South Carolina's flat tax proposal would initially raise rates for most
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — In the state battles to adopt the lowest and most attractive tax policies, South Carolina Republicans are making an interesting gambit: they want to raise income taxes for about 60% of filers in 2026.
Supporters say it's short term pain for the long term gain of establishing a flat income tax rate. To get there, some of the state's most heavily taxed people would get a significant cut as the state's top 6.2% rate drops next year to 3.99%.
The eventual goal is to slash that flat income tax rate to 2.49%, a level authors of the plan say would mean three out of four taxpayers would pay less than they do now. It's a rate lower than even taxpayers on the bottom rung currently pay. However, reaching that objective would take several years and each downward tick in the tax rate would depend on the state seeing significant economic growth.
Legislation proposing the changes advanced Tuesday to the House Ways and Means Committee. The goal is to get the bill through the House next week and on to the Senate. Republican Rep. Brandon Newton called it a 'conservative revolution' when it comes to income taxes.
'It's all about fairness,' he said. 'We should have a simple tax system that is flat, fair and that everyone takes part in. We should not have a progressive income tax system where a group of the population is paying the entire tax while another is not.'
Democrats were still processing the proposal Tuesday, but were alarmed that initially taxes would be raised on 60% of people in the state — many of them middle class — especially without a firm time set to bring them back down.
'I am real nervous about what we are going to find out later went into paying for this tax cut,' said Democratic Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter.
number of states, especially in the South, are looking to cut taxes, with each striving for the lowest rates.
Georgia and Kentucky are looking at smaller income tax reductions paid for with extra revenue from their booming economies.
Mississippi is eliminating its state income tax over more than a decade and increasing gas taxes. Louisiana's income tax cut is based on a sales tax increase.
However, North Carolina's Democratic governor is suggesting pausing his state's planned income tax cuts because of the economic uncertainty surrounding the impact of President Donald Trump's policies.
Republicans in South Carolina have been nervous about how the state's tax rate looks compared with its neighbors for years. The state computes taxes based on federal adjustable tax income, which makes the rate look higher when compared with most states that use adjusted gross income.
Newton said South Carolina's plan was the best of all worlds, emphasizing that when economic growth triggers cutting the income tax rate to 2.49%, nearly four out of five taxpayers would pay less.
'This is a simple cut for the hard working taxpayers of South Carolina, not swapping it for another tax,' Newton said.
Cobb-Hunter said the rush to cut taxes everywhere is dangerous.
'I'm troubled by this notion we've got to out tax relief North Carolina and Georgia and all these other Southern states. I don't think we should willy-nilly be talking about providing tax relief giving the uncertainty of the economy,' she said.
South Carolina's Republican governor and House and Senate leadership held a press conference on March 25 announcing the flat income tax proposal. But details were sparse until late Monday, when the state Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office released its analysis of the plan.
It found that the majority of taxpayers in seven different income bands ranging from $10,000 to $150,000 would pay more, with the average increase somewhere between about $300 and $800.
Most of the impact comes because the state currently has a top income tax rate of 6.2% and a bottom rate of 3%, although about 1 million taxpayers currently pay nothing. Backers of the Republican tax plan want those people to pay something.
Republican Gov. Henry McMaster told reporters Tuesday that he supports a 'broad, flat, simple-to-understand low tax. Everybody ought to pay something — a little something.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RIDE disability rights case settlement disrupts R.I. House final budget preparations
The Rhode Island Department of Education's Westminster Street entrance in Providence is shown. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current) The Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) may soon have to pay $1.86 million to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed the state had failed to provide special education services for students with disabilities between the ages of 21 and 22. That news presented a last minute complication for the Rhode Island House Committee on Finance's fiscal 2026 state budget preparations Tuesday. 'We literally worked to, like, 15 minutes ago to do this budget,' House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi told reporters at a press briefing on the $14.33 billion spending plan that began after 9 p.m. Tuesday night. He cited a figure of nearly $2 million needed because of an adverse ruling against RIDE, but details were unavailable at the time. The case of K.L. v. Rhode Island Board of Education is close to a settlement, Victor Morente, a RIDE spokesperson, confirmed via email on Wednesday morning. He said officials were still drafting a 'tentative' agreement that is still subject to approval from Rhode Island District Court as well as the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education, RIDE's governing body. The settlement comes nearly seven years after a federal appeals court ruled that RIDE shortchanged students with disabilities in the 2010s. The class action suit began in 2014 with a single plaintiff: A Warwick parent filing on behalf of their daughter, a Rhode Island student on the autism spectrum who also had ADHD and severe anxiety. But the student, named K.L. in the lawsuit, aged out of state-sponsored educational accommodations at age 21, before she could finish her high school diploma — something she should have been eligible to receive until age 22 under federal disability laws, her attorneys argued. K.L. had an individualized education program (IEP), which tailors learning for students with disabilities and helps to address their needs. These support programs are the roadmaps to ensure local schools education agencies supply students with a free and 'appropriate' public education per mandates derived from the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Students 'who were over 21 and under 22 as of February 10, 2012, or turned 21 before July 1, 2019,' Morente wrote, would be eligible for relief under the draft settlement if they did not receive their high school diploma and aged out of support services under previous Rhode Island law. When the case came before the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, it ruled in favor of RIDE by determining that 'public education' under the federal law would not include adult learning for students with disabilities over age 21. The class members then took their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, which vacated the lower court's judgment. We literally worked to, like, 15 minutes ago to do this budget. – House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi during a press briefing Tuesday Senior Judge Kermit Victor Lipez wrote in the first circuit's October 2018 majority opinion that the lower court had relied on too 'narrow' a definition of public education. 'At present, if a 21-year-old student in Rhode Island does not complete high school for a non-disability related reason — say, because she was previously incarcerated — the state will provide her the services needed to attain a secondary-school level of academic proficiency and a route to obtain a high-school level degree,' Lipez wrote. 'However, if the same 21-year-old does not complete high school due to a qualifying disability, the state currently does not offer her ability-appropriate services to attain the same level of educational achievement.' That imbalance violated disability law, the First Circuit decided, and the court boomeranged the case back to the District of Rhode Island for the two parties to determine remedies for class members. Sonja Deyoe, the attorney representing class members since the suit's inception, wrote in an email Wednesday that the First Circuit ruling was pivotal for disability rights in Rhode Island. 'The law previously had limited that education until the age of 21,' Deyoe wrote. 'This was a major change for disabled individuals in Rhode Island.' The First Circuit's ruling predates current RIDE leadership, and in August 2019, then-new education Commissioner Angélica Infante-Green issued a memo instructing how state education officials should comply with the ruling. 'It is now clear that if they have not already done so, school districts … must comply with the recent First Circuit decision and should make services available and give careful consideration to the cost of prospective compliance,' Infante-Green wrote, adding that it was still unclear 'how appropriate remedies will be provided to those eligible class members.' Deyoe echoed that sentiment, saying that determining damages under the lawsuit 'did span a very long time,' with both parties trying to avoid forcing a legal decision as to whether individual class members could receive relief for damages. 'Whether individualized compensatory education damages could be awarded to the individual class members was always disputed by the RI Department of Education,' Deyoe said. The settlement also needs to be approved by the members of the class, Deyoe said. The currently draft spares class members from having to undergo individual trials to determine compensational education benefits. 'We are very hopeful the settlement will be approved, but the class members always have the opportunity to object and the Court may approve the settlement only with certain changes,' Deyoe wrote. 'We cannot predict that yet…While all of this took a long time to achieve, we do believe this is a good resolution for the class members.' The funding source to resolve the settlement was not immediately available from RIDE or the House on Wednesday. But Shekarchi detailed in a statement over email that the sudden news had cost the House some time on Tuesday. 'After the budget is posted for consideration by the House Finance Committee 48 hours in advance, there are always a number of policy decisions, options and calculations that must be finalized,' wrote the Speaker. 'The notification of a $1.86 million additional expense on the morning of the budget adoption certainly complicated the final process.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ohio Senate passes budget giving Browns $600 million, tax cut to wealthy, more public school money
Ohio Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original article.) The Ohio Senate has passed a $60 billion state biennial operating budget, which includes a tax cut for the wealthy, some increased public education funding, and $600 million in funding to the Cleveland Browns for their new stadium. The total budget is expected to be around $200 billion once federal dollars come in. Ohio House Bill 96 was voted on mainly along party lines, 23-10. State Sen. Bill Blessing, R-Colerain Township, joined the Democrats to vote no. The senators increased the amount of money going to public schools from the Ohio House's proposal. The Senate budget gives public schools about $100 million more than the House. Although they follow most of the Ohio House's proposed budget, which only gives schools about $226 million of an increase for school funding, the Senate changed the funding 'guarantee' amount. Right now, some districts have guarantees that a portion of their funding will not be reduced, even if their enrollment goes down This $100 million added back would only go to high-performing or 'improving' districts. However, to be fully funded based on statistics from the Fair School Funding Plan (FSFP) from 2021, schools would need an additional $666-800 million, compared to the $226 million given by the House. Still, the Senate's version is closer to the FSFP than the House's. 'We're following the funding scheme that was put together in the first place,' Senate Finance Chair Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, said. 'Our bill is the closest way to get there.' They also raised the House proposal's cap on districts' rainy day funds to 50%, instead of 30%. This would mean that the schools would have to refund anything above that back to the taxpayer to provide property tax relief. 'The priority is not, obviously, in fully funding education, investing in our children and our future,' Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, said. The Senate's budget proposal still includes $600 million for a new Cleveland Browns stadium in Brook Park. However, the funding structure differs from what the Browns proposed and what the House approved earlier this year. The House proposed borrowing $600 million by issuing bonds and repaying the debt, with interest, over 25 years, at a cost of about $1 billion. The Senate is proposing a $600 million grant for the stadium using unclaimed funds. That's other people's money that the state is holding, from things like forgotten bank accounts, rent, or utility deposits or uncashed insurance policies. The Ohio Department of Commerce's website states the state is sitting on $4.8 billion in unclaimed funds. Asked about the possibility of Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine vetoing that provision, Cirino noted that DeWine said publicly he did not like the debt arrangement of the House for the $600 million. DeWine himself had proposed raising gambling taxes. 'I'm pretty confident and feel good that the governor and the House will look at our approach to it,' Cirino said. Ohio Democratic lawmakers remain staunchly opposed to the project. 'If they could find that money for the Browns and their stadium's move to Brook Park, why didn't they decide to use those funds for the schools?' Antonio asked. The budget also includes a 2.75% flat income tax. There are three income tax brackets in Ohio. Those making up to $26,000 do not need to pay state income tax. Ohioans earning between $26,000 and $100,000 pay a tax of 2.75%. Those making more than $100,000 have to pay 3.5%. State data reveals that this flat tax could result in a loss of about $1.1 billion in the General Revenue Fund. 'The dollars that we're foregoing in the flat tax are already incorporated into our overall spending,' Cirino said. Funding for schools, Medicaid, libraries, lead abatement, food banks, and child care face funding decreases from the current status or from the governor's budget. Asked about these cuts these cuts to social services for lower-income people while giving a tax cut to the state's highest earners, Cirino said Republicans think it's going to be good for the economy. 'It's going to be good for attracting people,' Cirino responded. Antonio disagreed. 'It's a gift to the wealthiest among us on the backs of the poorest and lowest-income and middle-class folks in the state of Ohio,' she said. Senate Republicans propose giving $20,000 to top high school students to encourage them to stay in the state for their higher education. The Governor's Merit Scholarship was passed in the House budget. Already existing, the House language would extend the proposal that gives the top 5% of each graduating high school class $5,000 a year to attend a public or private school in Ohio. But the Senate version reduces the scholarship to the top 2% of students. The money would also have strings attached. The scholarship recipients would be required to reside in Ohio for three years after graduation. There would be an 'expectation' that the money would be returned if they leave within the three years. Now, the Senate and House leaders will enter a conference committee, a closed-door negotiation period to create a final budget. Once a decision is made, both chambers must pass the combined bill. If it passes through both sides, it will be sent to Gov. Mike DeWine for review. In the past, he issued dozens of line-item vetoes on operating budgets. Line-item vetoing is the ability for the governor to pick and choose which policies within a larger piece of legislation get to stay or must go. The deadline for the budget to be passed is July 1. Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on X and Facebook. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Newsom speech taking on Trump encourages Democrats looking for a leader
California Gov. Gavin Newsom won praise on Wednesday for his speech Tuesday night seen by a national audience, something many Democrats saw as a shot across the bow to President Donald Trump that they can fight Trump -- and one that sparked new talk of Newsom as the party's standard-bearer in 2028. "The rule of law has increasingly given way to the rule of Don," he said, blasting Trump for sending the military to quell protests in Los Angeles. "The founding fathers did not live and die to see this moment. It's time for all of us to stand up," Newsom said in his eight-minute highly produced remarks, flanked by the California and U.S. flags. Newsom's message to Californians -- and Americans listening -- was politically sobering, arguing that "Democracy is under assault before our eyes. The moment we've feared has arrived." "What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty. Your silence. To be complicit in this moment. Do not give in to him," he urged what might have been millions of viewers watching on cable news channels. MORE: Protests live updates: At least 5 criminal cases related to LA protests, DA says His rhetoric directly calling out Trump comes as Democrats are hungry for a leader to unite them as they try to rebuild from 2024 and other party losses. "We want somebody to fight, and so he's been fighting, and it's been glorious to watch," RL Miller, an environmental activist and Democratic National Committee superdelegate, told ABC News. Miller thinks Democrats have spent too much time "navel-gazing" since the November election, wasting time and resources rather than looking forward. "Newsom is going to be vaulting back into that top tier of presidential candidates with this," she said. His speech was just the latest in Newsom's verbal combat with the Trump administration. Earlier in the week, he challenged Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, after he suggested that anyone who blocked the administration's immigration crackdown should be apprehended, even Newsom, a comment he later walked back but Trump endorsed. "Come after me, arrest me. Let's just get this over with, tough guy," Newsom told NBC News. "That's the energy we need in this moment," Democratic National Committee spokesperson Hannah Muldavian said of Newsom during the party's new daily YouTube show. Other national Democrats echoed that praise. In a joint news conference Wednesday morning, top party brass, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer threw their support behind Newsom's new war with Trump. "All I add is President Trump is trying to intimidate Gavin Newsom," Schumer, D-N.Y., said. "He has shown he's not going to be intimidated, and we're all for that, all for him and proud that he is refusing to be intimidated by Donald Trump." Newsom's PAC, Campaign for Democracy, sent out fundraising texts asking supporters to donate to help Newsom "continue to fight back against the attacks and threats from the Trump administration." Rob Stutzman, a Republican strategist who worked with former California GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said Newsom with asserting authentic leadership for Democrats who have been "leaderless all year" and likely quite eager to see such a high-profile official "fighting back" to Trump. "There's resistance that often seems contrived, but these circumstances have given him an essential, authentic resistance footing," said Stutzman. Still, it remains unclear if Newsom can win on immigration, one of Trump's central campaign issues and a top concern of many Americans. As a whole, Democrats have struggled to offer a singular message and response to Trump's actions. And the White House is continuously highlighting the unrest in California as a prime example of what is says is Newsom's poor record. Trump blasted the governor on his social media platform Monday, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday that Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have "failed their citizens." She said Newsom "owns" the images of violent protests. Newsom, who is term-limited and has not ruled out a 2028 presidential bid, isn't the only Democratic governor pitching themselves as tough on Trump. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz recently traveled to South Carolina to recap their record to voters, though both are adamant they are not running for the White House this time around. Even still, Newsom seems to rise above the pack. In fact, some operatives in Trump's orbit see Newsom transforming into the Democratic Party's long-sought leader. Former Trump political adviser Bannon told the New York Times that Newsom's address was "a kickoff to his 2028 campaign." Newsom speech taking on Trump encourages Democrats looking for a leader originally appeared on
