Thanks to tax cuts, Turning Point Brands to give $1,000 bonuses

Due to the recently enacted Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Kentucky-based Turning Point Brands, Inc. will give 107 employees a $1,000 bonus.
As stated by CEO Larry Wexler:
“We are giving $1,000 bonuses as a direct result of tax reform becoming law. These employees would not normally get a bonus like this. Our dedicated employees are responsible for our success, and we are very pleased to announce this bonus for them during the holiday season. We are extremely happy with tax reform and wanted our valued employees to feel the benefits. We can attest that this tax package is directly benefiting working people, just as our national leaders promised when they started this effort.”
“We especially want to thank President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Speaker Paul Ryan for pushing to get tax reform done this year, which allowed our people to immediately feel the impact. Every leader who pushed for and voted for tax reform made these bonuses possible,” Wexler said. “Senator McConnell has personally toured our facility in Louisville and we appreciate his interest in our employees and our business as well as his interest in all Kentucky businesses.”
Read the full statement here.
Photo Credit: jypsygen
ATR Statement on House Democrat's Radical Antitrust Report

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week the Democrats of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law released a partisan report discussing their findings and recommendations regarding an investigation into competition in digital markets. While they tout the number of hearing as and witnesses, Democrats already had their conclusions before investigation began. The report amounts to nothing more than a radical attempt to completely reshape long-accepted antitrust law to the detriment of American consumers and companies.
The Democrat report is not bipartisan. These proposals and prescriptions are so extremely devastating to Americans that not a single Republican joined the report.
ATR stands in opposition to both the findings and recommendations of this report which recommends restricting tech companies from operating in multiple markets and altering how antitrust enforcement can be brought against suspected violators.
ATR President, Grover Norquist said the following:
These recommendations pursue political prerogatives rather than consider what is truly best for all Americans. It is not good for all Americans if breaking up a firm means prices go up 20%. Nor is it good if those experiencing food insecurity are cut off from innovative food delivery services. Small business is not better off without a digital main street to compete with Big Box retailers physical and digital store fronts. Smart phone users could choose a fully open system, but most think they are better off when their devices and app stores secure their payment data. We were not better off when GPS systems led our car to a dead-end road or the edge of a lake.
The report further argues that Courts judging antitrust enforcement on the “narrow” basis of consumer welfare have significantly weakened antitrust laws over the past decades. One proposed solution is to rewrite existing laws to essentially nullify the consumer welfare standard.
Katie McAuliffe, Executive Director of Digital Liberty defends the consumer welfare standard by stating:
Allowing subjectivity for political leanings or personal feelings moves us away from the rule of law and does not make anyone better off. The consumer welfare standard does not consider the industry and these law makers are using general populist anger at tech companies to up-end the rule of law for all industries. Not just the ones we are mad at. Legislation should not be pushed to punish enemies and promote friends. It should be consistent across the board for all competitors. That is what the consumer welfare standard has achieved for decades.
This report is offering solutions to problems that do not exist. If some of these recommendations like the ones mentioned above were implemented, the damage done to businesses and consumers would harm the American economy. We urge lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to reject the findings in this report.
Photo Credit: April Brady/Project on Middle East Democracy
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Podcast: Ballot Measure Tax Hikes; Florida Amendments Threaten Elections & Jobs

ATR’s 2020 State Ballot Measure Guide is out (ATR.org/ballotguide), covering all the key measures taxpayers need to know before they head to the polls. Sal Nuzzo from the James Madison Institute joins to discuss Florida’s proposed Amendments, and we run down some of the big tax hike threats.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
12 Times Kamala Harris Vowed to Take Away Your Tax Cut "on Day One"

ATR today released a video compilation showing 12 times Kamala Harris vowed to repeal the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act "on Day One." Harris confirmed to Bloomberg News that she wants to "get rid of the whole thing."
A Kamala Harris-Joe Biden full repeal of the tax cuts would result in a $2,000 annual tax increase for a median income family of four.
Even Barack Obama has warned against raising taxes in an economic downturn. If Democrats repeal the tax cuts, as they have said countless times, Americans will face steep tax hikes just as the country digs out from the coronavirus:
- A family of four earning the median income of $73,000 would see a $2,000 tax increase each year.
- A single parent (with one child) making $41,000 would see a $1,300 tax increase each year.
- The child tax credit will be cut in half.
- Millions of low and middle-income households would be stuck paying the Obamacare individual mandate tax of $695 - $2,085. This tax was zeroed out as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Biden has vowed to re-impose this tax.
- The USA would have the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, higher than China (25 percent), the United Kingdom (19 percent), Canada (26.8 percent), and Ireland (12.5 percent).
- Small employers will face tax increases due to the increase in marginal income tax rates and the repeal of the TCJA 20% deduction for small business income.
- The Opportunity Zone program would be abolished. Opportunity Zones were created as part of the TCJA are already helping economically distressed areas across the country.
- Taxes would rise in every state and every congressional district.
- The Death Tax would ensnare more families and businesses.
- Utility bills would go up in all 50 states as a direct result of the corporate income tax increase.
- The AMT would snap back to hit millions of households.
- Millions of households would see their standard deduction cut in half, adding to their tax complexity as they are forced to itemize their deductions and deal with the shoebox full of receipts on top of the refrigerator.
Even left-leaning media outlets have acknowledged the fact that the Trump tax cuts have helped middle income households:
- 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."
- FactCheck.org: "Most people got some kind of tax cut in 2018 as a result of the law."
- FactCheck.org also stated: "The vast majority (82 percent) of middle-income earners — those with income between about $49,000 and $86,000 — received a tax cut that averaged about $1,050.
Americans for Tax Reform has compiled over 1,200 examples of how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has helped businesses and households in all 50 states.
On tax policy, Biden has a history of lying to the American people. He lied when he ran for Vice President in 2008 when he repeatedly said he would not support any form of any tax that imposed even “one single penny” of tax increase on anyone making less than $250,000. Biden shattered that promise upon taking office.
To stay up-to-date on Biden's tax hikes, visit ATR.Org/HighTaxJoe
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
Conservatives Unite to Send a Message to Congress: Don’t Nationalize 5G

Following the Department of Defense (DoD) Request for Information on a government-managed process for 5G development and action, Americans for Tax Reform led a group of 43 center-right organizations, think tanks, and policy experts in a coalition letter thanking U.S. Senator John Thune (R-SD) for his leadership and support for the American competitive approach to 5G deployment. Recently, Sen. Thune along with 18 Republican senators urged President Trump to bolster private-sector deployment of 5G after it was reported the DoD will consider a novel and untested method of sharing government-owned spectrum.
In a letter sent to Sen. Thune, the group expresses concern with rumors that the DoD already has a Request for Proposal it plans to greenlight, and highlights that nationalizing our communications infrastructure from scratch would be slow and at the expense of taxpayers.
“Taxpayers should not foot the bill for something that the private sector is already committed to doing through a free market approach. America’s private companies have invested decades of research, spent tens of billions of dollars, and are already deploying 5G across the country at a breakneck pace,” the letter states “It makes no sense to think that the DoD, starting from zero, could deploy these networks faster or more efficiently.It would cost tens of billions of taxpayer dollars and take decades to build a network from scratch to nationalize our communications system.”
Additionally, the group argued that “the implications of the DoD RFI are counter to the Administration’s recent actions” and that “a government-run 5G backbone, wholesale network, or whatever name it goes by, is nationalization of private business.” The letter goes on to cite other countries, specifically Russia, South Africa, and Mexico, that have experimented with nationalized networks and failed, and concludes by urging Congress to continue efforts to roll back any efforts to nationalize 5G development and deployment.
The full text of the letter with footnotes and signatories can be found HERE and letter text and signatories can be found below.
Dear Senator Thune,
We write to thank you for your recent letter supporting the American competitive approach to 5G deployment, which is private sector driven and private sector led. We agree that nationalizing 5G and experimenting with untested models for 5G deployment is not the way the United States wins the 5G race. Deployment of 5G should not rely on the government but should focus on unleashing the private sector and the free market.
We too are concerned with the Department of Defense Request for Information on a government-managed process for 5G development and are alarmed with how quickly it is proceeding. Even more disturbing are the rumors that the RFI was only for show and that the DoD already has an RFP it plans to greenlight.
Taxpayers should not foot the bill for something that the private sector is already committed to doing through a free market approach. America’s private companies have invested decades of research, spent tens of billions of dollars, and are already deploying 5G across the country at a breakneck pace. There are three U.S. companies – AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile – who have spent billions in recent years building national 5G networks, and another, DISH, which is also building a network. The idea of government entering the 5G business has been rejected by policymakers on both sides of the aisle. More mid-band spectrum is all they need to turbo charge deployment. It makes no sense to think that the DoD, starting from zero, could deploy these networks faster or more efficiently. It would cost tens of billions of taxpayer dollars and take decades to build a network from scratch to nationalize our communications system.
For example, we are still waiting for the final results of a spectrum sharing plan that began 10 years ago in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) spectrum band. CBRS is 150 MHz of spectrum in the 3.5 GHz to 3.7 GHz range that was originally used by the Navy and some commercial satellite providers. The FCC designated the band for sharing among three tiers of users: incumbent users, licensed users and unlicensed users. The auction for licensed use began in July 2020 and concluded in September 2020. The carriers who won these licenses are in the beginning stages of building out their 5G networks. There is no reason to pull the rug out from under them now.
The implications of the DoD RFI are counter to the Administration’s recent actions. The President has repeatedly said that the private sector should lead the U.S. in 5G innovation. In August 2020, President Trump announced that 100 megahertz of contiguous, coast-to-coast mid-band spectrum in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band would be made available for commercial 5G deployment. DOD Chief Information Officer Dana Deasy, commented, “With this additional 100 MHz, the U.S. now has a contiguous 530 megahertz of mid-band spectrum from 3450-3980 MHz to enable higher capacity 5G networks.” Here, the Administration and DoD collaborated to ensure no compromise to military preparedness, while also ensuring the free market, competitive U.S. economy can drive America’s winning position in the 5G race.
A government-run 5G backbone, wholesale network, or whatever name it goes by, is nationalization of private business. Spectrum sharing is something that must be considered as the nation moves forward with private networks, but it is not a reason for a government takeover. For a government-run network to happen, the federal government would have to either renege on licenses granted to private users or hoard spectrum at the expense of private industry. Either approach would upend well-established licensure policies at the FCC that establish certainty in operating and maintaining complex networks and create massive unnecessary delays to launching 5G networks. Moreover, the government should not be in the business of “competing” with private industry. That’s the business model of China and Russia, not the United States.
This concept has failed in other countries. Other countries experimented with nationalized networks and these attempted have failed. For example, in 2011, Russia gave away spectrum to a company that promised lower prices and sweeping deployments via a wholesale network built with Huawei equipment. Three years later, that company gave up after reaching barely a quarter of Russia. Meanwhile, in that same time, the U.S. industry built out LTE to nearly 96 percent of Americans. Similar experiments in South Africa and Mexico have also failed.
Spectrum does not belong to the military. If after discovering new efficiencies, the DoD has discovered ways to put spectrum allocated to it to better use, the government should clear the spectrum while making sure military needs are still met. Spectrum sharing between government and private users, like the CBRS band, or relocating government users and then auctioning the available spectrum with proceeds going to the American people, are both viable and tested. Military users should not build a network simply for financial gain including some kind of revenue sharing. The DoD sits on billions of dollars of spectrum assets without accounting for it on their balance sheets – if the DoD has excess capacity, it should be auctioned for the benefit of the American taxpayer.
The best approach toward collaboration between DoD and the private sector is cleared licensed spectrum for flexible use or coordinated sharing on bands among federal users and private licensed and unlicensed users, with proceeds going to the taxpayers. Nationalization or excessive regulatory intervention stalled other nations in the race to 4G. America won that race and the competitive process soared ahead, leading to economic gains for in networking, standards and technology, and eventually prompting the creation of the App Economy. The race to 5G will be won if the private sector once again leads the way and the government does not get in the way.
Thank you for your leadership on this critically important issue. We hope you will continue your efforts to slow down the process on this disruptive proposal and to roll back any efforts to nationalize 5G development and deployment.
Respectfully,
Grover G. Norquist
President
Americans for Tax Reform
Douglas Holtz-Eakin*
President
American Action Forum
Jennifer Huddleston*
Director of Technology & Innovation Policy
American Action Forum
Phil Kerpen
President
American Commitment
Daniel Schneider
Executive Director
American Conservative Union
Krisztina Pusok, Ph.D.
Director of Policy and Research
American Consumer Institute
Stephen Pociask
President and CEO
American Consumer Institute
Brent Wm. Gardner
Chief Government Affairs Officer
Americans for Prosperity
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
Ashley Baker
Director of Public Policy
The Committee for Justice
Jessica Melugin
Associate Director
Center for Technology & Innovation
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Jim Edwards
Executive Director
Conservatives for Property Rights
Matthew Kandrach
President
Consumer Action for a Strong Economy
Katie McAuliffe
Executive Director
Digital Liberty
Jason Pye
Vice President of Legislative Affairs
FreedomWorks
George Landrith
President
Frontiers of Freedom
Jessica Anderson
Executive Director
Heritage Action for America
Mario H. Lopez
President
Hispanic Leadership Fund
Carrie Lukas
President
Independent Women's Forum
Heather R. Higgins
CEO
Independent Women's Voice
Bartlett D. Cleland
Executive Director
Innovation Economy Institute
Wayne T. Brough, PhD.
President
Innovation Defense Foundation
Ian Adams
Executive Director
International Center for Law and Economics
Tom Giovanetti
President
Institute for Policy Innovation
Silvia Elaluf-Calderwood*
Professor
The iSchool at Syracuse University
Andrea O'Sullivan
Director, Center for Technology & Innovation
James Madison Institute
Seton Motley
President
Less Government
James Czerniawski
Policy Analyst, Tech and Innovation
Libertas Institute
Zach Graves
Head of Policy
Lincoln Network
Brandon Arnold
Executive Vice President
National Taxpayers Union
Eric Peterson
Director
Pelican Center for Technology & Innovation
Lorenzo Montanari
Executive Director
Property Rights Alliance
Jeffery Westling
Technology Resident Fellow
R Street Institute
Karen Kerrigan
President & CEO
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman
60 Plus Association
Saulius “Saul” Anuzis
President
60 Plus Association
David Williams
President
Taxpayer Protection Alliance
James E. Dunstan
General Counsel
TechFreedom
Roslyn Layton, PhD
President Elect
Transition Team for
Federal Communications Commission
2016-2017
Mark A. Jamison, PhD
President Elect
Transition Team for
Federal Communications Commission
2016-2017
Casey Given
Executive Director
Young Voices
*organization provided for identification purposes only
Photo Credit: gregwest98
Watch: Nine Times Biden Has Called for the Elimination of Trump Tax Cuts
Joe Biden has called for the elimination of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on at least nine occasions:
SUPERCUT: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Dodge the "Pack the Court" Question

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have dodged the "pack the court" question nine times.
Norquist in the Arizona Capitol Times: Prop 208 Would Devastate Small Businesses

Prop 208 – a permanent $1 billion income tax hike – will appear on November ballot in Arizona. If approved, this massive tax hike, the largest in Arizona history, would give the Grand Canyon State the unwelcome distinction of being home to one of the highest income tax rates in the country.
“Advertised as the ‘InvestInEd’ initiative, Prop. 208 would do nothing to actually improve education outcomes,” wrote Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform in a recent OpEd in the Arizona Capitol Times. “It would not expand parental choice. It would not call for higher standards. It is basically a slush fund for bureaucrats.”
Prop 208, if approved, would impose a new 3.5 “surcharge” on single filers who earn more than $250,000 a year and married couples who earn more than $500,000. This amounts to a 77.7% tax increase that would be nearly impossible to repeal.
“Backers of Prop. 208 have been claiming this massive increase in Arizona’s top marginal individual income tax rate would only impact ‘the rich.’ But that is not true,” explained Norquist. “Prop. 208 proponents ‘forget’ to mention that small business owners also pay individual income taxes. In reality, around 50% of those whose tax rates would be targeted are small businesses, many of whom have already been struggling from weeks of forced shutdowns to slow the spread of the coronavirus.”
Adding insult to injury, Prop 208 would also jeopardize future jobs and opportunities for Arizonans. “[I]t has been well documented that income tax rates are a key determinant of business location and investment,” wrote Norquist. “Currently, Arizona’s top marginal individual income tax rate of 4.5% is fairly competitive.”
“Nearly doubling this rate to 8% would give Arizona the unwelcome distinction of being home to the 10th highest top marginal individual income tax rate in the country (behind California, New York, and New Jersey) and the second highest rate in the region,” explained Norquist. “Why would anyone want to invest in Arizona when there are so many other states that would allow them to keep more of their hard-earned money?”
Prop 208 would devastate Arizona’s economy, while doing nothing to actually improve education. “If Arizona really wants to improve education, it should expand parental choice,” wrote Norquist. “Giving all parents and students – regardless of income or address – the ability to choose the school that works best for them is the best way to improve education and education outcomes.”
To read Norquist’s full OpEd, click here.
Photo Credit: Alan Cleaver
Radical Ballot Measures Promise to Change Elections Forever

Radical campaign and election reform ballot measures will appear on the ballot in Massachusetts, Florida, and Alaska.
These measures are signs of a larger trend driven by left-wing activists to drastically transform elections. They include “jungle primaries” that place all candidates in one primary, eliminating parties from the equation, and potentially leaving general election voters to decide between candidates who are very similar. Also on the table is ranked choice voting and free speech-chilling disclosure requirements that violate citizen privacy.
Read more from ATR's 2020 State Ballot Measure Guide here.
These measures ultimately are likely to lead to higher burdens for taxpayers and less accountability for elected officials. Let’s take a look...
Massachusetts voters will decide on Question 2, a state constitutional amendment that would enact ranked-choice voting for primary and general elections for state executive officials, state legislators, federal congressional representatives, and certain county offices.
Ranked-choice voting is a method in which voters would rank all candidates for an elected position – of every party – according to their preferences. If a candidate received greater than 50% of first-preference votes, that candidate is automatically declared the winner.
However, if no candidate receives that threshold of votes, the candidate receiving the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. The second-preference choices indicated on ballots are then tallied as voters’ first-preference choice in the following round.
This process is continued until a candidate wins a simple majority (50% +1) of the vote. If there is a tie for last place, the candidates’ support from earlier rounds will be compared to determine who should be eliminated.
Currently, Massachusetts uses a plurality voting system (each voter casts their vote for a single candidate; the winning candidate is who wins the most votes) and semi-closed primaries (independent voters may vote in the partisan primary of their choice, but party affiliated voters must stay in their party).
In a ranked-choice voting system, an individual's vote for their clear first choice can end up not mattering and their vote might end up being cast for a candidate they ranked far below their first choice. In fact, many voters choose to only list their top two or three candidates, especially when there are candidates for who they would never consider voting.
Unfortunately, simply choosing to omit these candidates could hurt a voter’s chances of their ballot being counted in future rounds of tabulation through ballot exhaustion. In turn, candidates are elected that were not the first choice of the majority of voters, but only a majority of all valid votes in the final round of tallying. It’s possible that a winning candidate will fall short of an actual majority in a ranked-choice voting system.
Florida’s Amendment 3 would scrap the state’s current closed primary elections in favor of a “jungle primary” system for state legislators, the governor, and cabinet (attorney general, chief financial officer, and commissioner of agriculture). In a jungle primary, all candidates – regardless of party – compete in one primary. The top-two candidates with the most votes would advance to the general election.
This dysfunctional system is so radical that both the Republican and Democratic parties in Florida oppose it and would likely result in greater burdens for Florida taxpayers. In primarily solid Republican or Democrat areas, for example, voters in the minority party could be deprived of a general election vote choice because turn-out for the majority party was so high. Making the primary election the far more important and decisive election promises to confuse voters.
While the Massachusetts and Florida ballot measures are a recipe for disaster, Alaska’s Ballot Measure 2 takes the cake.
Ballot Measure 2 would replace standard party primary elections with open top-four primaries for state and federal offices and establish a ranked-choice voting system for the general election. In other words, all candidates – regardless of political party – for a particular elected office will appear on a single primary ballot. The top-four candidates will advance to the general election where ranked-choice voting will be used to determine the final winner.
In addition to changing the electoral system, Ballot Measure 2 could also curb free speech in the electoral process. If the measure is passed, the personal information of individuals who donate over $2,000 in campaign contributions will be disclosed. Consequently, individuals might withhold donations to their preferred candidates or causes to evade public retaliation.
These upheavals threaten to cause chaos in elections and make it more difficult for hard-working taxpayers to speak out and hold their politicians accountable.
Photo Credit: justgrimes
More from Americans for Tax Reform
New Report: IRS Continues to Use 50 Year Old Obsolete Technology

Federal government agencies are using technologies that have been obsolete for decades, creating numerous obstacles in their ability to provide basic services, notes a recent report by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI).
This outdated IT has been exacerbated by the Coronavirus pandemic and points to a need for the government to engage in public-private partnerships to resolve this problem.
As the report notes, several agencies, including the IRS, continue to use technology that was developed almost 50 years ago and was considered obsolete decades ago.
For instance, the agency is using COBOL, a programing language first developed in the 1960s, to administer key programs. COBOL was designed for use with mainframe computers and has been replaced by cloud computing services offered by companies like Amazon and Microsoft.
The government continues to use COBOL even though they are struggling to find employees that have expertise with the technology. This shortage of expertise not be surprising – according to the PPI report, COBOL is 43rd most popular programming language and the average age of a COBOL programmer is 55-years-old.
As the report notes, the continued used of COBOL meant that many Americans struggled to receive COVID-19 stimulus payments:
“Many Americans encountered error messages (‘Payment Status Not Available’) when they tried to find out why they hadn’t received their stimulus check yet. The solution? Using only uppercase letters in the form (and if that didn’t solve the issue, people were advised to try abbreviating words like ‘Street’ and ‘Avenue’).”
To be clear, this is only one case of outdated technology. As the report notes, the IRS has a “profoundly outdated and inaccurate taxpayer database.” Several parts of the IRS IT infrastructure date back to the Kennedy administration.
One way the government can improve its IT is through public-private partnerships that take advantage of private sector innovation. As the report notes:
“Governments should start with pilot projects and partner with the private sector where possible. Likewise, modern public-private partnership strategies would enable government to leverage private sector investments and infrastructure to apply them to public purpose.”
The IT used by federal government is in dire need of modernization and points to clear limitations of the IRS and other agencies. In addition, this dangerously outdated technology points to a need to engage with the private sector.
Photo Credit: 401(K) 2012




















