Public Safety Success: South Carolina Reduces Crime and Reduces Spending
Nearly six years after enacting a major sentencing and corrections reform package, South Carolina’s prison population has declined 14% while violent and property crime rates have both fallen by 16%.
In 2010, lawmakers enacted S.B. 1154, the Omnibus Crime Reduction and Sentencing Reform Act. The law made South Carolina a leader among the dozens of states employing research-driven criminal justice policies to produce a greater public safety return on corrections spending.
Between 2011 and 2014, the state averted over $141 million in operating costs that would have been required to house a projected inmate population of over 28,000 by 2014 and avoided the construction of a new prison space projected to cost $317 million. There have been an additional $33 million saved in operating costs through 2016.
After decades of rising prison populations, reforms in 33 states have helped cut the national incarceration rate by 13 percent since 2007. States are finding smart, new ways to get tough on crime and, in the process, changing how America views crime and punishment.
This podcast goes through the dramatic changes in South Carolina’s justice system. It features leaders in South Carolina who are implementing their innovative reforms – state Senator Gerald Malloy (D); Bryan Stirling, S.C. state corrections director; and Adam Gelb, director of The Pew Charitable Trusts public safety performance project.
Voters and legislators are looking more intently at improving the results of incarceration. “There really is a sea change in this attitude towards crime and punishment across the country over the past ten years” said Gelb. Little wonder that two thirds of states have moved in this direction.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
VIDEO: Americans Oppose IRS Snooping on Their Bank Account
Today Americans for Tax Reform released a video compilation of on-the-street interviews from local news reports showing firm, categorical opposition to the concept of IRS snooping on their bank accounts. The Democrats' new $10,000 threshold changes nothing.
Excerpts from the video:
“I don’t see what business it is of anyone’s what I spend out of my bank account."
“No, it’s not their business. I already tell them enough.”
“I don’t feel that’s appropriate, that the IRS should be looking into people’s bank accounts.”
“They’re trying to get in to see every little thing you’re doing.”
“It could be a little invasive.”
“It’s kind of over the top and I just think that it’s an invasion of privacy.”
“Our bank accounts, you’d think would be somewhat private if you’re just a regular Joe Schmo making money week-to-week.”
“I do not think the government should be intervening in individual bank accounts.”
“It is personal information, that’s why we file taxes, too. You know, they should not have access to all that stuff.”
“I don’t think it’s right, it’s not their business what’s in my bank account.”
Click here or below to view:
Photo Credit: Cliff from Arlington, Virginia, USA, CC BY 2.0
ATR Leads Coalition Letter Opposing Sen. Warren's "Stop Wall Street Looting Act"
Today, Americans for Tax Reform led a coalition letter in opposition to Senator Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) Stop Wall Street Looting Act, which is being reintroduced in the wake of the Senate Banking Economic Policy Subcommittee's upcoming hearing titled “Protecting Companies and Communities from Private Equity.”
Senator Warren's bill would increase taxes, hurt private investment, eliminate jobs, and threaten the lifesavings of countless Americans. ATR's letter was signed by 20 other organizations.
You can read the letter below or here:
October 19, 2021
Dear Senators Warren & Kennedy,
We are writing to express our concern about the upcoming hearing in the Senate Banking Economic Policy Subcommittee titled “Protecting Companies and Communities from Private Equity.” More specifically, we are strongly opposed to legislation like Senator Warren’s Stop Wall Street Looting Act, which would increase taxes, stifle private investment, eliminate jobs, and threaten the life savings of Americans across the country. We urge the Committee to reject this legislation and any similar legislation that would harm workers, retirees, and pensioners.
It appears that Senator Warren is using this subcommittee hearing as an opportunity to reintroduce and highlight her Stop Wall Street Looting Act, a dangerous bill that could crush thousands of businesses at a time when the economy is still trying to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill is concerning for a number of reasons:
- Tax increases on investment: By sharply raising taxes on long-term capital gains, the bill would dampen returns of universities, startup ventures, and pensioners. Raising taxes on carried interest is part of a long-running campaign by some to raise taxes on all capital gains investment. A recent study found that raising taxes on carried interest could eliminate up to 4.9 million jobs and cost pension funds up to $3 billion per year. The bill also creates a 100% surtax on certain fees and denies legitimate interest deductions for disfavored private companies.
- Imposes new mandates: The bill penalizes private investment based entirely on the ownership structure of the underlying businesses. The legislation would impose new and onerous legal liabilities on private investors and managers that do not exist for other investors, including through a radical rewrite of the bankruptcy code. These liabilities would make it exceedingly difficult to invest in struggling businesses.
- Penalizes workers & retirees: These new regulations would make it harder for pension funds to generate stronger returns for the teachers, fire fighters and public-sector workers whose retirements depend on the performance of these investments. The bill could also cost investors as much as $3.36 billion each year, with almost half of the loss accruing to pension fund retirees.
- Eliminates jobs: Senator Warren’s legislation would erase anywhere from 6 to 26 million jobs from the American economy and reduce federal, state and local tax revenue by as much as $475 billion each year, according to a study by the United States Chamber of Commerce.
As we have seen time and time again throughout history, when you tax and overregulate an activity, you get less of it. Unfortunately for workers and retirees across the country, the result of the Stop Wall Street Looting Act would hurt the livelihoods of the 11.7 million workers directly employed by private equity-backed companies.
In 2019, when Senator Warren introduced the Stop Wall Street Looting Act, the Wall Street Journal noted that “every policy she proposes would increase government control over the private economy.” Unfortunately, the newest version of the bill stays the course. Instead of attacking private sector employers with legislation like the Stop Wall Street Looting Act, we urge the Subcommittee to focus on solutions that will empower workers.
Sincerely,
Grover Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform
Phil Kerpen
President, American Commitment
Krisztina Pusok, Ph. D.
Director, American Consumer Institute
Brent Wm. Gardner
Chief Government Affairs Officer, Americans for Prosperity
Ryan Ellis
President, Center for a Free Economy
Andrew F. Quinlan
President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Jeffrey Mazzella
President, Center for Individual Freedom
Tom Schatz
President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Iain Murray
Vice President, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Matthew Kandrach
President, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy
Adam Brandon
President, FreedomWorks
George Landrith
President, Frontiers of Freedom
Garrett Bess
Vice President, Heritage Action for America
Andrew Langer
President, Institute for Liberty
Seton Motley
President, Less Government
Tom Hebert
Executive Director, Open Competition Center
Bryan Bashur
Executive Director, Shareholder Advocacy Forum
Saulius “Saul” Anuzis
President, 60 Plus Association
Jim Martin
Founder/Chairman, 60 Plus Association
Karen Kerrigan
President & CEO, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
David Williams
President, Taxpayers Protection Alliance
CC: Full Senate Banking Committee
Photo Credit: "Elizabeth Warren" by Gage Skidmore is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Guy Nohra signs Taxpayer Protection Pledge
Americans for Tax Reform commends Guy Nohra, candidate for Governor of Nevada, for signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a written commitment to Nevada taxpayers that, if elected, he will oppose and veto any and all efforts to raise taxes.
Guy Nohra has made it clear that he will maintain Nevada’s 0% income tax rate. With Nohra’s signing of the taxpayer protection pledge, Nevada households can rest assured that state taxes will not go up during a Nohra administration.
“I’m proud to be the first and only candidate for Nevada Governor to sign the Americans for Tax Reform Taxpayer Protection Pledge. As Governor, I want Nevada taxpayers know that I will always have their back,” Nohra said.
By signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, candidates and incumbents make a written commitment to oppose any and all tax increases. While ATR has the role of promoting and monitoring the Pledge, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is made to a candidate’s constituents, who deserve to know where candidates stand on the tax issue. Since the Pledge is a prerequisite for many voters, it is considered binding as long as an individual holds the office for which they signed the Pledge.
“I want to congratulate Guy Nohra for taking the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, A written commitment to Nevadans, who deserve better than tax-and-spend policies that fall hard on the backs of hardworking families and small businesses. They want real solutions that create jobs, cut government spending, and make Nevada a more attractive place to live and raise a family,” said Grover Norquist, president of ATR.
“By signing the Pledge, Guy has demonstrated that he understands the problems of hard-working taxpayers in Nevada. Steve Sisolak has made it clear he will continue to pursue a higher tax and spend agenda that grows government and increases the burden of state spending on taxpayers. Nevadans deserve better” Norquist continued.
Today, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is offered to every candidate for state and federal office and to all incumbents. Nearly 1,400 elected officials, from state representative to governor to US Senator, have signed the Pledge.
New candidates sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge regularly. For the most up-to-date information on this race or any other, please visit the ATR Pledge Database.
Candidates for governor can still make this important commitment to voters by visiting: www.atr.org/take-the-pledge
Photo Credit: Guy Nohra Facebook Page
More from Americans for Tax Reform
5 Times Sen. Kyrsten Sinema Voted Against Carbon Taxes
Senate Democrats are pushing a carbon tax that would increase the cost of gasoline and household electricity bills in order to raise revenue for President Biden’s multi-trillion dollar tax and spend blowout, a clear violation of Biden’s pledge to not raise any form of tax on anyone making less than $400,000 per year.
According to reporting from Politico this morning, the new push for a carbon is facilitated by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona), whose opposition to other proposed tax increases has caused her Democrat colleagues to come up with additional options to pay for their progressive wish list.
Democrats are reportedly considering a carbon tax that starts around $20 per ton and ramps up every year thereafter. The Congressional Budget Office has previously estimated that a $20 per ton carbon tax would increase taxes by $1.2 trillion over a decade while the center-left Tax Policy Center found a $20 per ton carbon tax reduces the pre-tax income of households in the lowest income quintile by nearly one percent.
However, Sen. Sinema has a long and consistent voting record opposing all forms of a carbon tax, as Americans for Tax Reform documents below. If Sen. Sinema were in fact to support a carbon tax, it would be a clear reversal of her Congressional voting record to date.
Below are five instances Sen. Sinema voted against a carbon tax and the regulation of carbon emissions.
1. 2013 – Sinema votes to block the Obama Administration from unilaterally implementing a carbon tax.
In 2013, Sinema was one of twelve House Democrats voting in support of an amendment to the REINS Act (Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013) that required the Administration to receive approval from Congress before implementing a carbon tax.
Notably, the amendment backed by Sinema inserted language into the bill that stated, “as a tax on carbon emissions increases energy costs on consumers, reduces economic growth and is therefore detrimental to individuals, families and businesses, the REINS Act includes in the definition of a major rule, any rule that implements or provides for the imposition or collection of a tax on carbon emissions.''
2. 2016 – Sinema votes in support of Steve Scalise’s anti-carbon tax resolution
As a member of the House of Representatives in 2016, Sinema voted in support of Republican Whip Steve Scalise’s anti-carbon tax resolution. Sinema was one of six House Democrats that joined with House Republicans in support of H.Con. Res.89, which stated “a carbon tax will fall hardest on the poor, the elderly, and those on fixed incomes,” and “a carbon tax will increase the cost of every good manufactured in the United States.”
3. 2018 – In the midst of her Senate campaign, Sinema again votes in support of the Scalise anti-carbon tax resolution
In July of 2018, while she was in the heat of a tight election for her current Senate seat, Sinema again voted in support of Republican Whip Steve Scalise’s anti-carbon tax resolution. Sinema was one of seven Democrats that joined with House Republicans in support of H.Con.Res.119 which stated “a carbon tax will mean that families and consumers will pay more for essentials like food, gasoline, and electricity,” and “American families will be harmed the most from a carbon tax.”
4. April 2021 – Sen. Sinema introduces legislation to prevent the regulation of livestock emissions
Sen. Sinema and Sen. John Thune (R- South Dakota) introduced legislation in April to prevent the EPA from regulating carbon and methane emissions from livestock production.
“Cutting unnecessary regulations frees Arizona cattlemen from costly permit fees and keeps prices affordable for Arizona families,” said Sinema in a press release accompanying the introduction of her legislation.
A carbon tax would be levied on agricultural emissions, including those from livestock production and require regulation from the EPA.
5. August 2021 – Sen. Sinema votes to prohibit new methane requirements on livestock
In August, Sinema voted in favor of an amendment to “establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to prohibiting or limiting the issuance of costly Clean Air Act permit requirements on farmers and ranchers in the United States or the imposition of new Federal methane requirements on livestock.”
Americans for Tax Reform opposes any effort to impose a carbon tax and urges Sen. Sinema to maintain her long and consistent record opposing a carbon tax.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Democrats’ Taxes on Investment will Harm Start-Up Businesses
Democrats have proposed numerous tax increases on investment. President Biden’s budget called for doubling the tax rate on capital gains from 23.8 percent to 43.4 percent while the House Democrats $3.5 trillion tax and spend bill proposed raising the capital gains tax to 28.8 percent. However, under the House Democrat proposal investors in small private companies will be hit twice because of the repeal of the tax exclusion on qualified small business stock (QSBS).
Currently, the tax code allows for individuals and pass-through entities to exempt up to 100 percent of gains made on the sale of qualified small business stock if it was acquired at issuance, and held for at least five years in a C corporation with aggregate gross assets of $50 million or less. Individuals or pass-through entities can sell up $10 million, or “10 times the investor's basis in the stock,” in QSBS and still qualify for the tax exclusion.
If this exclusion is repealed individuals would pay a 25 percent tax on capital gains from the sale of QSBS. In addition, they would pay the 3.8 percent Obamacare net investment income tax and could pay the 3 percent surtax for individuals making more than $5 million.
In addition, taxpayers would have to pay state capital gains taxes. In California, for instance, they would have to pay an additional 13.3 percent tax resulting in a staggering tax rate of 45.1 percent.
This would be significantly higher than the tax rate charged by foreign competitors. For instance, the capital gains rate in Communist China is 20 percent, so the United States would be far less competitive.
If an investor knows they are going to lose nearly half of the gain on their stock when they sell, they may likely decide to reel back investment or invest in a different country with lower tax rates.
According to a memorandum prepared by RSM, there are clear benefits that come from the section 1202 tax exemption. RSM states that the 100 percent exclusion has “spurred interest in investments into start-up and other small businesses.” Additionally, Patrick Smith of CliftonLarsonAllen, makes a similar statement about the impact of section 1202. In a quote he provided to the Angel Capital Association, he states that, “Section 1202 stock is one of the most powerful tools Congress has ever provided to small businesses.”
Notably, this tax increase proposed by House Democrats could reduce competition. By eliminating the section 1202 tax advantage, Democrats are threatening to reduce a vital source of capital for small businesses. According to Fred Tannenbaum at Gould & Ratner, section 1202 has provided low-cost access to capital for small businesses that are aspiring to “to be the next Amazon, Google or 10X Genomics.”
The proposal, as drafted in the House Ways and Means Committee title of the budget reconciliation bill, could drastically diminish competition and bolster market share for large companies.
Congress should reject efforts to raise taxes on investment including through the repeal of section 1202. Maintaining this provision will help ensure private capital can continue to flow to small businesses for years to come.
Photo Credit: "US Capitol" by kidTruant is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
Some States Demonstrate the Best Way to Replenish Unemployment Insurance Funds, Others Show What Not to Do
Across the country, states have depleted their unemployment insurance funds responding to the massive job losses precipitated by last year’s lockdown-driven economic downturn. Some states have since replenished these trust funds, but lawmakers in most states still need to take action to do so, otherwise businesses will be hit with payroll tax hikes that make it even more expensive to hire new workers.
The Tax Foundation notes that “states have paid out $175 billion in unemployment benefits since the start of the pandemic, with the federal government providing an additional $660 billion.” Because of this, “taking debt into account, state trust funds now have a negative aggregate balance of -$11 billion and are $115 billion shy of minimum adequate solvency levels.”
Fortunately for governors and lawmakers in these states, they have approximately $95 billion in federal cash from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) available to them that can be used to refill unemployment insurance (UI) trust funds and repay UI related federal debt. However, instead of using federal aid to replenish these funds, governors in several states would rather foot the bill through payroll tax hikes.
As the Illinois Policy Institute note, "the two ways states can fund their trusts are by either increasing employer payroll taxes or cutting benefits for the unemployed.”
Unfortunately for Illinois taxpayers, their governor seems set on paying the state’s UI debt through the former, even though there are billions in federal funds available that could be tapped as an alternative to higher taxes on employers. Illinois took out a $4.2 billion federal loan last year to refill its unemployment fund. Illinois last month missed the deadline to repay this debt, “which leaves Illinois taxpayers on the hook to pay $60 million in annual interest on that loan,” notes IPI. notes IPI.
Similarly in New Jersey, it was recently reported that “Gov. Phil Murphy remains noncommittal about using federal COVID relief money to offset millions of dollars that New Jersey small businesses must pay to replenish the state’s Unemployment Insurance (UI) fund.”.
New Jersey has $6.2 billion in federal aid available, more than enough to cover the $885 million needed to replenish the fund. With the economic hardships brought on by the lockdowns and record unemployment levels, higher taxes are the last thing businesses need. To raise taxes instead of using readily available ARPA funds is inexcusable.
In contrast to Illinois and New Jersey, where Democratic governors are declining to use readily available federal funds to replenish UI funds instead of resorting to state tax hikes, lawmakers in Texas are refilling their UI trust fund and pay off day with the federal funds that ARPA made available to the state. Before the Texas Legislature’s special session ended early this morning, the lawmakers approved Senate Bill 8, which applies more than $7 billion in federal funds toward the state’s UI trust fund. Unlike in Illinois and New Jersey, Texas lawmakers are using ARPA funds for their designed purpose and avoid employer tax hikes in the process.
Raising taxes to refill the unemployment funds is inexcusable when state lawmakers and governors have billions in federal funds that can and should be used for that purpose. Congress sent states hundreds of billions of dollars to help them pay for pandemic-related expenses. For state officials not to use those funds to refill their UI funds, and to raise taxes instead, is a betrayal of taxpayers. As the aforementioned states are demonstrating, some states, like Texas, will take the optimal approach, while states like Illinois and New Jersey will serve as examples of what not to do, just as they do with so many other policy matters.
Unfortunately for Illinois taxpayers, their governor seems set on paying the state’s UI debt through the former, even though there are billions in federal funds available that could be tapped as an alternative to higher taxes on employers. Illinois took out a $4.2 billion federal loan last year to refill its unemployment fund. Illinois last month missed the deadline to repay this debt, “which leaves Illinois taxpayers on the hook to pay $60 million in annual interest on that loan,” notes IPI. notes IPI.
Similarly in New Jersey, it was recently reported that “Gov. Phil Murphy remains noncommittal about using federal COVID relief money to offset millions of dollars that New Jersey small businesses must pay to replenish the state’s Unemployment Insurance (UI) fund.”.
New Jersey has $6.2 billion in federal aid available, more than enough to cover the $885 million needed to replenish the fund. With the economic hardships brought on by the lockdowns and record unemployment levels, higher taxes are the last thing businesses need. To raise taxes instead of using readily available ARPA funds is inexcusable.
In contrast to Illinois and New Jersey, where Democratic governors are declining to use readily available federal funds to replenish UI funds instead of resorting to state tax hikes, lawmakers in Texas are poised to refill their UI trust fund and pay off day with the federal funds that ARPA made available to the state.
The Texas legislature is advancing Senate Bill 8, which applies more than $7 billion in federal funds toward the state’s UI trust fund. Unlike in Illinois and New Jersey, Texas lawmakers are preparing to use ARPA funds for their designed purpose and avoid employer tax hikes in the process.
Raising taxes to refill the unemployment funds is inexcusable when state lawmakers and governors have billions in federal funds that can and should be used for that purpose. Congress sent states hundreds of billions of dollars to help them pay for pandemic-related expenses. For state officials not to use those funds to refill their UI funds, and to raise taxes instead, is a betrayal of taxpayers. As the aforementioned states are demonstrating, some states, like Texas, will take the optimal approach, while states like Illinois and New Jersey will serve as examples of what not to do, just as they do with so many other policy matters.
Photo Credit: “Hearne TX - storefront.jpg” by Matthew Rutledge is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Ways and Means Republicans Discuss Danger of Dem’s Socialist Drug Price Controls
Last week, Ways and Means Committee Republicans held a meeting to discuss the Democrats’ socialist drug price-setting plan, which House Democrats have included in their $3.5 trillion tax and spend reconciliation bill. This plan, H.R. 3, 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 legislation would stifle innovation, limit Americans’ access to new cures and treatments, would cost high-paying jobs across the country, and would reduce the United States’ global dominance in medical innovation.
As noted by Ways and Means Committee Republican Leader Kevin Brady (R-Texas), this dangerous proposal would lead to the development of hundreds of fewer lifesaving cures and treatments:
“The Democrats’ policies set up a dangerous trade-off: lower prices for some drugs for some people in the short-term in exchange for hundreds of fewer cures in the long-term. It also puts Washington in control of Americans’ medical decisions. As Republicans, we reject that premise. Every analysis of this price setting policy says it will result in Americans getting fewer cures. Every single analysis…
According to the University of Chicago, Democrats’ price setting scheme would destroy up to 60 percent or, to put a number on it, 342 cures in research and development, including for devastating diseases like Alzheimers, Parkinson’s, ALS, and diabetes. The very diseases that every family is acquainted with in some way, and I think all are praying and hoping for a cure. The truth is — one lost cure is one too many”
This is not surprising, as foreign countries that utilize price controls suffer through less medical innovation, leading to fewer cures and healthcare shortages for American patients.
The U.S. is currently a world leader when it comes to medical innovation. According to research by the Galen Institute, 290 new medical substances were launched worldwide between 2011 and 2018. The U.S. had access to 90 percent of these cures, a rate far greater than comparable foreign countries. By comparison, the United Kingdom had access to 60 percent of medicines, Japan had 50 percent, and Canada had just 44 percent.
Amicus Therapeutics’ CEO John Crowley, who testified at the meeting noted that is daughter and son, Megan and Patrick Crowley, were diagnosed with Pompe disease, a neuromuscular genetic disease. Doctors told Crowley that his children were unlikely to live past the age of two.
Crowley left his job in finance and created Amicus Therapeutics, a company which researches and develops drugs for those with rare diseases. Thanks to the successful development of new treatments, both of Crowley’s children are thriving adults. However, Crowley expressed concern that H.R. 3 would mean the next generation of lifesaving cures would never be developed:
“[This plan] would lead to more death and more suffering. Maybe not immediately, but in the days and years and decades ahead. I think about future families who would have a child born with a rare, devastating disease, and they're going to ask the same questions we did 23 years ago. Where is the research? Who has an idea? What can we do for our child? And I'm afraid, if any of this legislation passes and price controls are put on the industry... that would drain research and development dollars. I’m afraid… that would be a mistake for the ages.”
Republican Leader of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), explained that the “Democrats have presented our country with a false choice. They say that to bring the cost of drugs, we have to take back government control of prices. That we must sacrifice our world-leading innovation in treatments and cures to lower costs at the pharmacy counter for seniors.”
H.R. 3 would harm American patients and degrade America’s world-leading role in medical innovation. ATR applauds the Ways and Means Committee Republicans for highlighting the importance of medical innovation and fighting against the Democrats’ socialist health care agenda.
Photo Credit: "Kevin Brady" by Gage Skidmore is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Jake Evans Makes “No New Taxes” Commitment in GA-06 Congressional Race
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) commends attorney Jake Evans for signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge in his race for Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District seat. The Pledge is a written commitment to Peach State taxpayers that he will oppose and vote against all income tax hikes.
Candidates running for public office like to say they will not raise taxes, but often turn their backs on the taxpayer once elected. The idea of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is simple enough: Make them put their no-new-taxes rhetoric in writing, so the promise is much harder to break.
“Georgia voters are looking for solutions that get Americans back to work and grow the economy. I commend Jake Evans for signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge and promising to hold the line on taxes. It’s the first step in jump-starting the economy,” said Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform.
There are currently 178 Pledge signers in the U.S. House and 44 Pledge signers in the U.S. Senate. 85% percent of all congressional Republicans have made the written commitment to oppose higher taxes. In contrast, ZERO congressional Democrats have made that promise.
President Biden has been championing a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill, which includes the largest tax increase since 1968. These tax hikes will disproportionately hurt workers, retirees, consumers, and small businesses.
“Voters have a right to know where candidates stand on taxes before heading to the voting booth. The Taxpayer Protection Pledge is a simple litmus test that tells voters I’ll work to protect your wallet. I encourage all candidates for elected office to make this commitment today,” continued Norquist.
New candidates sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge regularly. For the most up-to-date information on this race or any other, please visit the ATR Pledge Database.
Photo Credit: Jake Evans for Congress
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Dem Corporate Tax Hike Will Drive Utility Bills Even Higher
Dem Corporate Tax Hike Will Drive Utility Bills Even Higher
If Democrats raise the federal corporate income tax rate to 26.5%, Americans will get hit with higher utility bills as the country tries to recover from the pandemic. This comes at a time when utility bills are already rising significantly because of skyrocketing energy prices.
Democrats want to take the current federal rate of 21% and raise it to 26.5%. This will stick Americans with an average federal-state corporate tax rate of 31.3%, higher than communist China's 25% and higher than the European average of 19%.
Customers directly bear the cost of corporate income taxes imposed on utility companies.
Investor-owned electric, gas, and water companies must get their billing rates approved by the respective state utility commissions. The commissions are required by law to build the cost of taxes into the utility rates.
When the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, utilities worked with state officials to pass along the tax savings to customers.
After completing a 50-state review of utility commission documents and local news sources, Americans for Tax Reform compiled 300 examples of utilities passing tax savings along to customers.
So if Democrats now raise the tax rate, they will have to explain why they just raised utility bills.
You can view the 50 state lists below, and a full national compilation here.
The TCJA savings come in the form of a rate reduction, a bill credit, or a reduction to an existing or planned rate increase.
ATR has also compiled a 90-second nationwide utility savings video from local news reports which may be viewed here.
According to a report published in the trade publication Utility Dive, customers nationwide were to receive a $90 billion utility benefit from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act:
Estimates derived from 2017 annual SEC 10-K filings indicate that the 14-percentage-point reduction in the corporate tax rate enacted under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) resulted in investor-owned utilities establishing significant regulatory liability balances, totaling approximately $90 billion to be refunded back to customers.
If Democrats now impose a corporate income tax rate increase, they will have to reckon with constituents and local news coverage noting utility bills are going up.
The 50 state lists are below:
ALABAMA
Alabama Residents Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/alabama-residents-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
ALASKA
Alaska Residents Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/alaska-residents-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
ARIZONA
Sinema Warned: A Vote for a Corporate Tax Rate Hike is a Vote for Higher Utility Bills https://www.atr.org/sinema-warned-vote-corporate-tax-rate-hike-vote-higher-utility-bills
ARKANSAS
Arkansas Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/arkansas-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
CALIFORNIA
California Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/california-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
COLORADO
Colorado Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/colorado-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
CONNECTICUT
Connecticut Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/connecticut-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
DELAWARE
Delaware Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/delaware-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
FLORIDA
Florida Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/florida-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
GEORGIA
Georgia Residents Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/georgia-residents-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
HAWAII
Hawaii Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/hawaii-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
IDAHO
Idaho Residents Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/idaho-residents-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
ILLINOIS
Illinois Residents Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/illinois-residents-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
INDIANA
Indiana Residents Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/indiana-residents-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
IOWA
Iowans Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/iowans-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
KANSAS
Kansas Residents Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/kansas-residents-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
KENTUCKY
Kentucky Residents Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/kentucky-residents-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
LOUISIANA
Louisiana Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/louisiana-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
MAINE
Maine Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/maine-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
MARYLAND
Maryland Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/maryland-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
MASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts Residents Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/massachusetts-residents-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
MICHIGAN
Michigan Residents Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/michigan-residents-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
MINNESOTA
Minnesotans Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/minnesotans-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
MISSISSIPPI
Mississippi Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/mississippi-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
MISSOURI
Missouri Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/missouri-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
MONTANA
Montanans Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/montanans-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
NEBRASKA
Nebraska Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/nebraska-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
NEVADA
Nevada Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/nevada-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
NEW HAMPSHIRE
New Hampshire Residents Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/new-hampshire-residents-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
NEW JERSEY
New Jersey Residents Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/new-jersey-residents-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
NEW MEXICO
New Mexico Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/new-mexico-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
NEW YORK
New York Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/new-york-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/north-carolina-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
NORTH DAKOTA
North Dakotans Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/north-dakotans-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
OHIO
Ohioans Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/ohioans-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/oklahoma-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
OREGON
Oregon Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/oregon-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvanians Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/pennsylvanians-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
RHODE ISLAND
Rhode Island Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/rhode-island-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
SOUTH CAROLINA
South Carolina Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/south-carolina-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
SOUTH DAKOTA
South Dakota Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/south-dakota-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
TENNESSEE
Tennessee Residents Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/tennessee-residents-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
TEXAS
Texas Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/texas-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
UTAH
Utah Residents Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/utah-residents-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
VERMONT
Vermont Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/vermont-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
VIRGINIA
Virginians Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/virginians-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Washington, D.C. Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/washington-dc-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
WASHINGTON STATE
Washington State Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/washington-state-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate
WEST VIRGINIA
Manchin's Corporate Tax Hike Will Stick West Virginians with Higher Utility Bills https://www.atr.org/west-virginians-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
WISCONSIN
Wisconsin Residents Will Get Stuck with Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/wisconsin-residents-will-get-stuck-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
WYOMING
Wyoming Residents Will Get Stuck with Even Higher Utility Bills Due to Biden Corporate Tax Rate Hike https://www.atr.org/wyoming-residents-will-get-stuck-even-higher-utility-bills-due-biden-corporate-tax-rate-hike
South Carolina Companies Will Face Higher Taxes Than China and Europe if Dem Bill Passes
South Carolina companies will get stuck with higher taxes than China and Europe if the Democrats' reconciliation bill is enacted.
The Democrats' reconciliation bill will saddle South Carolina with a combined federal-state corporate tax rate of 30.2% vs. communist China's 25% and the European average of 19%.
"As the country tries to recover from a once-in-a-century pandemic, President Biden and congressional Democrats must explain why they want to stick residents with higher taxes than China and Europe," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
The Democrats' $3.5 trillion bill will impose the largest tax increase since 1968. It will raise individual income taxes, small business taxes, corporate taxes, and capital gains taxes.
If passed, the combined federal-state capital gains tax rate for South Carolina residents would be 35.72% vs. China's 20%.
The burden of the corporate tax rate hike will be borne by workers in the form of lower wages, and by households in the form of higher prices. Higher corporate tax rates will also raise utility bills.
The non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation recently affirmed in congressional testimony that the corporate tax rate hike will fall on "labor, laborers."
Testifying before the House Ways & Means Committee, JCT Chief of Staff Thomas A. Barthold said:
"Literature suggests that 25% of the burden of the corporate tax may be borne by labor in terms of diminished wage growth."
Economists across the political spectrum agree that workers bear the brunt of corporate tax increases. And 25% is on the very low end.
According to Stephen Entin of the Tax Foundation, labor (or workers) bear an estimated 70 percent of the corporate income tax. He wrote in 2017:
"Over the last few decades, economists have used empirical studies to estimate the degree to which the corporate tax falls on labor and capital, in part by noting an inverse correlation between corporate taxes and wages and employment. These studies appear to show that labor bears between 50 percent and 100 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax, with 70 percent or higher the most likely outcome."
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:
"We identify this direct shifting through cross-company variation in tax liabilities, conditional on value added per employee. Our central estimate is that $1 of additional tax reduces wages by 92 cents in the long run. The incidence of a $1 fall in value added is smaller, consistent with our wage bargaining model."
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:
"We find, controlling for other macroeconomic variables, that wages are significantly responsive to corporate taxation. Higher corporate tax rates depress wages. Using spatial modelling techniques, we also find that tax characteristics of neighbouring countries, whether geographic or economic, have a significant effect on domestic wages."
A 2006 study by William Randolph of the Congressional Budget Office found that 74% of the corporate tax is borne by domestic labor:
"Burdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares that are reasonable for the U.S. economy. Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax."
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:
"The empirical results presented here suggest that the incidence of corporate taxation is more than fully borne by labor. I estimate that a one percentage point increase in the marginal corporate tax rate decreases annual wages by 0.7 percent. The magnitude of the results predicts that the decrease in wages is more than four times the amount of the corporate tax revenue collected."
A 2012 Harvard Business Review piece by Mihir A. Desai notes that raising the corporate tax lands “straight on the back” of the American worker and will see a decline in real wages:
"Because capital is mobile, high tax rates divert investment away from the U.S. corporate sector and toward housing, noncorporate business sectors, and foreign countries. American workers need that capital to become more productive. When it’s invested elsewhere, real wages decline, and if product prices are set globally, there is no place for the corporate tax to land but straight on the back of the least-mobile factor in this setting: the American worker."
Even the left-of-center Tax Policy Center estimates that 20 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax is borne by labor:
"In calculating distributional effects, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC) assumes investment returns (dividends, interest, capital gains, etc.) bear 80 percent of the burden, with wages and other labor income carrying the remaining 20 percent."
"Democrats would be wise to oppose any tax increase," said Norquist.
State news
Top Stories
