U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) says that by paying for employees' abortions and financing so-called "gender-affirming care" for their children, "corporate elites have gone full crazy." In response, he's filed legislation that he says will prevent taxpayers from subsidizing "corporate activism."
Rubio introduced the "No Tax Breaks for Radical Corporate Activism Act" on Tuesday, a bill that would prohibit employers from deducting expenses related to paying travel costs for employees who want an abortion, medical costs for employees seeking cross-sex hormones, or puberty-blockers for their children. The bill comes in response to several major companies that have announced new employee abortion benefits in recent weeks, including Amazon, Yelp, Citigroup, and others.
Federal tax law permits businesses to deduct certain expenses that are considered "ordinary and necessary" for operating, including employee health care plans, some medical expenses, and other related benefits. Rubio's bill would "deny the trade or business expense deduction for the reimbursement of employee costs of child gender transition procedure or travel to obtain an abortion."
“Our tax code should be pro-family and promote a culture of life. Instead, too often our corporations find loopholes to subsidize the murder of unborn babies or horrific 'medical' treatments on kids," Rubio said in a statement. "My bill would make sure this does not happen."
In anticipation that the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision — a landmark legal precedent that established a constitutional right to an abortion — pro-life lawmakers in several states have advanced laws banning or restricting abortions. If Roe is overturned, as a leaked Supreme Court majority opinion suggests it will be, 26 states have so-called trigger laws or unenforced laws on the books that would ban or severely restrict abortion access.
Several major corporations have responded by committing to pay for pregnant employees in those states to travel out of state if they want to kill their unwanted child. Amazon, the second largest private employer in the U.S., on Monday became the latest company to do so, offering to pay up to $4,000 annually in travel expenses for any pregnant employee who travels more than 100 miles for an abortion.
In an op-ed for Newsweek, Rubio criticized these companies for supporting "abortion tourism," as well as Disney for offering to pay for gender transition "care" for children of its employees.
"While the radical Left drives this insanity, the law enables it,' Rubio wrote. "The current U.S. tax code allows employers to deduct employee compensation and benefits. Because a lot can fall under that umbrella, the code also specifies certain expenses that don't qualify for tax breaks. But there is no provision that prohibits Citigroup and others from deducting abortion and gender transition costs. As a result, these corporations may be able to help their employees kill their unborn children or transition their son into a daughter tax-free!
"This has to change. Businesses should not receive tax breaks for radical leftist activism, especially when that activism jeopardizes our children. Our tax code should encourage family formation and promote a culture of life. Instead, it too often encourages subsidies for the murder of unborn babies and the performance of horrific 'medical' treatments on kids," he said.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an attempt by Democratic-led states to get a massive tax cut for the rich.
The court has declined to review a challenge brought by New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland to the $10,000 federal cap on state and local property and income tax deductions, also known as the SALT cap.
In the 2017 tax reform law signed by former President Donald Trump, Congress imposed a limit on how much in state and local tax payments individuals could deduct from their federal income tax payments. The measure was included as a revenue cost offset to income and corporate tax cuts included in the law, needed to meet a House budget reconciliation requirement that no more than $1.5 trillion would be added to the federal deficit over a 10-year budget period.
Ironically, while congressional Democrats attacked the whole tax reform law as a massive tax break for the wealthy, Democratic-run states were particularly opposed to the SALT cap because it increased the federal tax burden of their wealthiest residents. New York and the other states sued, arguing that Congress had violated the Constitution by interfering with the states' ability to levy taxes.
"Congress’s taxing authority (as set forth in Article I, Section 8 and the Sixteenth Amendment) is cabined by the structural requirements of federalism, which prevent the federal government from directly interfering with the States’ ability to generate revenue to sustain their operations," the states argued in a March court filing. "The long history of federal income taxation demonstrates that Congress and the States equally understood that a deduction for all or nearly all state and local property and income taxes was constitutionally required to preserve state sovereign taxing authority."
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected this argument and declined to hear the lawsuit without issuing an explanation.
Congressional Democrats tried and failed to repeal the SALT deduction cap in 2019, and the party has been divided on this issue during negotiations over a budget reconciliation package for President Joe Biden's $1.75 trillion Build Back Better economic agenda.
House Democrats in 2021 passed a bill that would raise the SALT deduction cap to $80,000 through 2031, when it would return to $10,000. But Republicans are opposed to changing the tax law, and the bill has not advanced in the United States Senate. Some progressive Democrats are also opposed to eliminating the SALT cap, acknowledging that more than 90% of the benefit would go to the top 20% of earners, according to the Tax Policy Center.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted in September that "a full 100% SALT repeal means major tax breaks for extremely high-net worth individuals and billionaires. Why do that?"
I am open to taking a look at SALT and addressing concerns for families put under the squeeze in high cost of living areas.\n\nBut a full 100% SALT repeal means major tax breaks for extremely high-net worth individuals and billionaires. Why do that?— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) 1631896426
It is unlikely that Congress will come to an agreement to repeal or limit the SALT cap before the midterm elections in November, when Republicans are widely expected to reclaim a legislative majority and put the issue to rest.
The current SALT deduction cap will expire in 2025.
freebeacon.com
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com