It will take political experience to reform the tax code
Q: What would you do about taxes? A: There isn’t one of these [proposed] plans that’s going to go through. The Democrats will fight it tooth & nail and then the Senate will filibuster it. We’re going to have to have somebody who knows how to get a tax
plan through. It’s going to take somebody who basically will repeal the outrageous Clinton tax increases, who will double the family exemption, who will try to bring down marginal tax rates, who will make Social Security deductible.
Source: GOP Debate in Johnston, Iowa
Jan 16, 2000
Leaving money in Washington means bigger budget spending
There isn’t one of us here who isn’t going to try and reduce taxes. I played a major role in reducing marginal tax rates from 70% down to 28% by 1996. I was one of those who carried that message to President Reagan. And he carried that message
against all of Washington. The problem is that - I agree with Governor Bush - you leave this money in Washington, I guarantee you those guys will spend it. I guarantee it will be both Republicans and Democrats.
Source: GOP Debate in Michigan
Jan 10, 2000
Day Two Agenda: Tax Reform
First item on the agenda: I will establish a Presidential commission that will include the best and brightest economic minds in our nation, signaling the beginning of the end of our current tax code, [to come up with a] tax reform plan which:
Entails a significant tax cut for the American people
Compliance with the new system must be simple and fair
The IRS as we know it will cease to exist.
I will fight for immediate tax relief for the American people, who are already
paying too much. My short-term tax package will include:
Repeal of the 1993 Clinton-Gore tax increase;
Doubling the personal income tax deduction;
Deductibility of Social Security payroll taxes;
Increasing to $5,000 the amount of interest
and dividend income exempt from taxation;
Eliminating the capital gains tax;
Eliminating the marriage penalty;
Eliminating all death and gift taxes;
Eliminating the alternative minimum tax.
Source: Hatch Campaign Update (Press Release)
Dec 20, 1999
High taxes protect government bureaucracy
Americans are paying too much in taxes. We pay a higher percentage of our GDP in taxes than at any time since WWII. Back then; we were of course saving the world. Today, high taxes pay for a slightly less
noble goal -- saving the bureaucracy.
Source: Hatch Campaign Update (Press Release)
Dec 20, 1999
Tax sales instead of income & savings
[I am willing] to consider a national sales tax, with exemptions for necessities of life such as food and medicine, rather than a flat tax. I believe that if any tax is a disincentive to the activity taxed,
[hence] it is better for our nation to reward saving, rather than penalize the effort to earn more.
Source: Hatch Campaign Update (Press Release)
Dec 20, 1999
Supports flat tax, but prefers “starting over”
Q: Do you favor a flat tax? A: I’m for it [although] I worry about a flat tax because I’m on the Senate Finance Committee. And I can tell you - we spend a lot of time just figuring out where all these little things go. And it’s just a natural propensity
in Congress to see us add more and more to that tax code until we satisfy just about every citizen in America. And it’s killing our country. So I would like to get rid of this system. I’d like to start over. And I thing it’s going to take guts to do it.
Source: Republican Debate at Dartmouth College
Oct 29, 1999
Get rid of the entire IRS code and the IRS itself
I favor throwing out the current system and getting rid of this awful IRS code. If I had my way, we’d get rid of the IRS and come up with the most fair, simple, decent, honorable system we can have. I’d get the best actuarially sound
accountants, attorneys and tax experts to sit down and show us how to do it. I’d support any change that would simplify this code, that would give people a chance to be able to save more of their money, that basically would be simulative to our economy.
Source: Republican Debate at Dartmouth College
Oct 29, 1999
Surplus means taxpayers paid too much -- so give it back
What is a surplus? It means taxpayers have paid too much, and it is time to give some back. A tax cut is not spending. A tax cut may be scored by CBO and subjected to technical rules of budgeting here in Washington. But, when you get right down to it, a
tax cut is money people can deposit to their own checking accounts. Spending is when government signs the checks. We would expect the electric or gas company to rebate an overpayment, and we should expect no less from the federal government.
Source: Statement by Hatch before the Senate
Jul 29, 1999
Estate tax hurts Great Aunt Edna, not the wealthy
We should repeal the estate tax altogether. It is inefficient, costing 65 cents for every dollar that we collect, and unfair, because it is a second tax on the same earnings. The wealthy hire lawyers and advisers to create trusts and do complex estate
planning to minimize the amount of tax they will pay. It is the families of small business owners, family farmers, and Great Aunt Edna who are hit the hardest by this tax. We must find a way to remove this crushing burden from their backs.
Source: Statement by Hatch before the Senate
Jul 29, 1999
Cutting capital gains helps most Americans, not just rich
Cutting the capital gains tax has often been labeled as a tax cut for the rich. This is not true. Million of Americans are becoming investors. They purchase stock and mutual funds directly or they invest directly through stock options, employee stock
ownership plans, or 401(k)s. Roughly half of American households now have some sort of stock ownership, and the number grows every year.
Source: Statement by Hatch before the Senate
Jul 29, 1999
$792B is about Congress being a kid in a candy store
We must remember who sent us the revenue that created the surplus. Government does not possess one nickel that we did not first take from an American citizen.The Taxpayer Relief Act simplifies the tax code and provides pro-growth incentives to help keep
the economy strong and growing. This $792 billion represents a rebate of only one-quarter of the projected $2.9 trillion surplus. This is a debate about whether Congress can control itself, or whether we will be like the kid in the candy store.
Source: Statement by Hatch before the Senate
Jul 29, 1999
Supports permanent research tax credit
Research & Development increases labor productivity, leading to better paying jobs for American workers. The research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit is very effective in stimulating more R&D. For the R&E Tax Credit to reach its full effectiveness,
it must be made permanent. The R&E tax credit has been extended nine times since 1981, and it is due to expire again at the end of June. The past uncertainty surrounding the credit has induced business leaders to allocate significantly less to R&D.
Source: (cross-ref. Technology) Press Conference
Mar 22, 1999
Voted YES on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Amendment would accommodate the full repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, preventing 23 million families and individuals from being subject to the AMT in 2007, and millions of families and individuals in subsequent years.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
This amendment repeals the AMT. Except for the telephone tax, the alternative minimum tax is the phoniest tax we have ever passed. The AMT, in 1969, was meant to hit 155 taxpayers who used legal means to avoid taxation, under the theory that everybody ought to pay some income tax.
This very year, more than 2,000 people who are very wealthy are not paying any income tax or alternative minimum income tax. So it is not even working and hitting the people it is supposed to hit. Right now, this year, 2007, the year we are in, there are 23 million families that are going to be hit by this tax. It is a phony revenue machine, over 5 years, $467 billion dollars.
We are going to have to have a point of order this year to keep these 23 million taxpayers from paying this tax. We might as well do away with it right now, once and for all, and be honest about it.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
The reality of the budget resolution is this may not have anything to do with eliminating the alternative minimum tax. The one thing it will do is reduce the revenue of the Government over the next 5 years by $533 billion, plunging us right back into deficit. Look, we can deal with the AMT. We have dealt with it in the underlying budget resolution for the next 2 years. There will be no increase in the number of people affected by the AMT for the next 2 years under the budget resolution, and that is paid for. Unfortunately, this amendment is not paid for. It would plunge us back into deficit. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Voted YES on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million.
An amendment to raise the death tax exemption to $5 million; reducing the maximum death tax rate to 35%; and to promote economic growth by extending the lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
It is disappointing to many family businesses and farm owners to set the death tax rate at what I believe is a confiscatory 45% and set the exemption at only $3.5 million, which most of us believe is too low. This leaves more than 22,000 families subject to the estate tax each year.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
You can extend all the tax breaks that have been described in this amendment if you pay for them.
The problem with the amendment is that over $70 billion is not paid for. It goes on the deficit, which will drive the budget right out of balance. We will be going right back into the deficit ditch. Let us resist this amendment. People could support it if it was paid for, but it is not. However well intended the amendment is, it spends $72.5 billion with no offset. This amendment blows the budget. This amendment takes us from a balance in 2012 right back into deficit. My colleagues can extend those tax cuts if they pay for them, if they offset them. This amendment does not pay for them; it does not offset them; it takes us back into deficit. It ought to be defeated.
Voted YES on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts.
Increases the estate tax exclusion to $5,000,000, effective 2015, and repeals the sunset provision for the estate and generation-skipping taxes. Lowers the estate tax rate to equal the current long-term capital gains tax rate (i.e., 15% through 2010) for taxable estates up to $25 million. Repeals after 2009 the estate tax deduction paid to states.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
The permanent solution to the death tax challenge that we have today is a compromise. It is a compromise that prevents the death rate from escalating to 55% and the exclusion dropping to $1 million in 2011. It also includes a minimum wage increase, 40% over the next 3 years. Voting YES is a vote for that permanent death tax relief. Voting YES is for that extension of tax relief. Voting YES is for that 40% minimum wage increase. This gives us the opportunity to address an issue that will affect the typical American family, farmers, & small business owners.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Family businesses and family farms should not be broken up to pay taxes. With the booming economy of the 1990s, many more Americans joined the ranks of those who could face estate taxes. Raising the exemption level and lowering the rate in past legislation made sense. Under current law, in my State of Delaware, fewer than 50 families will face any estate tax in 2009. I oppose this legislation's complete repeal of the estate tax because it will cost us $750 billion. Given the world we live in today, with clear domestic needs unmet, full repeal is a luxury that we cannot afford.
To add insult to this injury, the first pay raise for minimum wage workers in 10 years is now hostage to this estate tax cut. We are told that to get those folks on minimum wage a raise, we have to go into debt, so that the sons and daughters of the 7,000 most fortunate families among us will be spared the estate tax. We must say no to this transparent gimmick.
Reference: Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act;
Bill H.R. 5970
; vote number 2006-229
on Aug 3, 2006
Voted YES on permanently repealing the `death tax`.
A cloture motion ends debate and forces a vote on the issue. In this case, voting YES implies support for permanently repealing the death tax. Voting against cloture would allow further amendments. A cloture motion requires a 3/5th majority to pass. This cloture motion failed, and there was therefore no vote on repealing the death tax.
Proponents of the motion say:
We already pay enough taxes over our lifetimes We are taxed from that first cup of coffee in the morning to the time we flip off the lights at bedtime. If you are an enterprising entrepreneur who has worked hard to grow a family business or to keep and maintain that family farm, your spouse and children can expect to hear the knock of the tax man right after the Grim Reaper.
In the past, when Congress enacted a death tax, it was at an extraordinary time of war, and the purpose was to raise temporary funds. But after the war was over the death tax was repealed. But that changed in the last century.
The death tax was imposed and has never been lifted.
The death tax tells people it is better to consume today than to invest for the future. That doesn't make sense.
Opponents of the motion say:
Small businesses and farms rarely--if ever--are forced to sell off assets or close up shop to pay the tax. Under the current exemption, roughly 99% of estates owe nothing in estate taxes. By 2011, with a $3.5 million exemption, only two of every 100,000 people who die that year would be subject to the estate tax.
Today's vote is on a motion to proceed to a bill to repeal the estate tax. Not to proceed to a compromise or any other deal--but to full repeal. I oppose full repeal of the estate tax. Our Nation can no longer afford this tax break for the very well off. Permanently repealing the estate tax would add about $1 trillion to our national debt from 2011 to 2021.
Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut.
To strengthen America's military, to repeal the extension of tax rates for capital gains and dividends, to reduce the deficit, and for other purposes. Specifically, a YES vote would appropriate $47 billion to the military and would pay for it by repealing the extension of tax cuts for capital gains and dividends to 2010 back to 2008. The funds wuold be used as follows:
$25.4 billion for procurement
$17 billion for Army operation and maintenance
$4.5 billion for Marine Corps operation and maintenance
Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends.
Vote to reduce federal spending by $56.1 billion over five years by retaining a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends, as well as.
Decreasing the number of people that will be required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
Allowing for deductions of state and local general sales taxes through 2007 instead of 2006
Lengthening tax credits for research expenses
Increasing the age limit for eligibility for food stamp recipients from 25 to 35 years
Continuing reduced tax rates of 15% and 5% on capital gains and dividends through 2010
Extending through 2007 the expense allowances for environmental remediation costs (the cost of cleanup of sites where petroleum products have been released or disposed)
Status: Bill passed Bill passed, 66-31
Reference: Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act;
Bill HR 4297
; vote number 2006-010
on Feb 2, 2006
Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends.
This large piece of legislation (418 pages) includes numerous provisions, generally related to extending the tax cuts initiated by President Bush. This vote was on final passage of the bill. The specific provisions include:
Extension Of Expiring Provisions: for business expenses, retirement savings contributions, higher education expenses, new markets tax credit, and deducting state and local sales taxes.
Provisions Relating To Charitable Donations, and Reforming Charitable Organizations
Improved Accountability of Donor Advised Funds
Improvements in Efficiency and Safeguards in IRS Collection
Opponents of the bill recommend voting NAY because:
Health care for children (among many other things) should come before tax cuts for the wealthy.
The 2-year cost of the extensions on capital gains tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is $20 billion. So if we defer the tax break the administration is pushing for the wealthiest people in
America, we would have enough money to provide basic health insurance for every uninsured child in America, and we would eliminate 20% of the uninsured Americans with that single act alone.
Proponents of the bill recommend voting YEA because:
The largest provision in the bill--about $30 billion of tax relief--amounts to half of the net tax package and is designed to keep 14 million people out of the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is terrible and should be repealed.
College tuition benefits for families who send their kids to college -- by definition, this benefit goes to middle-income families.
The small savers' credit -- for low-income folks that save through an IRA or pension plan.
Many small businesses use the small business expensing benefit to buy equipment on an efficient after-tax basis. It is good for small business. It is good for economic growth.
Reference: Tax Relief Act of 2005;
Bill S. 2020
; vote number 2005-347
on Nov 18, 2005
Voted YES on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years.
H.R. 2 Conference Report; Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would make available $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. It would provide $20 billion in state aid that consists of $10 billion for Medicaid and $10 billion to be used at states' judgment. The agreement contains a new top tax rate of 15 percent on capital gains and dividends through 2007 (5 percent for lower-income taxpayers in 2007 and no tax in 2008). Income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and planned to take effect in 2006 would be accelerated. The child tax credit would be raised to $1,000 through 2004. The standard deduction for married couples would be double that for a single filer through 2004. Tax breaks for businesses would include expanding the deduction that small businesses could take on investments to $100,000 through 2005.
Reference:
Bill HR.2
; vote number 2003-196
on May 23, 2003
Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates.
Vote to expand the standard deduction and 15% income tax bracket for couples. The elimination of the "marriage penalty" tax would be offset by reducing the marginal tax rate reductions for the top two rate bracket
Reference:
Bill HR 1836
; vote number 2001-112
on May 17, 2001
Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition.
Vote to increase the tax deduction for college tuition costs from $5,000 to $12,000 and increase the tax credit on student loan interest from $500 to $1,000. The expense would be offset by limiting the cut in the top estate tax rate to 53%.
Reference:
Bill HR 1836
; vote number 2001-114
on May 17, 2001
Voted YES on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'.
Vote on a bill that would reduce taxes on married couples by increasing their standard deduction to twice that of single taxpayers and raise the income limits on both the 15 percent and 28 percent tax brackets for married couples to twice that of singles
Reference:
Bill HR.4810
; vote number 2000-215
on Jul 18, 2000
Voted YES on across-the-board spending cut.
The Nickles (R-OK) Amdendment would express the sense of the Senate that Congress should adopt an across-the-board cut in all discretionary funding, to prevent the plundering of the Social Security Trust Fund
Status: Amdt. Agreed to Y)54; N)46
Reference: Nickles Amdt #1889;
Bill S. 1650
; vote number 1999-313
on Oct 6, 1999
Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes.
Senator Kyl (R-AZ) offered an amendment to the 1999 budget resolution to express the sense of the Senate on support for a Constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to pass tax increases.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)50; N)48; NV)2
Reference: Kyl Amdt #2221;
Bill S Con Res 86
; vote number 1998-71
on Apr 2, 1998
Rated 72% by NTU, indicating "Satisfactory" on tax votes.
Hatch scores 72% by NTU on tax-lowering policies
Every year National Taxpayers Union (NTU) rates U.S. Representatives and Senators on their actual votes—every vote that significantly affects taxes, spending, debt, and regulatory burdens on consumers and taxpayers. NTU assigned weights to the votes, reflecting the importance of each vote’s effect. NTU has no partisan axe to grind. All Members of Congress are treated the same regardless of political affiliation. Our only constituency is the overburdened American taxpayer. Grades are given impartially, based on the Taxpayer Score. The Taxpayer Score measures the strength of support for reducing spending and regulation and opposing higher taxes. In general, a higher score is better because it means a Member of Congress voted to lessen or limit the burden on taxpayers.
The Taxpayer Score can range between zero and 100. We do not expect anyone to score a 100, nor has any legislator ever scored a perfect 100 in the multi-year history of the comprehensive NTU scoring system. A high score does not mean that the Member of Congress was opposed to all spending or all programs. High-scoring Members have indicated that they would vote for many programs if the amount of spending were lower. A Member who wants to increase spending on some programs can achieve a high score if he or she votes for offsetting cuts in other programs. A zero score would indicate that the Member of Congress approved every spending proposal and opposed every pro-taxpayer reform.
Citizens for Tax Justice, founded in 1979, is not-for-profit public interest research and advocacy organization focusing on federal, state and local tax policies and their impact upon our nation. CTJ's mission is to give ordinary people a greater voice in the development of tax laws.
Against the armies of special interest lobbyists for corporations and the wealthy, CTJ fights for:
Fair taxes for middle and low-income families
Requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share
Closing corporate tax loopholes
Adequately funding important government services
Reducing the federal debt
Taxation that minimizes distortion of economic markets
