If Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly votes for the Democrats' reconciliation bill, they will stick Arizona companies with a higher tax rate than communist China.

The Democrats' reconciliation bill would leave Arizona with a combined federal-state corporate tax rate of 30.1% vs. communist China's 25%.

The Democrat bill will also put Arizona companies at a competitive disadvantage vs. Europe: The European average corporate tax rate is 19%.

"As the country tries to recover from a once-in-a-century pandemic, Sinema and Kelly would have to explain why they want to stick Arizonans 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 Arizonans would be 35.17% vs. China's 20%.

The burden of the corporate tax rate hike will be borne by Arizona 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."

WATCH:

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 the Stephen Entin of the Tax Foundation, labor (or workers) bear an estimated 70 percent of the corporate income tax:

"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."

"Sinema would be wise to oppose any tax increase," said Norquist.

As a guest tonight on MSNBC's The Beat with Ari Melber, 50 Cent stated his opposition to President Biden's tax increase plan and said Americans will move to low-tax areas of the country so they can "hold on to just what they are earning. Not to have it just taken from them by the government."

Regarding Biden's tax increase plan, 50 Cent said:

"His tax plan, I didn't realize I would be paying 62% of my income back to the IRS. So that does change a lot. New York City will change dramatically. Like they are going to end up moving to different territories. You look at Silicon Valley, it is now in Austin, Texas.

So you'll start to see people moving from these places to new places that make sense for them to hold on to just what they are earning. Not to have it just taken from them by the government."

50 Cent then hinted that he will move to Texas where the tax burden is lower:

"I'll move, Ari. I'm going to Texas. I've got my cowboy hat and everything. Everything is bigger in Texas, really beautiful people. Nice people in Texas."

WATCH:

Pennsylvania has the 15th-highest state and local tax burden in the country. The state took in $3.9 billion in May, a whopping $1.6 billion more than expected – and is forecasted to have a $3.16 billion revenue surplus this fiscal year.

There is no shortage of tax revenue for Harrisburg to spend, the state is taking a big cut of the earnings of Pennsylvanians. But the editorial board of the Scranton Times-Tribune thinks taxes on Pennsylvania families and businesses should be higher, not lower.

After Republican Gubernatorial candidate, and former Congressman, Lou Barletta committed to Pennsylvanians that he will not raise their taxes if elected, the Times-Tribune published an editorial misleading their  readers about the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, and clamoring for tax hikes.

The pledge is a written commitment made to voters that states a candidate or officeholder will oppose any net tax hike. Contrary to the paper’s claim that the pledge would limit Barletta’s ability to pursue tax reform, the pledge allows for any tax reform that is revenue-neutral. The pledge is a guardrail that allows lawmakers to pursue tax reform knowing a net tax increase is off the table. Anyone can read the pledge at ATR.org. The Scranton Times chose not to look up the facts.

The Scranton Times is not the first to make inaccurate claims that the pledge prevents tax reform compromises where a change increasing revenues is offset with a corresponding reduction in tax burden elsewhere.

These types of false charges have been disproved when examined by multiple fact checkers.  

Among numerous examples of revenue-neutral tax deals, just this past legislative session in Florida, the legislature approved a tax reform package that added an online sales tax collection requirement for businesses, which was fully offset by a reduction in the commercial rent tax. This compromise complied with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge commitment that was made by Governor DeSantis and dozens of  Pledge Signing state legislators.

On top of false claims about the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, the paper sells out the taxpayers of their own state.

The editorial board claims local property tax hikes can only be mitigated by the state government paying off localities to limit the increases. Surely the local governments and citizens approving property tax increases have some say? Are Pennsylvania mayors unable to reform their governments to cost citizens less?

Furthermore, they ignore great reforms like Truth in Taxation, and strong caps on property tax increases, that have proven effective in limiting property tax growth in other states.

On top of whiffing on property taxes, the editorial board wants Harrisburg to raise Pennsylvania’s gas tax, again. The state gas tax is third-highest in the U.S. behind only California, and Illinois. Increasing this regressive tax on going to work, yet again, would be disastrous. The Times’ editorial board should question what has been happening with all that extra gas tax money if they truly believe roads are “stressed.”

With billions of dollars in excess revenue, and model legislation to follow from states across the U.S., any Pennsylvania elected official should be able sign the Taxpayer Protection and and also keep the roads together, and pursue property tax reform, without increasing the overall tax burden.

In the next few days, the Senate will vote on confirmation of Rohit Chopra to serve as the next director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Americans for Tax Reform opposes Chopra’s nomination and urges all senators to vote against Chopra’s final confirmation.

Chopra is a far-left acolyte of Elizabeth Warren who will expand the size, scope, and authority of the CFPB to the greatest extent possible.

Chopra currently serves as a commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), but he has previously held positions at the CFPB as an assistant director, student loan ombudsman, and policy advisor.

Chopra is no friend to private industry. Under Chopra’s leadership, the CFPB will strictly enforce rulemakings that impose burdensome reporting requirements on financial institutions. For example, Chopra will likely severely enforce the mandates in the CFPB’s rule to collect certain data from small businesses pursuant to section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Chopra is also likely to increase enforcement actions against financial technology companies and mortgage lenders, stifling innovation and expanding the federal government’s reach into private loan agreements.

Additionally, Chopra has been rightly scrutinized by Ranking Member Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) of the Banking Committee for failing to respond to inquiries about the Biden administration’s potentially unlawful removal of CFPB career staffers from their positions in favor of replacing them with Democratic loyalists.  

Chopra never responded to Senator Toomey’s inquiry about whether he was involved in the removal of high-level career staffers. Failure to respond during the nomination process is enough by itself to be disqualified. Moreover, Chopra’s unresponsiveness foreshadows he is likely to be unaccountable to Congress just as the agency has been since its inception.    

The CFPB is an independent agency created by the politically divisive Dodd-Frank. The agency is structurally different from other independent agencies because it has a sole director leading the agency unlike most independent agencies, which have multiple commissioners and a chair. The CFPB is also not funded via Congressional appropriations, but by the Federal Reserve.

On Tuesday night, the Senate moved forward with turning the CFPB into a weapon for far-left Democrats. Senators voted in favor of discharging Rohit Chopra’s nomination from the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 49-48. Only Democrats voted in favor of considering his nomination for full confirmation.

In March, the Senate Banking Committee voted along party lines, ending up in a tie vote of 12-12. This tie vote in committee is why the Senate needed to vote on a motion to discharge to the full Senate.

Senate confirmation of Chopra will put a radical liberal at the helm of a redundant federal agency with no Congressional accountability.

Senators should vote NO on Chopra.