×
↓ Freedom Centers

Tag Archives: Taxes


Study: Free College Plans Leave Vast Majority Worse Off

'Over 86% of all households would lose' from free tuition policies

By Yuichiro KakutaniThe Washington Free Beacon

The “free” college plans touted by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and other Democratic presidential hopefuls will require radical tax hikes and leave 86 percent of American households worse off, a recent study found.

Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) often promise tuition-free higher education and student debt cancellation on the campaign trail. However, a National Bureau of Economic Research study conducted by University of Wisconsin researchers found that free college translates to a hollowed-out higher education system that leaves many Americans worse off.

Researchers simulated two scenarios: one in which the federal government forces states to adopt tuition-free public colleges and another in which it provides subsidies to encourage states to do so. They calculated how each plan would affect the welfare of American households. The welfare function was derived from, among other things, the positive and negative impacts of higher tax rates and lower education costs.

“Over 86% of all households would lose while about 60% of the lowest income quintile would gain from such policies,” the study found.

In both scenarios, the free tuition policy benefited a group of the poorest Americans at the expense of everyone else. For the vast majority of U.S. households, any benefit derived from a free college plan was outweighed by its negative consequences.

Sens. Warren and Sanders, as well as former Obama official Julián Castro, want to make public college free for all Americans. Other presidential candidates, including South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii), backed a less ambitious plan that removed tuition costs only for middle- and low-income families.

Such proposals could end up hurting students before they get to college. For example, Warren said she would pay for her free-tuition plan by levying an up to 2 percent wealth tax on “ultra-millionaires.” She claims in her policy plan that states will split the cost of college tuition with the federal government but still “maintain their current levels of funding” for academic instruction even after her plan is implemented.

Warren’s plan would force state governments to withdraw resources from public K-12 education to fund the free college program, worsening the overall quality of education students receive before college. The lower education quality, along with higher tax rates, would contribute to a decline in welfare for U.S. households, according to researchers.

“The idea of ‘free’ public colleges is politically seductive. But of course a college education can’t actually be free—someone must pay for it,” the study said. “Allocating additional resources to the college stage may be self-defeating if this entails a reduction of public expenditure in the earlier stages.”

Some scholars, however, argue that lower per-pupil costs do not necessarily lead to lower education quality, but may reflect a more efficient school system. Analysts at the Heritage Foundation found that D.C. public school students drastically underperformed despite the district spending nearly double the national average per pupil.

Other academics have found flaws in existing free college programs. A Harvard University study found that a Massachusetts tuition-free college program for high-performing students actually lowered the students’ college completion rate, complicating claims from 2020 Democrats that their education plans would allow more students to graduate.


Elizabeth Warren’s Untenable Plans

If you’ve been having trouble finding someone to walk your dog, don’t worry. Any day now, Elizabeth Warren will announce “a plan for that.” It will undoubtedly be comprehensive, detailed, and replete with subsidies for lower- and middle-class dog walkers and underserved breeds. It will cost tens of billions of dollars and will receive widespread positive notice from the media. However, to judge by her other recent plans, the one thing it won’t include is any discussion of how she plans to pay for it.

The Massachusetts senator has challenged and possibly overtaken former vice president Joe Biden as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, largely based on having a plan for the government to tackle every problem facing this country, no matter how big or how small, from issues with military housing to Puerto Rican debt to climate change.

The price tag for this massive expansion of government is enormous. Much of the attention in recent weeks has been focused on Warren’s embrace of Medicare for All, which she refuses to admit would require an increase in middle-class taxes. Even Vermont senator Bernie Sanders has conceded that such proposals, which would cost $30–40 trillion over 10 years, cannot be financed without tax hikes. Warren’s refusal to address this obvious fact makes her look less like a would-be policy wonk and more like a typical politician.

But even setting aside Medicare for All, Warren’s plans are likely to dump oceans of red ink onto our growing national debt. Her non-health-care spending proposals already total some $7.5 trillion per year over the next 10 years. Although these are not quite Bernie levels of government largesse, her proposals would still require nearly double our current levels of spending.

To pay for all this, Warren proposes a variety of tax hikes, mostly designed to hit corporations or high-earners: higher payroll taxes for those earning more than $250,000 per year; a 7 percent profits tax on companies earning more than $100 million; a 60 percent lobbying tax on firms that spend a million or more on lobbying, and so forth. But the biggest chunk of money would come from Warren’s proposed “wealth tax,” a 2 to 3 percent levy on net worth above $50 million. Warren estimates that this wealth tax will pull in more than $2.75 trillion over ten years. It won’t.

First, there is the slight problem that a wealth tax is probably unconstitutional. Of course, constitutional constraints are quaint notions in the Age of Trump. Regardless, it is worth noting that the Constitution permits the federal government to impose only “direct taxes,” such as a property tax. That’s why it required a constitutional amendment to enact the federal income tax. Many constitutional scholars warn that a wealth tax is neither a direct tax nor income tax.

Even if Warren can find a way around the constitutional guardrails — perhaps by something such as a retrospective wealth tax in which you wait until a taxpayer sells assets or passes away — a wealth tax is unlikely to raise anywhere near the amount of money she predicts.

Simply look at Europe’s experiments with wealth taxes. At one time, a dozen European countries imposed wealth taxes. Today, all but three have abandoned those levies. Among those repealing their wealth tax are the Scandinavian social democracies that Warren admires, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. Norway retains a wealth tax but has significantly reduced it in recent years. Additional countries abandoning the tax include Austria, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. Other countries, such as Great Britain, have considered wealth taxes and rejected them.

They did so because wealth taxes are administratively complex and difficult to enforce. Also, they significantly reduce investment, entrepreneurship, and, ultimately, economic growth. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, European wealth taxes raised, on average, only about 0.2 percent of GDP in revenues. By comparison, the U.S. federal income tax raises 8 percent of GDP.

Two groups, however, would benefit substantially from a wealth tax. The tax would be a full-employment opportunity for the tax-preparation industry and for lawyers. After all, we would now have to determine fair market value for everything from homes and vehicles to artwork and jewelry to family pension rights and intellectual property. The other big winner would be lobbyists, who could be expected to descend on Washington en masse seeking exemptions and exceptions for their clients. If you think the tax code is a mess today, just wait until D.C. is done with Warren’s plan.

There is an old Yiddish proverb that goes “Mann tracht, un Gott Lacht,” or “Man plans, and God laughs.” It is all well and good that Senator Warren has a plan for everything. But until she actually figures out how to pay for everything without crippling our economy, such plans really don’t add up


Nonpartisan Report: Medicare For All Would More Than Double Your Taxes And Bankrupt The Nation

An individual earning near the national median at $50,000 a year would pay more than $17,450 more per year in taxes to fund Democrats’ Medicare for All proposal. That’s not even half of it.

By Christopher JacobsThe Federalist

Democratic candidates for president continue to evade questions on how they will pay for their massive, $32 trillion single-payer health care scheme. But on Monday, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) released a 10-page paperproviding a preliminary analysis of possible ways to fund the left’s socialized medicine experiment.

Worth noting about the organization that published this document: It maintains a decidedly centrist platform. While perhaps not liberal in its views, it also does not embrace conservative policies. For instance, its president, Maya MacGuineas, recently wrote a blog post opposing the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, stating that the bill’s “shortcomings outweigh the benefits,” because it will increase federal deficits and debt.

That centrist position makes CRFB’s analysis of single payer all the more devastating, because one cannot write it off as coming from a right-wing group. And its analysis is devastating, carrying it three main messages, as follows.

Everyone’s Taxes Will Go Up—a Lot

Consider some of the options to pay for single payer CRFB examines, along with how they might affect average families.

A 32 percent payroll tax increase. No, that’s not a typo. Right now, employers and employees pay a combined 15.3 percent payroll tax to fund Social Security and Medicare. (While employers technically pay half of this 15.3 percent, most economists conclude the entire amount ultimately comes out of workers’ paychecks, in the form of lower wages.) This change would more than triple current payroll tax rates.

Real-Life Cost: An individual earning $50,000 in wages would pay $8,000 more per year ($50,000 times 16 percent), and so would that individual’s employer.

A 25 percent income surtax. This change would apply to all income above the standard deduction, currently $12,200 for individuals and $24,400 for families.

Real-Life Cost: An individual with $50,000 in income would pay $9,450 in higher taxes ($50,000 minus $12,200, times 25 percent).

A 42 percent Value Added Tax (VAT). This change would enact on the federal level the type of sales/consumption tax that many European countries use to support their social programs. Some proposals have called for rebates to some or all households, to reflect the fact that sales taxes raise the cost of living, particularly for poorer families. However, using some of the proceeds of the VAT to provide rebates would likely require an even higher tax rate than the 42 percent CRFB estimates in its report.

Real-Life Cost: According to CRFB, “the first-order effect of this VAT would be to increase the prices of most goods and services by 42 percent.”

Mandatory Public Premiums. This proposal would require all Americans to pay a tax in the form of a “premium” to finance single payer. As it stands now, Americans with employer-sponsored insurance pay an average of $6,015 in premiums for family coverage. (Employers pay an additional $14,561 in premium contributions; most economists argue these funds ultimately come from employees, in the form of lower wages—but workers do not explicitly pay these funds out-of-pocket.)

Real-Life Cost: According to CRFB, “premiums would need to average about $7,500 per capita or $20,000 per household” to fund single payer. Exempting individuals currently on federal health programs (e.g., Medicare and Medicaid) would prevent seniors and the poor from getting hit with these costs, but “would increase the premiums [for everyone else] by over 60 percent to more than $12,000 per individual.”

Reduce non-health federal spending by 80 percent. After re-purposing existing federal health spending (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid), paying for single payer would require reducing everything else from the federal budget—defense, transportation, education, and more—by 80 percent.

Real-Life Cost: “An 80 percent cut to Social Security would mean reducing the average new benefit from about $18,000 per year to $3,600 per year.”

The report includes other options, including an increase in federal debt to 205 percent of gross domestic product—nearly double its historic record—and a more-than-doubling of individual and corporate income tax rates. The impact of the last is obvious: Take what you paid to the IRS on April 15, or in your regular paycheck, and double it.

In theory, lawmakers could use a combination of these approaches to fund a single-payer health care system, which might blunt their impact somewhat. But the massive amounts of revenue needed gives one the sense that doing so would amount to little more than rearranging deck chairs on a sinking fiscal ship.

Taxing Only the Rich Won’t Pay for Single Payer

CRFB reinforced their prior work indicating that taxes on “the rich” could at best fund about one-third of the cost of single payer. Their proposals include $2 trillion in revenue from raising tax rates on the affluent, another $2 trillion from phasing out tax incentives for the wealthy, another $2 trillion from doubling corporate income taxes, $3 trillion from wealth taxes, and $1 trillion from taxes on financial transactions and institutions.

Several of the proposals CRFB analyzed would raise tax rates on the wealthiest households above 60 percent. At these rates, economists suggest that individuals would reduce their income and cut back on work, because they do not see the point in generating additional income if government will take 70 (or 80, or 90) cents on every additional dollar earned. While taxing “the rich” might sound publicly appealing, at a certain point it becomes a self-defeating proposition—and several proposals CRFB vetted would meet, or exceed, that point.

Socialized Medicine Will Permanently Shrink the Economy

The report notes that “most of the [funding] options we present would shrink the economy compared to the current system.” For instance, CRFB quantifies the impact of funding single payer via a payroll tax increase as “the equivalent of a $3,200 reduction in per-person income and would result in a 6.5 percent reduction in hours worked—a 9 million person reduction in full-time equivalent workers in 2030.”

By contrast, deficit financing a single-payer system would minimize its drag on jobs, but “be far more damaging to the economy.” The increase in federal debt “would shrink the size of the economy by roughly 5 percent in 2030—the equivalent of a $4,500 reduction in per person income—and far more in the following years.”

Moreover, these estimates assume a great amount of interest by foreign buyers in continuing to purchase American debt. If the U.S. Treasury cannot find buyers for its bonds, a potential debt crisis could cause the economic damage from single payer to skyrocket.

To say single payer would cause widespread economic disruption would put it mildly. Hopefully, the CRFB report, and others like it, will inspire the American people to reject the progressive left’s march towards socialism.


The Fallacies Underlying the Warren Social Security Plan

By Charles BlahousHoover Institution

Elizabeth Warren, U.S. senator from Massachusetts and candidate for president, recently released a Social Security plan that would exacerbate many of the program’s existing problems while also creating several new ones. The plan was announced in an article she posted on Medium, along with an analysis authored by Moody’s Analytics’ Marc Zandi. Normally, members of Congress have their Social Security proposals scored by the nonpartisan Social Security Administration Office of the Chief Actuary, but this proposal was introduced in a campaign context rather than a legislative one, hence the private analysis. While the proposal contains several substantive flaws, it serves the simple rhetorical message of promising higher Social Security benefits for all. The rationales given in Sen. Warren’s article for her plan exhibit several points of substantive confusion, which may partially explain why the proposal contains as many problems as it does.

It is impossible for an outside analyst to state with certitude why any particular public figure embraces a specific policy. Policy choices derive from several things, including subjective value judgments, gut instincts, one’s read of the substantive realities, political considerations, and many other factors. It is common for public figures to release plans accompanied by analytical findings that appear to support the proposed policies. However, the inclusion of such material rarely means that the policy was developed on the basis of neutral analysis of available information. At least as often, the analysis is provided as an after-the-fact rationale for policy choices driven by other subjective goals. This is particularly important to bear in mind when reviewing a Social Security plan such as Sen. Warren’s. An accurate understanding of the issues discussed in her Medium article would lead to policy proposals starkly different from the ones she has put forward.

The plan is a complex one and raises more issues than can be covered here. Below I will review a few of the major problems with it.

Problem #1: Misunderstanding Social Security benefits and replacement rates. In arguing for an across-the-board Social Security benefit increase, Sen. Warren writes:

“For someone who worked their entire adult life at an average wage and retired this year at the age of 66, Social Security will replace just 41% of what they used to make. That’s well short of the 70% many financial advisers recommend for a decent retirement—one that allows you to keep living in your home, go to a doctor when you’re sick, and get the prescription drugs you need.”

This presentation is inaccurate. The 41% percentage cited by Sen. Warren comes from a Social Security Administration (SSA) Actuary’s office memo, and is not actually a percentage of what a retiree “used to make” while working. Instead it is a percentage of the worker’s prior earnings “wage-indexed to the year before retirement”—that is, multiplied by subsequent average wage growth in the national economy. In other words, it’s not a comparison of that individual’s retirement benefits to his or her ownprevious earnings, but instead to the earnings of others who are working at the time the beneficiary retires. While this comparison may be of interest to some, it is not a measure of the degree to which retirees maintain their own pre-retirement standards of living.

This is a very significant error that essentially invalidates the argument advanced above. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently reported that Social Security will provide the average retiree born in the 1960s a benefit equal to 55% of the average inflation-adjusted value of their own career earnings. For workers in the lowest-income quintile, the average replacement rate is a much higher 80%.

When Sen. Warren’s mistaken interpretation of Social Security replacement rates is corrected, her foundational case for an across-the-board benefit increase disappears. Social Security replacement rates for low-income workers are already above the level Sen. Warren cites financial advisers as recommending, so they cannot be further increased without causing these Americans’ standards of living as workers to be much lower than they would later be as beneficiaries. In addition to being problematic for the workers themselves, this perverse outcome would create huge disincentives for labor-force participation and personal saving. Even middle-income Americans are already in a situation where Social Security is crowding out much of the saving they could or would otherwise do on their own for retirement. Unless we want to have Social Security displace nearly all long-term saving done by the lion’s share of Americans, the across-the-board benefit increase specified in Sen. Warren’s proposal runs counter to widely-expressed societal objectives for Social Security—namely, to provide a base of income protection underlying other retirement saving.

In fairness to Sen. Warren, SSA’s method of calculating replacement rates is counterintuitive and not widely understood. However, given the centrality of the data point to her piece’s case for a sweeping benefit expansion, it would presumably have been checked with a Social Security expert, most of whom are aware of the difference between how SSA defines this number and how the senator’s piece presents it. In addition, the CBO recently provided a comprehensive report to Congress detailing how SSA’s replacement rate calculations differ substantially from comparing a worker’s Social Security benefits to his or her own prior earnings.

Problem #2: Misunderstanding benefit increases under current law. Sen. Warren’s piece also contains the following statement in support of the case for an across-the-board benefit increase:

“…Congress hasn’t increased Social Security benefits in nearly 50 years.”

What this sentence omits is critical: a core reason no such legislation has been enacted in nearly 50 years is that federal law was changed back then to cause Social Security benefits to increase automatically without Congress having to act. Prior to the 1970s, Social Security operated very differently. Before then, Social Security benefits didn’t increase unless Congress enacted legislation to increase them. But in 1972, Congress passed a law (amended in 1977) that would cause Social Security benefit levels to increase over time, not only in absolute terms, but substantially faster than consumer price inflation. While people can differ over how large and generous the Social Security program should be, it is inaccurate to suggest that its benefits haven’t increased in nearly 50 years. The following graph shows how benefits for medium-wage workers have increased in real (inflation-adjusted $2019) dollars in recent decades.

Social Security Benefits Increase Automatically Under Current Law

Instead of failing to increase Social Security benefits, we have the opposite situation: The current benefit formula causes benefits and costs to grow faster than our economic capacity and faster than workers’ earnings. It has been known since the 1970s that this rate of cost growth cannot be financed via a stable tax rate. Congress’s Social Security Consultant Panel cautioned back in 1976, “this Panel gravely doubts the fairness and wisdom of now promising benefits at such a level that we must commit our sons and daughters to a higher tax rate than we ourselves are willing to pay.” Sen. Warren’s proposal would cause the required tax increases to rise even faster, while her statement above creates a misimpression that is exactly opposite of what is happening. Instead of reflecting the reality that program benefits and costs are growing faster than is sustainable (as shown in the following figure reproduced directly from the Social Security trustees’ report), it fosters confusion to the effect that benefits haven’t been increasing at all.

Social Security Costs Grow Faster than Worker Wages

(All Numbers Expressed Below as a % of US Workers’ Taxable Wages)

Problem #3: Worsening the treatment of younger generations. One of the biggest problems arising under current Social Security law is that it treats younger generations much worse than older ones. Because Social Security is not a savings program but rather an income transfer program, it is a zero-sum game at best: No one can gain net income through Social Security without someone else losing it. The largest such income transfers occur across generations. The trustees’ report shows that unless something is done to moderate the benefit growth rate for current participants, younger generations will lose income through Social Security equal to 3.4% of their career taxable earnings—net of all benefits they receive. The program cannot reasonably provide social insurance for young workers if it is making them more than 3% poorer over the course of their lives. By increasing benefits for today’s participants (including the wealthiest) well beyond what their own future taxes can finance, the Warren plan would substantially worsen the aggregate net income losses of younger generations.

Problem #4: Enabling state/local workers to double-dip benefits at Social Security’s expense. The Warren proposal would repeal provisions of Social Security law called the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO). In effect the plan would allow state and local employees to double-dip from the Social Security system, receiving much higher benefits than the program’s benefit formula intends. The reason that the WEP and GPO exist is that Social Security’s formula for computing benefits is very crude: It simply averages one’s highest 35 years of earnings, and applies a progressive benefit formula that pays higher returns to lower-wage workers than higher-wage workers. Because the system only “sees” earnings covered by Social Security, and because it computes benefits on the basis of lifetime average wages, at first glance it mistakes someone who works for 15 years under Social Security and 20 years in a state retirement system as having 20 years in which they earned nothing at all, in effect treating this person as having a much lower income than someone with the same annual earnings for 35 years under Social Security. The WEP/GPO adjusts benefits so that state and local workers aren’t mistakenly treated as much lower-income households than they actually are. The WEP/GPO doesn’t work perfectly and should be reformed. Texas Congressman Kevin Brady has a bill that would fix the formula to accurately reflect workers’ actual earnings, a perfectly good solution. Better still would be to reform the Social Security benefit formula altogether to obviate the need for the WEP/GPO. It would make no sense, however, to repeal the WEP/GPO without a replacement provision to prevent large overpayments of Social Security benefits.

Problem #5: Reducing saving. Social Security provides retirement income without generating additional saving to finance it, and accordingly has a net negative effect on national saving. The effects are particularly severe for low-income workers, whose burden of paying payroll taxes, combined with their income and liquidity constraints and Social Security’s benefit structure, causes many low-income households to suffer lower standards of living as workers than they anticipate as beneficiaries. Simply put, these households have neither the ability or incentive to engage in retirement saving after paying their Social Security taxes. Sharply increasing Social Security costs and benefits as in the Warren plan would considerably exacerbate these adverse trends, driving saving by low-income households even lower and discouraging saving by the middle class. Ironically, Sen. Warren’s piece cites low savings rates as a rationale for further expanding Social Security, when doing so would worsen this problem.

Problem #6: Mismeasuring inflation. The Warren plan would use an experimental index called the CPI-E to calculate beneficiaries’ annual cost-of-living adjustments. As I stated in a previous piece about another Social Security bill, “there is a general consensus among economists that CPI-E overstates price inflation relative to CPI-W (the measure Social Security currently uses), which in turn overstates inflation relative to C-CPI-U, a more accurate measure tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Relative to accurate inflation indexing, the bill’s CPI-E would cause COLA overpayments of roughly 0.5 percentage points annually. . . . These overpayments would disproportionately benefit higher-income seniors who live longer, pushing costs and worker tax burdens higher.”

Problem #7: Weakening the economy through massive tax increases. The Warren proposal would increase national Social Security tax burdens by roughly 30% relative to current law. Even the Zandi memo issued in support of the proposal recognizes that these tax increases would reduce economic growth by having a “negative impact on the supply of labor.” Elsewhere the Zandi memo argues that the Warren proposal would increase economic growth over the long term primarily by reducing federal indebtedness, but this finding relies on an accounting convention that does not reflect actual law. This scoring convention assumes that in the absence of action, the federal government would continue to pay full Social Security benefits without collecting taxes sufficient to finance them, even though there is “no legal authority to make such payments.” Under a literal no-action scenario, current law would instead cause Social Security benefits to be cut dramatically when its old-age benefits trust fund runs dry in 2034. Alternatively, a different package of reforms to prevent trust fund depletion could be enacted before then. The key point is that the Warren plan would reduceeconomic growth relative to either a literal no-action scenario, or relative to an alternative solvency package that eschews the massive tax increases in her plan. Her plan only appears to improve economic growth starting in the 2030s, and only relative to a fictional budgetary scenario at variance with actual law.

The Warren Social Security plan would worsen Social Security’s intergenerational inequities, undermine saving, reduce labor-force participation, lower economic growth, employ an inaccurate measure of inflation, allow state and local employees to double-dip, and is premised upon fundamental misunderstandings of Social Security’s benefit structure. The plan would result not only in a far more expensive Social Security system, but also one with benefits less efficiently targeted for actual need.


ATR Leads Coalition Opposed to Pelosi’s 95% Drug Tax

By Alex HendrieATR.org

ATR today released a coalition letter signed by 70 groups and activists in opposition to the Pelosi drug pricing proposal to create a 95 percent tax on pharmaceutical manufacturers.

As noted in the letter, this bill calls for a retroactive tax on sales that is imposed in addition to existing against income taxes:

Under Speaker Pelosi’s plan, pharmaceutical manufacturers would face a retroactive tax of up to 95 percent on the total sales of a drug (not net profits). This means that a manufacturer selling a medicine for $100 will owe $95 in tax for every product sold with no allowance for the costs incurred.

The tax is used to enforce price controls on medicines that will crush innovation and distort the existing supply chain as the signers note:

“The alternative to paying this tax is for the companies to submit to strict government price controls on the medicines they produce. While the Pelosi bill claims this is “negotiation,” the plan is more akin to theft.”

This proposal will create significant harm to American innovation to the detriment of jobs, wages, and patients, as the letter notes:

”[The Pelosi] proposal would crush the pharmaceutical industry, deter innovation, and dramatically reduce the ability of patients to access life-saving medicines.

The full letter is found here and is below:

Dear Members of Congress:

We write in opposition to the prescription drug pricing bill offered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that would impose an excise tax of up to a 95 percent on hundreds of prescription medicines. 

In addition to this new tax, the bill imposes new government price controls that would decimate innovation and distort supply, leading to the same lack of access to the newest and best drugs for patients in other countries that impose these price controls.

Under Speaker Pelosi’s plan, pharmaceutical manufacturers would face a retroactive tax of up to 95 percent on the total sales of a drug (not net profits). This means that a manufacturer selling a medicine for $100 will owe $95 in tax for every product sold with no allowance for the costs incurred. No deductions would be allowed, and it would be imposed on manufacturers in addition to federal and state income taxes they must pay.

The alternative to paying this tax is for the companies to submit to strict government price controls on the medicines they produce. While the Pelosi bill claims this is “negotiation,” the plan is more akin to theft.

If this tax hike plan were signed into law, it would cripple the ability of manufacturers to operate and develop new medicines.

It is clear that the Pelosi plan does not represent a good faith attempt to lower drug prices. Rather, it is a proposal that would crush the pharmaceutical industry, deter innovation, and dramatically reduce the ability of patients to access life-saving medicines.

We urge you to oppose the Pelosi plan that would impose price controls and a 95 percent medicine tax on the companies that develop and produce these medicines.

Sincerely, 

Grover Norquist
President, Americans For Tax Reform

James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman, 60 Plus Association

Saulius “Saul” Anuzis
President, 60 Plus Association            

Marty Connors
Chair, Alabama Center Right Coalition                       

Bob Carlstrom
President, AMAC Action 

Dick Patten
President, American Business Defense Council

Phil Kerpen
President, American Commitment 

Daniel Schneider
Executive Director, American Conservative Union

Steve Pociask
President/CEO, The American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research

Lisa B. Nelson
CEO, American Legislative Exchange Council 

Michael Bowman
Vice President of Policy, ALEC Action

Dee Stewart
President, Americans for a Balanced Budget

Tom Giovanetti​​​​​​​
President, Americans for a Strong Economy

Norm Singleton
President, Campaign for Liberty

Ryan Ellis
President, Center for a Free Economy

Andrew F. Quinlan​​​​​​​
President, Center for Freedom & Prosperity

Jeffrey Mazzella ​​​​​​​
President, Center for Individual Freedom

Ginevra Joyce-Myers
Executive Director, Center for Innovation and Free Enterprise

Peter J. Pitts
President, Center for Medicine in the Public Interest 

Olivia Grady
Senior Fellow, Center for Worker Freedom

Chuck Muth ​​​​​​​
President, Citizen Outreach

David McIntosh
President, Club for Growth

Curt Levey​​​​​​​
President, The Committee for Justice

Iain Murray
Vice President, Competitive Enterprise Institute

James Edwards
Executive Director, Conservatives for Property Rights

Matthew Kandrach​​​​​​​
President, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy

Fred Cyrus Roeder​​​​​​​
Managing Director, Consumer Choice Center

Tom Schatz ​​​​​​​
President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Katie McAuliffe​​​​​​​
Executive Director, Digital Liberty

Richard Watson
Co-Chair, Florida Center Right Coalition

Adam Brandon
President, Freedomworks​​​​​​​

George Landrith ​​​​​​​
President, Frontiers of Freedom 

Grace-Marie Turner
President, Galen Institute

Naomi Lopez
Director of Healthcare Policy, Goldwater Institute

The Honorable Frank Lasee ​​​​​​​
President, The Heartland Institute

Jessica Anderson
Vice President, Heritage Action for America 

Rodolfo E. Milani ​​​​​​​
Trustee, Hispanic American Center for Economic Research
Founder, Miami Freedom Forum 

Mario H. Lopez
President, Hispanic Leadership Fund

Carrie Lukas
President, Independent Women’s Forum

Heather R. Higgins
CEO, Independent Women’s Voice

Merrill Matthews
Resident Scholar, Institute for Policy Innovation

Chris Ingstad​​​​​​​
President, Iowans for Tax Relief

Sal Nuzzo​​​​​​​
Vice President of Policy, The James Madison Institute

The Honorable Paul R LePage ​​​​​​​
Governor of Maine 2011-2019

Seton Motley
President, Less Government

Doug McCullough
Director, Lone Star Policy Institute

Mary Adams
Chair, Maine Center Right Coalition

Matthew Gagnon​​​​​​​
CEO, The Maine Heritage Policy Center

Victoria Bucklin ​​​​​​​
President, Maine State Chapter – Parents Involved in Education

Charles Sauer ​​​​​​​
President, Market Institute

Jameson Taylor, Ph.D.
Vice President for Policy, Mississippi Center for Public Policy

The Honorable Tim Jones
Leader, Missouri Center-Right Coalition 

Brent Mead
CEO, Montana Policy Institute

Pete Sepp ​​​​​​​
President, National Taxpayers Union

The Honorable Bill O’Brien
The Honorable Stephen Stepanek​​​​​​​
Co-chairs, New Hampshire Center Right Coalition

The Honorable Beth A. O’Connor
Maine House of Representatives

The Honorable Niraj J. Antani​​​​​​​
Ohio State Representative

Douglas Kellogg
Executive Director, Ohioans for Tax Reform

Honorable Jeff Kropf ​​​​​​​
Executive Director, Oregon Capitol Watch Foundation

Daniel Erspamer ​​​​​​​
CEO, Pelican Institute for Public Policy

Lorenzo Montanari​​​​​​​
Executive Director, Property Rights Alliance

Paul Gessing ​​​​​​​
President, Rio Grande Foundation

James L. Setterlund​​​​​​​
Executive Director, Shareholder Advocacy Forum

Karen Kerrigan
President and CEO, Small Business Entrepreneurship Council

David Miller & Brian Shrive
Chairs, Southwest Ohio Center-right Coalition

Tim Andrews
Executive Director, Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Judson Phillips
President, Tea Party Nation

David Balat ​​​​​​​
Director, Right on Healthcare – Texas Public Policy Foundation

Sara Croom ​​​​​​​
President, Trade Alliance to Promote Prosperity

Kevin Fuller
Executive Director, Wyoming Liberty Group


Tax Backed by 2020 Dems Would Hurt Retirement Accounts, Report Finds

Average retirement account would lose $20,000 to tax

By Charles Fain LehmanWashington Free Beacon

A financial transaction tax, though popular with 2020 Democrats, would raise little revenue and substantially shrink the U.S. economy, a recently released report concludes.

A transaction tax takes a percentage from financial trades, such as the sale or purchase of stocks, bonds, or derivatives. The United States levies an extremely small charge on each transaction to fund the Securities and Exchange Commission. A number of Democrats would like to bring a full-fledged financial transaction tax (FTT) back for the first time since 1965.

The idea’s most vocal proponent is presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) who has introduced a plan to charge a 0.5 percent fee on financial transactions. Sanders has made the tax “on Wall Street” a central revenue source to pay for his exorbitant spending proposals.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) introduced her own FTT proposal in 2015, Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) wants one to pay for expanding Medicare, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg has also said that he is “interested in” implementing an FTT. Congressional Democrats have supported the idea outside of the campaign trail. Sen. Brian Schatz (D., Hawaii) has his own0.1 percent proposed FTT — the bill has more than 200 co-sponsors in the House, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.).

These Democrats and others cite several justifications for an FTT. The tax is aimed at “Wall Street,” a preferred target of populist liberals—at least in principle, that means it also falls more heavily on those who hold a lot of wealth in investments. Additionally, such a tax would impose major restrictions on so-called high-frequency trading, which involves computer-run trades at fractions of a penny—profits that could be wiped out by the tax.

“This Wall Street speculation fee, also known as a financial transaction tax, will raise substantial revenue from wealthy investors that can be used to make public colleges and universities tuition free and substantially reduce student debt,” a brief from Sanders’s office reads. “It will also reduce speculation and high-frequency trading that is destabilizing financial markets. During the financial crisis, Wall Street received the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world. Now it is Wall Street’s turn to rebuild the disappearing middle class.”

The scope of the tax, however, would extend beyond the confines of Manhattan, according to a report from the Center for Capital Market Competitiveness, an affiliate of the Chamber of Commerce. The report argues that FTTs shrink the economy and hurt every-day Americans, not just Wall Street fat cats.

“Main Street will pay for the tax, not Wall Street,” the report argues. “The real burden [of an FTT] will be on ordinary investors, such as retirees, pension holders, and those saving for college.”

Much like a sales tax, the costs of a financial transaction tax would be passed on to consumers, who would pay more for each trade. Taxing transactions does not just drive up costs for the ultra-wealthy, but the 6 in 10 American households that own some kind of investment. Increased costs would have substantial effects on American savings. Under the Sanders plan, for example, the report estimates that a typical retirement investor will end up losing about $20,000 on average from his IRA.

These direct effects are arguably less significant than the overall effect that an FTT would have on the financial side of the economy. As multiple Democrats have acknowledged, the goal of an FTT would be to crack down on complicated financial instruments, such as high-frequency trades, to reduce what they perceive as dangerous market instability.

These instruments mostly serve vital functions greasing the wheels of the economy, according to the center’s report. An FTT would erase the razor-thin margins on which market makers operate, and severely constrain other forms of arbitrage. They would also reduce the use of vital risk-management tools, like many derivatives and futures contracts.

An FTT, the report argues, would thus serve to substantially slow the economy. Trade volume would fall; consumer good prices would rise; municipal bonds would generate less revenue for infrastructure; the cost of credit would increase, making mortgages more expensive—in turn exacerbating the homelessness crisis, depressing young home-ownership, and reducing family formation.

Obviously, each of these effects may not be massive—the U.S. economy grew substantially even during the 50-year period when we had an FTT. But, the new report argues, the experience of other nations indicates that the costs to the economy would substantially outweigh any benefit.

For example, they cite an economic analysis of a proposed 0.1 percent transaction tax in the EU—the authors found that “such a tax would lower GDP by 1.76 percent while raising revenue of only 0.08% percent of GDP.” Sweden’s 1 percent FTT caused a 5.3 percent drop in the Swedish market—meaning a 0.5 percent FTT, as Sanders proposes, would analogously cut nearly $800 billion from U.S. market capitalization. The evidence runs the other way, too: In the year following the repeal of the U.S. transaction tax, New York Stock Exchange trade volume increased by 33 percent.

All of this is why many countries—including Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Japan, Austria, and France—have eliminated such transaction taxes.

“Bad ideas have a habit of coming around again. The U.S., like many other nations, experimented with an FTT and wisely got rid of it. Yet each generation seems to be tempted by the false promise of a painless revenue stream,” the report said. “It would be wise to pay attention to the wisdom of experience and again avoid this false temptation. After all, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”


Satellite TV no long needs protection

By Peter RoffStar Beacon

To you and me, the meaning of the word “temporary” is generally clear. But not when the folks in Washington use the word.

Consider the “temporary” telephone tax Congress imposed to help fund the Spanish-American War. If you check your history books, you’ll see that the war lasted from April to August of 1893. The tax, on the other hand, survived into the second Bush Administration.

Another “temporary” law, one intended to speed the commercialization, expansion, and consumer adoption of new technology is set to expire at the end of 2019. The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization (STELAR) should be allowed to fade away, but political pressure being applied by the parties who benefit from it most may unhelpfully keep it alive.

No only have growth in the satellite television industry and advancements in technology made the continuation of STELAR unnecessary, it may never have been needed in the first. It was enacted just about 30 years ago to provide a significantly discounted compulsory copyright license to give satellite companies the right to import out-of-market network television signals into a local market. The alternative, forcing their retransmission to local broadcast stations over the air, was financial prohibitively and technologically challenging.

These rules were supposed to give satellite television a boost in their push to compete with the cable giants. It worked. Today, DirectTV is worth $235 billion, Dish is worth $17 billion, and both networks offer just about every programming option available.

Letting the STELAR Act expire wouldn’t be the end of the world. No one would have missed the final episode of “The Big Bang Theory” or the “Game of Thrones” finale.

What would go away are:

• The discounted compulsory copyright license for satellite retransmission of distant (or imported) broadcast signals to “unserved households.”

• A corresponding exemption from retransmission consent requirements for the carriage of these out-of-market network signals by satellite TV providers.

• The requirement broadcast TV stations and satellite and cable TV companies both negotiate carriage of local broadcast signals in good faith.

According to the broadcasters, the number of satellite television subscribers who’d be impacted if the law expires as intended is now down to just about half a million. And there’s every reason to believe consumers in those markets could find other ways to pick up network signals, either by taking them down over the air or as the beneficiaries of private arrangements between providers and broadcasters.

This corporate to corporate stuff shouldn’t have any impact on what almost every viewer in America can watch. In fact, without STELAR, it might give individual communities a lift since the incentive for satellite carries to offer network affiliates from outside the coverage area instead of local news goes away. The playing field, as it were, becomes level.

Mature, multibillion-dollar satellite companies don’t need crony capitalist legislation protecting their interests, especially when those interests include denying consumers local news, weather, sports, and emergency information. It’s time to let it go.


In Wake Of Federal Tax Reform, Blue States Scramble To Hide High Taxes

By Kyle Samminthe Federalist

Since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act became law in 2017, government officials in high-tax states have been frantically trying to find a way to overturn the provision that limits taxpayers’ deduction for state and local taxes to $10,000. That limit makes taxpayers in high-tax jurisdictions feel the impact of their local governments’ tax-and-spend policies more keenly, and those governments will do anything (short of actually cutting taxes) to prevent that from happening.

First they resorted to weird workarounds that will surely be ignored by the Internal Revenue Service and struck down by the courts as the ruses that they are. Then they sued in federal court to stop Congress from changing the tax law. The lawsuit is without merit—it’s so bad, even California declined to join it.

Now at least one state, Connecticut, is considering radically reordering its tax system in a way that will be objectively worse for its citizens, all to spite the federal government. Sooner or later, these tricks will be used up and the high-taxing states will have to face reality.

Like It Or Not, The Government Can Tax All Income

Any analysis of the federal income-taxing power must begin with the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which is brief but sweeping: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” While Article I always gave Congress the power to impose direct taxes, the Sixteenth Amendment removed the constitutional restrictions on that power that made its exercise practically impossible.

That power, with the pre-1916 restrictions removed, is as broad as it gets. If you have income, the federal government can tax it. From the beginning, courts have recognized the sweeping nature of the Sixteenth Amendment and, in 1955, clarified further just how broad the amendment is in the landmark case of Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. In that case, the upheld the Internal Revenue Code’s definition of income as being truly “all-inclusive.”

To admit this does not require an endorsement of high taxes, or indeed of any taxes at all. To say that the government can tax all income does not mean you think they shouldtax all income. It is only to admit a fact that, until recently, Democrats were especially fond of acknowledging: the government has the power to tax your income.

Admitting that also does not mean that the government must tax all income. We have never had a truly flat tax. The 1916 Revenue Act, for example, allowed a deduction for foreign taxes as well as state and local taxes (commonly abbreviated as SALT). It also contained deductions for depreciation, depletion, and interest that are similar to those still in the code.

But none of these deductions were a matter of right; they were legislative choices, undertaken to reduce the burden of taxation in ways that Congress thought made the income tax fairer. That’s a fine idea, but it does not create an inalienable right to that tax deduction.

State-Level Tax Evasion

Connecticut’s plan to beat the system is clever—too clever, really. Jared Walczak of the Tax Foundation explained the details in a recent article: “the state’s graduated-rate income tax would be largely replaced by a 5 percent payroll tax, plus an additional 2 percent tax on income above $200,000, which would raise more money than the current income tax. The state’s Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) would be increased to offset the higher tax liability for low-income earners, and because the payroll tax is a deductible expense for businesses, taxpayers subject to the $10,000 [SALT] deduction cap would get a federal tax cut even as the state generates more money.”

Walczak’s article points out the main problems with the complicated proposed tax structure. Getting the thing to work at all without creating bizarre incentives is a problem. For example, a payroll tax with multiple brackets will inevitably require massive end-of-year adjustments for anyone working multiple jobs. It also results in a different tax structure for wage workers and independent contractors, as well as people who live off investments.

Does the Nutmeg State really want to shift the tax burden away from one group of people based purely on the terms of their employment? If so, regular jobs are going to shift to other states and freelancers are going to move in, creating a hole in the state budget. The idle rich will come out ahead, too, as their non-wage income becomes non-taxed.

That’s a strange thing for a supposedly liberal state to do, but ordinary concerns fly out the window when the overriding goal of thwarting the president enters the equation. Democrats have made a cottage industry out of saying richer people need to pay more taxes. When that becomes slightly true because of a Republican initiative, however, all of the well-heeled blue staters want to use corporations to hide income from the federal government.

Eroding Federalism For a Century Comes Back To Bite 

The pending case of New York v. Mnuchin, to which Connecticut is also a party, makes even less sense. The attorneys general of these four high-tax states suggest that the federal taxing power was never intended to interfere with the states’ taxing power. There is no citation for this point, which tells you about all you need to know: the claim is invented out of thin air.

The idea that the reduced SALT deduction impairs the states’ taxing power is also nonsensical; the states retain the power to tax, they just can’t use a federal deduction to hide how high their taxes are. As Joseph Bishop-Henchman wrote for the Tax Foundation, “Tax deductions and carve-outs are a matter of legislative grace.”

Even the idea that federal taxation must exempt all state taxes is unsupported by history. Bishop-Henchman cites several instances when the deduction was limited, including in 1964, 1969, 1986, and 1993. And from the start, federal tax never completely excluded state and local taxes: it was a deduction, not a credit. While taxpayers did not pay taxes on the portion of their income that they paid to their state, they did not get a full credit for that amount, either. The deduction only saves the marginal rate on the income devoted to state taxes—the fraction of the fraction.

The complainants say that “at ratification, it was widely understood that the federalism principles enshrined in the Constitution would serve as a check on the federal government’s tax power.” That’s true, but not in the way they think it is.

Federalism did result in informal limits on federal power, but only because the states, represented in the Senate, kept the federal government from fully exercising its powers at their expense. If those limits have been eroded in the past century, it is because progressives went out of their way to erode them, first by requiring the direct election of senators and later by appointing judges who allowed them to ignore all limits on federal power, written and unwritten.

These same progressives now want you to believe that one of those unwritten, informal restrictions must override the law. The change of heart is cynical, if predictable. Rich people in high-tax states are paying more federal tax, not because the federal tax rate has gone up, but because Congress decided to stop helping the states hide the effect of their unsustainable tax-and-spend policies. Those who destroyed the norms of federalism now wish the courts to re-erect them—but only insofar as it helps their friends.

It’s Not Fair!

All of these lawsuits and legal hedges are rooted in the same complaint: the rich blue states want to keep imposing high taxes on their people and want the federal government to help them obscure the consequences.Their argument here is that imposing the same rule on all taxpayers is unfair.

“By decreasing state tax revenue and making state taxes more expensive,” they write in the complaint, “the new cap on the SALT deduction will ultimately force the Plaintiff States to choose between maintaining or cutting their public investments and level of services, and the taxes supporting them. As such, the new cap on the SALT deduction directly and unfairly interferes with the Plaintiff States’ sovereignty, by depriving them of their authority to determine their own taxation and fiscal policies without federal interference.”

Their argument here is that imposing the same rule on all taxpayers is unfair. That’s a definition of “unfair” that only a small child could love. What it really means is, “I didn’t get what I want.” What they want, as the complaint plainly acknowledges, is to avoid making hard choices to balance their budgets. Every other state has had to make hard choices, but these four states don’t want to. Unfair!

Even if it were true that the law is unfair, this would be a political argument, not a legal one. Politicians on the far left want the courts to impose rules that the people and their legislators have rejected. Even their own statements confuse to whom exactly the law is unfair.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo attacked the tax law as one “that benefits the 1% at the expense of middle-class families.” But the loss of the deduction hits only those families who pay more than $10,000 in state and local taxes—hardly the average Joes Cuomo awkwardly attempts to evoke.

That’s Not How Any of This Works

This lawsuit will fail, and Connecticut’s too-clever workaround probably will, too. What happened in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 was a result that politicians from these four states found distasteful. It will force them to make the kind of hard choices that they were elected to make. It will make their previous bad decisions more obvious to their voters and put pressure on them to fix them. It will, in short, force them to govern.Twenty-first-century politicians will do nearly anything to avoid governing.

Twenty-first-century politicians will do nearly anything to avoid governing. The arguments are flimsy at best, and the remedy is uncertain. Asking the courts to strike down the partial limitation of a tax deduction is novel enough, but what comes in its place? Do they want the courts to impose taxes directly, an act that is at the core of a legislature’s functions?

They know this lawsuit is a damp squib, a feeble attempt to show the folks back home (and especially their rich donors) that they’re “doing something” to stop taxes on the rich from going up. Connecticut’s radical reform is somewhat better thought-out, but will certainly inflict unintended consequences on that state’s already struggling economy, even if the IRS doesn’t decide to ignore the whole shell game they are playing.

Like a child throwing a tantrum, they will flail and kick for as long as they can before finally having to do what they were elected to do: set a level of taxing and spending that their people can afford.


If You’re Getting a Huge Tax Refund, You’re Doing It Wrong

By Christopher Jacobs • The Federalist

Unless you’re a procrastinator, tax filing season officially ended Monday. That milestone means a likely reprise of the political battles from earlier this year about tax refunds and the effects of the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Early in the filing season, Democrats argued that smaller refunds for filers demonstrated the legislation’s ineffectiveness. (As of March 29, the Internal Revenue Service has processed $6 billion less in refunds than during last year’s filing season.) Republicans counter that, under the new law, most individuals will have smaller tax liabilities overall, meaning that individuals receiving smaller refunds this spring benefited from fatter paychecks throughout 2018.

By and large, Republicans have the better argument. Even the liberal Tax Policy Center concedes that most households will benefit from the tax legislation. Under their estimates, more than four in five tax filing units (80.4 percent) received a net tax cut, with fewer than one in twenty (4.8 percent) paying a net tax increase. (About 15 percent of households won’t see a major change, one way or the other.) As a result, most families with smaller refunds received larger net pay during the year, due to smaller tax withholding in their paychecks every month.

But the political back-and-forth misses the bigger point: Continue reading


Kamala Harris leaps to unwarranted conclusions in tax tweet

By Glenn Kessler • Washington Post

“The average tax refund is down about $170 compared to last year. Let’s call the President’s tax cut what it is: a middle-class tax hike to line the pockets of already wealthy corporations and the 1%.”

— Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), in a tweet, Feb. 11, 2019

Harris, who is running for president in 2020, attacked President Trump’s tax law after the Internal Revenue Service reported that preliminary data shows that the average tax refund check is down 8 percent ($170) this year compared with last year.

Boy, talk about a non sequitur that turns out to be nonsensical and misleading. Let’s take a look.

The Facts

The average tax refund is down, at least according to very preliminary data for returns processed through Feb. 1. (That’s essentially one week of filing data.) But the size of a refund tells you nothing about a person’s tax bill. Continue reading


The Super Bowl of Corporate Welfare

By John Stossel • Reason

Today is the Super Bowl.

I look forward to playing poker and watching. It’s easy to do both because in a three-hour-plus NFL game there are just 11 minutes of actual football action.

So we’ll have plenty of time to watch Atlanta politicians take credit for the stadium that will host the game. Atlanta’s former mayor calls it “simply the best facility in the world.”

But politicians aren’t likely to talk about what I explain in my latest video—how taxpayers were forced to donate more than $700 million to the owner of Atlanta’s football team, billionaire Arthur Blank, to get him to build the stadium. Continue reading


House Democrats Change Rules to Make It Easier to Raise Taxes

by Haris Alic • Washington Free Beacon

Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) has yet to take the speaker’s gavel of the U.S. House of Representatives, but Democrats are already laboring to make it easier to dismantle the achievements of the Trump presidency.

The incoming chairman of the House Rules Committee, Rep. Jim McGovern (D., Mass.), confirmed to colleagues on Wednesday that he would not honor the three-fifths supermajority requirement to raise income taxes, as reported by the Washington Post.

McGovern’s decision overturns a rule implemented under outgoing Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) that mandated a three-fifths majority approve any proposed hike to the income tax.

The change comes after a standoff between Pelosi and her moderate allies in the Democratic conference, such as incoming Ways and Means Committee chairman Richard Neal (Mass.), and younger, more progressive members like Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.). Continue reading


Taxing Innovators To Pay For Universal Welfare Is A Terrible Idea

Investors Business Daily

Taxes: A new “study” in Britain suggests that by raising taxes sharply on Facebook, Amazon and Apple, the government could pay for a universal basic income (UBI) for all Britons. It’s an absurd idea, which is why it can’t be counted out.

The so-called FANG companies — the above-mentioned three, plus Google and Netflix — have been vilified now for years in Europe and in the U.S. as “monopolies” and, worse, “predators.” When such strident rhetoric is used by politicians, you know they’re going in for the kill. There’s money to be made in taking down big, successful companies.

In the case of Britain, the left-wing paper The Guardian reports, the Royal Society of Arts (that’s right, Arts) recommends that “Britain could raise new taxes on Amazon, Facebook and Apple to give every citizen under the age of 55 as much as £10,000 ($14,000) in a form of universal basic income … helping to counter the growing risk of job losses from automation and artificial intelligence.”

America’s FANG tech companies look like easy victims. Inevitably, since they have little in the way of a domestic British constituency, they will come into the cross hairs of Britain’s tax-happy, left-wing politicians. Continue reading


The Tax Cut Bill Is Just the Beginning

It's a good start, but it can't be the end of the GOP's economic efforts.

By Peter RoffUS News

The Republicans have kicked off the New Year with an earnest effort to sell the American public on the benefits of the tax bill just passed. It’s better than nothing, but if they hadn’t put the cart before the horse in the first place, they might not be in as much of a mess.

To be sure, achieving the first major overhaul of the U.S. tax code in 30 years without the single vote of a single Democrat is a considerable accomplishment. And, unlike the Affordable Care Act – with all the regulations and other nonsense Barack Obama piled on the economy in his first two years – the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 will be a boost to the economy rather than a drag. Still and all, telling the voters they should be for it because it puts more money in their pockets (or, more accurately, leaves it there in about nine out of 10 cases) doesn’t really constitute a Reaganesque vision for a more prosperous America in which each citizen has a vested share.

Hopefully things will turn towards the better, and soon, meaning the Republicans will retain control of Congress through 2020 and be able to pass additional tax cuts, continue to lessen the size of government, remove unnecessary and counter-productive controls on productive economic activity, and set the stage for another long boom like the Reagan tax cuts kicked off back in the early 80s. But time and the narrative are not yet on the GOP’s side.

Like it or not, even with relatively low rates of inflation for much of the last decade, the purchasing power of the dollar has declined. Families are felling pinched, which is part of the reason many of Continue reading


One in Five Small Businesses Spend at Least $10,000 on Tax Administration Annually

By Ali Meyer • Washington Free Beacon

One in five small businesses, or 22 percent, pay at least $10,000 on the administration of federal taxes each year, according to the National Small Business Association’s 2017 taxation survey. This does not include the money that a business owes the IRS in taxes.

Five percent of small businesses pay more than $40,000 a year on the administration of federal taxes, seven percent pay between $20,001 and $40,000, and ten percent pay between $10,001 to $20,000. The majority of businesses, 67 percent, pay more than $1,000.

Small businesses and their staff also spend significant amounts of time dealing with taxes, whether it be by filing reports, working with accountants, or calculating payroll. Twenty percent of businesses spend more than 120 hours annually. Continue reading


WP2FB Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com