University on Feb. 27, 2020 in Conway, SC. As a recent graduate from the University, and as an individual who is very engaged in politics, I decided to experience what it would be like to take part in the event of an opposing political party. I had no intentions of having any interaction with anyone, which ended up not being the case.
During Biden's event, he asked the crowd, "By the way, how many of you benefited from that $1.9 trillion dollar tax cut?" As a recent college graduate making a middle class income, I raised my hand, because I did benefit from the TCJA. The tax cuts saved me nearly $1,800 a year, or roughly $150 a month. As a matter of fact, nearly 90% of that room benefited from the tax cuts, so it was amusing to see only my hand raised, of around 300+ people who attended.
Joe Biden noticed my hand in the crowd, and responded "Well that's good, I'm glad to see you're doing well already. But if you elect me, your taxes are going to be raised, not cut, if you benefited from that." I was in shock. Biden insinuated that the only way I could have benefited from the tax cuts was if I was some rich millionaire, which is false. This is an especially interesting assumption, given that I am a 22 year old, recent college graduate, who looks much younger than my age would imply."
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act -- also known as the Trump tax cuts -- reduced middle class taxes, as noted even by left-leaning outlets:
- New York Times: "Most people got a tax cut."
- Washington Post: “Most Americans received a tax cut.”
- CNN's Jake Tapper: "The facts are, most Americans got a tax cut."
- H&R Block: “The vast majority of people did get a tax cut.”
- CNN's Tapper also stated: "In fact, estimates from both sides of the political spectrum show that the majority of people in the United States of America did receive a tax cut."
Biden likes to lie about the Trump tax cuts by pretending the middle class didn't receive a tax cut. Biden and Kamala Harris also are on tape 22 times saying they will "eliminate", "get rid of", "repeal", and "end" the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Biden was even called out by CNN for lying about the tax cuts to a Pennsylvania audience of union members. CNN slapped Biden for lying and said: "In reality, it is likely that many of the people in Biden's audience that day at the Teamsters banquet hall in Pittsburgh benefited from that tax cut."
A Biden-Harris "elimination" of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would most certainly impose a tax increase on middle income households.
Biden also wants to raise middle class taxes by re-imposing the much-hated individual mandate tax. He also wants to raise taxes by eliminating stepped up basis, imposing a $200 gun tax, and taxing capital gains as ordinary income for "every single solitary person." Biden and Harris also both endorsed a carbon tax.
Below are photos taken by Nico Parisi during the event where Biden told him he was going to raise taxes.


5 Things That Will Be Banned Under Biden-Harris

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have vowed to ban or end many things.
Here is a sample of five items on their target list: Plastic straws, plastic bags, fracking, fossil fuels, and Right to Work states (166 million Americans live in the 27 Right to Work states).
Watch the video below:
Trump Economy Continues To Strongly Recover From COVID-19 With Fastest GDP Growth Ever

The US economy grew by 7.4 percent in the third quarter of 2020, or 33.1 percent on an annualized basis. This is the fastest pace of GDP growth ever recorded and is another sign that the economy is recovering strongly from the Coronavirus pandemic.
This GDP growth was nearly double the previous record quarterly growth of 16.7 percent which was recorded in the first quarter of 1950.
Private domestic investment increased by 83 percent on an annualized basis in the third quarter of 2020, while personal consumption increased by 40.7 percent.
This is just the latest sign of good economic news. 11 million jobs have been recovered in the past five months after businesses were forcefully shuttered, meaning we have recovered more than half of the jobs lost. The unemployment rate is down to 7.9 percent, a comparable level to the 7.8 percent rate in 2012 under Obama.
Moving forward, we need to continue promoting pro-growth policies to ensure the economy fully recovers.
Prior to the pandemic, the unemployment rate was 3.5 percent, a 50-year low. In 2019, real median household income increased by $4,400 in 2019, or nearly 7 percent. This wage growth exceeded gains during the entire Obama administration, which was just $3,000 or 5 percent.
This economic prosperity was experienced by key demographics and income levels. For instance, African Americans and Hispanic Americans saw their median income hit record levels, while the poverty rate declined to 10.5 percent, the lowest rate in decades. The bottom 25 percent of wage earners also experienced wage growth faster than the top 25 percent of wage earners, according to the Atlanta Fed.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
Ending Sentence Enhancements Is Soft on Taxpayers, Not Soft on Crime

Next month, Oklahoma voters will decide whether or not to amend the state’s constitution through State Question 805 (SQ 805), which would end sentence enhancements for nonviolent criminals.
These enhancements are add-ons that can be piled on top of the base sentence, and are often used to terrify defendants into plea deals. They also put people away in Oklahoma for excessive periods of time far beyond the sentencing guidelines for their offense, and most of these are nonviolent drug offenses. Taxpayers pay the price, and public safety does not benefit.
SQ 805 has come under fire. However, because of what crimes count as violent versus nonviolent. But that is already determined in Oklahoma law, the question simply uses the existing classification list.
The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) recently posted a helpful article available here, that provides a useful reality check:
“In 1984, the legislature, in an effort to fix the problem, passed the Oklahoma Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act. . . It could begin releasing inmates who had served most of their sentence until DOC[capacity] was back below 95%.”
The Act was repealed in 2001 by Gov. Frank Keating after three private prisons were awarded contracts in the state, but the list of violent offenses in the Act is continued in the language of SQ805:
“This is important: the list was originally designed to keep certain offenders from early release. Similarly, SQ 805’s effect on so-called “sentence enhancements” excludes the crimes listed in the statute.” …
“The naysayers would have you believe that people who commit crimes not on the list will be treated as a first-time offender every time. That is simply untrue. The sentencing range is designed to account for things like criminal history.”
You can read the full article at OCPAthink.org.
Photo Credit: Kevin





















