NC Budget and Tax Center

Big public support for closing corporate tax havens

Word on the street in our nation’s capital is that prospects for a short-term budget deal may be brightening for a package that funds the federal government and replaces some or all of the sequestration spending cuts for 2014. As budget negotiators continue to work on some kind of bipartisan deal, a recent opinion survey conducted by Hart Research Associates may have a lot to say about what this still nascent deal looks like—specifically, the overwhelming popularity of raising new revenues by closing corporate tax loopholes.

Here are some of the poll’s most important findings:

  • Americans overwhelmingly support a budget that raises new tax revenues over a plan that relies solely on spending cuts to address our nation’s fiscal challenges.  Specifically, 58 percent support a budget that increases tax revenue from the wealthy and corporations, while only 36 percent support a budget that does not increase taxes on any American—a 22-point advantage for raising new tax revenues.
  • And by significant margins, Americans see closing tax loopholes for profitable corporations as the best way to raise those revenues, especially in contrast to a plan that doesn’t raise any revenues at all.  Specifically, 67 percent of Americans favor a budget that closes corporate tax loopholes and limits tax breaks for the wealthy, and only 28 percent support a budget that does not increase taxes on any American
  • Healthy majorities support replacing at least half of the sequestration spending cuts with new revenues from closing corporate loopholes.  Specifically, 53 percent support reducing the spending cuts by half and replacing them with new tax revenue from the wealthy and corporations, and only 27 percent want the cuts to go fully into effect—a 26 percent advantage for new revenues.

And support for new revenues spikes even higher when it comes to closing the most egregious tax loopholes, like those that promote shipping American jobs overseas or that those allow hedge fund managers to pay lower taxes than middle class families:

Read more

NC Budget and Tax Center

U.S. House votes to increase hunger in North Carolina

As we warned earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives has been considering significant and draconian changes to the nation’s leading anti-hunger program–effectively wiping out critical food assistance for our state’s seniors, veterans and even children—comes just as new poverty data shows even more North Carolinians are struggling.

In a slim 217 to 210 vote, a bitterly divided House voted in favor of a controversial, extreme and stunningly harsh measure that cuts a staggering $40 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—formerly known as food stamps.  The cuts are twice the amount originally proposed by the House earlier this year and ten times more than those adopted by a strong bipartisan majority in the U.S. Senate. If the legislation becomes law, it will take away food assistance for as many as four million poor Americans.  Independent budget analysts have confirmed the proposal is so extreme it would take away food assistance for children, seniors and veterans.

In North Carolina, 1.7 million families rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to put food on their tables.  At a cost of only $1.35 per meal in North Carolina, it is also one of the nation’s most efficient and effective services for the poor. New data by the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities show the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program lifted a record four million Americans out of poverty in 2012, and it reduced hardship for millions more.

At a time when special tax loopholes allow corporations and the wealthiest Americans to avoid paying upwards of $1 trillion in taxes every year, Congress shouldn’t be turning to North Carolina’s poorest people to find savings—especially children and others who are unable to work for their own food. This proposal is blatantly immoral, and must be stopped by the Senate. No one should be in the business of causing hunger, yet that’s the choice the House just made with this vote.