logo
Michigan income tax would drop under House-passed bill

Michigan income tax would drop under House-passed bill

Yahoo18-03-2025

The Michigan House passed legislation Tuesday to slash Michigan's income tax rate, a move celebrated by Republican lawmakers as a way to provide economic relief to Michigan families and condemned by some Democrats as a boon for the rich even as some of their colleagues supported the tax cut.
House Bill 4170 would cut Michigan's income tax rate from 4.25% to 4.05% effective Jan. 1, 2025. Most Michigan income tax revenue goes to the state's general fund — the main source for funding state government — but income tax dollars also go to the state's fund for schools and roads.
Bill sponsor state Rep. Kathy Schmaltz, R-Jackson, said today that too many Michigan families face impossible financial choices. "Families need relief now more than ever," she said in a speech on the House floor Tuesday ahead of the vote. "Every little bit helps." State Rep. Bryan Posthumus, R-Rockford, called the bill a step in the right direction but said Tuesday in a speech that Michigan should look to states without any income tax. "Our state doesn't need more revenue, it needs less government," he said.
Some Democratic lawmakers blasted the proposed income tax cut. "This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The wolf being the wealthy receiving yet another tax cut," said state Rep. Morgan Foreman, D-Pittsfield Township.
State Rep. Jasper Martus, D-Flushing, said with Michigan's flat income tax, the wealthy stand to benefit the most.
"If we really want to provide robust relief for most of the folks that we represent, we should start by asking the wealthy to pay more so that all of us can pay a little bit less," he said.
Every Republican lawmaker supported the tax cut legislation. Most Democrats opposed it, but seven voted for it: state Reps. Kelly Breen of Novi, John Fitzgerald of Wyoming, Matt Koleszar of Plymouth, Denise Mentzer of Mt. Clemens, Reggie Miller of Van Buren Township, Angela Witwer of Delta Township and Mai Xiong of Warren.
The move to permanently reduce Michigan's income tax rate follows a legal battle over a provision in the state's tax law that triggered a recent temporary cut. A decade ago, Republican lawmakers added a formula to Michigan's tax law cutting the state's income tax rate when general fund revenues exceed inflation. That happened in the 2023 tax year when the income tax rate temporarily went down to 4.05% before returning to 4.25% for the 2024 tax year.
GOP lawmakers insist that the law should have made the tax cut permanent. But a Court of Claims judge dismissed a lawsuit from Republican state lawmakers and business advocacy groups making that argument. A three-judge Michigan Court of Appeals panel unanimously upheld the lower court's decision. The coalition of GOP lawmakers and business groups appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court which dismissed the case.
House Bill 4170 would amend the law to explicitly state that any future income tax cut triggered when general revenues exceed the cap would be permanent.
Reducing Michigan's income tax rate from 4.25% to 4.05% for the 2025 tax year would cut income tax revenues by an estimated $539.3 million for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, 2024 and will end Sept. 30, 2025, according to the House Fiscal Agency. It would cut income tax revenues by an estimated $713 million for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2026 and $727.6 million for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2027.
Michigan has a flat income tax as required by the state's constitution, meaning workers in the state pay the same income tax rate regardless of their income. Most states have a graduated income tax with a higher tax rate for those with higher incomes, according to research by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy published in January. According to the tax policy organization's index measuring the impact of each state's tax structure on income equality, Michigan has the 35th most regressive state and local tax system in the U.S., the group's January 2024 "Who Pays?" report found. "Income disparities between high-income taxpayers and other families are larger in Michigan after state and local taxes are collected than before," the report states.
Michigan Politics: Whitmer, Senate Democrats focus on policies targeting littlest Michiganders
Michigan Department of Treasury spokesperson Ron Leix declined to comment on the impact of a tax cut on different income groups. The department opposes the proposed tax cut, according to a summary of the bill from the House Fiscal Agency. Foreman cited an Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy analysis on the proposed tax cut she said found 64% of it would go to the wealthiest 20% while those making under $27,000 would see an average tax cut of $11.
While Republican state lawmakers have championed an income tax cut as a way to provide financial relief to Michigan families, Democratic state lawmakers want to focus on expanding support for new parents and have proposed a new child tax credit and cash assistance program for pregnant mothers and babies.
"For far too many, raising a child has become a financial headache and a constant source of worry as they struggle to keep up with rising costs and this has a profound impact on the health and well-being of parents, our kids and our economy," said state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak, during a press conference last Wednesday.
The legislation to cut Michigan's income tax rate passed in the House Tuesday next heads to the Democratic-led Michigan Senate for consideration.
Contact Clara Hendrickson at chendrickson@freepress.com or 313-296-5743.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Michigan House Republicans OK tax cut with some Dem support

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Senate Republicans revise ban on state AI regulations in bid to preserve controversial provision
Senate Republicans revise ban on state AI regulations in bid to preserve controversial provision

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Senate Republicans revise ban on state AI regulations in bid to preserve controversial provision

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans have made changes to their party's sweeping tax bill in hopes of preserving a new policy that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. In legislative text unveiled Thursday night, Senate Republicans proposed denying states federal funding for broadband projects if they regulate AI. That's a change from a provision in the House-passed version of the tax overhaul that simply banned any current or future AI regulations by the states for 10 years. 'These provisions fulfill the mandate given to President Trump and Congressional Republicans by the voters: to unleash America's full economic potential and keep her safe from enemies,' Sen. Ted Cruz, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement announcing the changes. The proposed ban has angered state lawmakers in Democratic and Republican-led states and alarmed some digital safety advocates concerned about how AI will develop as the technology rapidly advances. But leading AI executives, including OpenAI's Sam Altman, have made the case to senators that a 'patchwork' of state AI regulations would cripple innovation. Some House Republicans are also uneasy with the provision. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., came out against the AI regulatory moratorium in the House bill after voting for it. She said she had not read that section of the bill. 'We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power. Not the other way around,' Greene wrote on social media. Senate Republicans made their change in an attempt to follow the special process being used to pass the tax bill with a simple majority vote. To comply with those rules, any provision needs to deal primarily with the federal budget and not government policy. Republican leaders argue, essentially, that by setting conditions for states to receive certain federal appropriations — in this instance, funding for broadband internet infrastructure — they would meet the Senate's standard for using a majority vote. Cruz told reporters Thursday that he will make his case next week to Senate parliamentarian on why the revised ban satisfies the rules. The parliamentarian is the chamber's advisor on its proper rules and procedures. While the parliamentarian's ruling are not binding, senators of both parties have adhered to their findings in the past. Senators generally argue that Congress should take the lead on regulating AI but so far the two parties have been unable to broker a deal that is acceptable to Republicans' and Democrats' divergent concerns. The GOP legislation also includes significant changes to how the federal government auctions commercial spectrum ranges. Those new provisions expand the range of spectrum available for commercial use, an issue that has divided lawmakers over how to balance questions of national security alongside providing telecommunications firms access to more frequencies for commercial wireless use. Senators are aiming to pass the tax package, which extends the 2017 rate cuts and other breaks from President Donald Trump's first term along with new tax breaks and steep cuts to social programs, later this month. Matt Brown, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Where Things Stand With the Epstein Files Following Musk's Allegation Against Trump
Where Things Stand With the Epstein Files Following Musk's Allegation Against Trump

Time​ Magazine

time21 minutes ago

  • Time​ Magazine

Where Things Stand With the Epstein Files Following Musk's Allegation Against Trump

The breakdown in relations between President Donald Trump and his one-time ally Elon Musk has played out over social media in spectacular fashion, with the two engaging in a tit-for-tat spat. The row initially started over politics. Musk expressed his vehement disapproval of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination' and encouraging people to 'kill the bill.' Meanwhile, Trump maintained that the fall-out was prompted by Musk being upset over the removal of electric vehicle subsidies —a provision that made Tesla vehicles more affordable. But the fight has since taken a far more personal turn, bolstered by Musk's allegation that Trump is listed in the files related to the late financier and alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk said in a post shared via his social media platform, X. He did not provide evidence pertaining to this. The accusation has spurred Democrats to chase the full unsealing of the Epstein files. California Rep. Robert Garcia and Massachusetts Rep. Stephen F. Lynch—Democratic members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform—sent a letter on June 5 to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Kash Patel. 'We write with profound alarm at allegations that files relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have not been declassified and released to the American public because they personally implicate President Trump,' read the letter titled 'Is Trump Suppressing The Epstein Files?' The White House responded, saying that the move by the Oversight Committee members was 'another baseless stunt that bears no weight in fact or reality.' Here's what to know about the Epstein files and the renewed push to declassify them following Musk's allegation. What do we know about the Epstein files so far? On Feb. 27, Bondi released more than 100 pages of declassified documents related to Epstein—as part of the Trump Administration's vow to be more transparent regarding the high-profile case. During the presidential election, Trump promised to appease the clamoring for the alleged 'client list' of Epstein's since his arrest and subsequent death by suicide in 2019. Though Bondi called this the 'first phase' of declassified files, people were underwhelmed by the published pages, as much of the text had been redacted. Bondi's release included Epstein's 'black book,' which had previously been published. It featured names like Trump and former President Bill Clinton, but as the New York Times reported, there were people in the book with whom Epstein had never even met, and thus listed names are not necessarily connected to Epstein's activities. One of the only never-before-seen documents included in the release was an 'Evidence List' of catalogued evidence obtained by investigators. Bondi blamed the FBI for the fact that the report was incomplete, suggesting in a published letter to Patel that the FBI had more information related to Epstein. Bondi ordered Patel to deliver the rest of the investigation documents and 'conduct an immediate investigation' to understand why she had only received parts of the files. There is much discussion as to whether a fully-fledged 'Epstein client list' even exists. Jacob Shamsian, Business Insider's legal correspondent who has covered the Epstein case for years, said via social media on Feb. 27: 'I should also point out that the 'Jeffrey Epstein client list' does not exist and makes no sense on multiple levels (you think he made a list???). But if Pam Bondi wants to prove me wrong, I welcome it.' Will the Musk allegations prompt the release of further Epstein files? Musks' allegations have brought the Epstein files back into the spotlight, but there were already calls for them to be published in full. In April, Trump was asked by a reporter about when the next phase of the files are due to be released, to which he responded: 'I don't know. I'll speak to the Attorney General about that. I really don't know.' Since then, Democrats have continued to push for more documents to be released. Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman of New York released a statement in May, 'demanding that [Bondi] promptly release the Jeffrey Epstein Files in full.' Spurred by Musk's allegation, Democrats including Garcia, Goldman, and Lynch are now renewing these calls for more transparency. But it remains to be seen whether or not the pressure will be enough for Bondi, Patel, or Trump to provide more answers. What do we know about Trump's relationship with Epstein? Trump's connection to Epstein dates back decades. In a 2002 interview with New York magazine, he famously said that Epstein was 'a lot of fun to be with.' 'It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side,' Trump told the reporter. In July 2019, NBC News' TODAY released unearthed video footage believed to be from 1992, which showed Trump greeting Epstein at his Mar-a-Lago estate. The two men could be seen laughing as they engaged in conversation. After Epstein's 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges, Trump made strides to distance himself. Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office in 2019, Trump said: 'I had a falling out with him [Epstein]. I haven't spoken to him in 15 years. I was not a fan of his, that I can tell you.'

Nearly 100 House Democrats urge RFK Jr. to restore millions in family planning grants
Nearly 100 House Democrats urge RFK Jr. to restore millions in family planning grants

The Hill

time27 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Nearly 100 House Democrats urge RFK Jr. to restore millions in family planning grants

A group of nearly 100 House Democrats is calling on Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to restore tens of millions of dollars in federal family planning grants to more than a dozen organizations that have been frozen for more than two months. In a letter to Kennedy sent on Friday and seen first by The Hill, 95 lawmakers said the organizations which had their Title X funding frozen on March 31 — including nine Planned Parenthood clinics — are still in the dark about the status of their grants. At the time, the clinics said they received letters from the administration saying the grants were being 'temporarily withheld' due to possible civil right violations and President Trump's executive orders prohibiting the promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and 'taxpayer subsidization of open borders.' More than two months later, the lawmakers said the grantees 'remain without funding and have received no communication from the administration regarding the status of the investigations, the expected timeline, or the future of their funding.' HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 'Congress has already appropriated these funds, and the administration has a responsibility to distribute them without undue delay or obstruction, ensuring that critical care is not disrupted for millions of people who rely on Title X services,' the group of lawmakers wrote. The letter was led by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas) and Sharice Davids (D-Kan.), and signed by 91 other Democrats. Title X is the country's only federal program dedicated to providing affordable birth control and other sexual and reproductive health care to low-income Americans and has done so since the 1970s. The lawmakers timed the letter to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a constitutional right to privacy regarding contraception and reproductive decisions. 'However, due to the actions of this administration, reproductive freedom is under threat,' the lawmakers wrote. The first Trump administration prohibited providers from receiving Title X funding if they mentioned abortion or referred patients for abortions. It also required clinics to construct separate facilities for the procedure and other services. More than a dozen grantees, including all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide, left the program in protest because of the rule. The Biden administration reversed Trump's Title X rule in 2021.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store