logo
Governor seeks historic cuts, while bill aimed at middle-class receives bipartisan support

Governor seeks historic cuts, while bill aimed at middle-class receives bipartisan support

Yahoo31-03-2025

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte espouses his income tax cut plan on the steps of the Montana Capitol on March 28, 2025. Courtesy photo.
Gov. Greg Gianforte made another public pronouncement last week that his administration would deliver the largest tax cut in Montana history — to the tune of $850 million, according to his office.
But opponents to the governor's plans to cut income taxes say the the approach would disproportionately benefit the state's wealthiest earners, while low- and middle-income Montanans would see just double-digit cuts.
'We're here today because we believe in a simple truth– you know how to spend your money better than the government does,' Gianforte said during a rally on the steps of the Montana Capitol on March 28. 'Every day you wake up, you go to work. You provide for yourself and for your family. You budget carefully and you save where you can. But too often, when you get a paycheck, you look at it and you wonder, 'Where did it go?' We know the answer — taxes.'
Earlier that day, the governor's preferred plan to cut taxes received its first hearing before the Legislature.
Carried by Sen. Josh Kassmier, R-Fort Benton, Senate Bill 323 would lower the top income tax rate — paid by Montanans earning more than $21,000 as single filers — from 5.9% to 5.4% in 2026 and down to 4.9% in 2027. The bill also cuts the long-term capital gains tax from 4.1% to 3.9% and expands the Earned Income Tax Credit from 10% to 15%.
Montana currently has two income tax brackets — one at 4.7% and one at 5.9% — which split at roughly $21,000 for an individual filer or $41,000 for married filers. The state used to have a six-bracket marginal tax system until 2021.
Calling it the 'third installment' of the governor's long-term plan to get to a single, flat tax rate for the state, Mark Blasdel, director of the Governor's Office of Economic Development and former Senate President, pointed out Montana has the highest tax rate of mountain region states. However, many of the states surrounding Montana also have a statewide sales tax.
'Montana is also currently the 17th highest tax rate in the nation. So we believe this is an incredible opportunity to bring this down another 1%,' Blasdel told the Senate Taxation Committee. 'We think this is a great way to continue that downward trend of the collection of taxes. It makes it so that we continue to be able to put pressure so that the budget does not continue to grow at a higher grade than inflation, and it continues to keep more money in the pockets of hard working Montanans.'
But opponents decried the across-the-board cutting of the top tax bracket, saying it doesn't offer meaningful relief to middle-income earners.
An analysis by the Montana Budget and Policy Center indicates that the wealthiest 1% of Montanans would see roughly $10,000 in tax breaks under the policy, while individuals making $50,000 or less would receive less than $100.
'The problem with structuring an income tax reform in this way … is that for every dollar you have, you get that cut. So if you have a lot of dollars, a huge bucket of dollars, you get that cut on every single dollar in that bucket,' Rose Bender, Director of Research for the Budget and Policy Center, told the committee. 'And if you just have a couple dollars you get that cut on just those couple dollars. So it's really impossible to reform income tax in this way while not disproportionately benefiting the wealthy.'
But Kassmier pushed back and said that giving Montanans their money back, no matter how much, was a goal that everyone should want to get behind.
'These income tax dollars are the people's dollars. We have an opportunity here in the session to give our the people's money back, and if it's only going to give somebody $50 back or $100 back, I'm telling you that that means a lot to the people that are out there working,' Kassmier said.
At previous press conferences, Gianforte has said his plan is the only comprehensive plan that addresses all income levels, with the expansion of the earned income tax credit helping out the lowest earners.
In addition, the reduction in capital gains tax rate was lauded by supporters of the bill as helping farmers and ranchers.
'A lot of people think of (capital gains) as just stocks and bonds and those types of things that would come into play here, but for farmers and ranchers, capital gains comes into play on sale of property and also on certain livestock and equipment sales,' said Nicole Rolf, with the Montana Farm Bureau Federation.
SB 323 was also supported by Montana Taxpayers Association, the Montana Stockgrowers Association, and the Montana Chamber of Commerce. The Montana Federation of Public Employees, Montana Nonprofit Association and a former Democratic legislator, Margie McDonald, spoke against the bill.
The governor on Friday said that while there are several proposals aimed at reforming incomes taxes, his plan is the 'only fool-proof conservative plan.'
'Cut. The. Rate,' Gianforte said.
[subhead]Majority support for middle class cuts [/subhead]
A competing proposal, sold as a 'middle-class millenium' bill, passed the Senate with support from all but three Senators on Monday.
Sen. Mike Yakawich, R-Billings, carried Senate Bill 203 with support from both majority and minority leadership as cosponsors.
Rather than cut the top tax bracket rate, SB 203 would expand the lower bracket to comprise individuals making up to $100,000 — covering up to the 90th percentile of earners, according to Yakawich. For married couples filing jointly the bracket delineation would be at $200,000.
The bill 'provides income tax relief for thousands of middle-class Montanans by expanding the number of people eligible for the state's lower (4.7%) tax rate,' Yakawich said. 'This bill is tailored to the middle-class Montana taxpayers.'
Yakawich used his five millennial-aged children as examples — they have good jobs and families, but still struggle to make ends meet with rising costs of living in Montana.
'It's that middle 60 to 90 percentile. We really want to love them up. We want to thank them,' he said. 'That money that they save … might help them come back into the community, come back into our state.'
SB 203 also changes the long-term capital gains tax, against expanding the eligibility for the lowest tax rate to an individual's first $100,000, from the current $20,500.
The measure passed the Senate 47-3 and will next be heard by the Senate Finance and Claims Committee.
'Residents across the state repeatedly told us that tax relief is a top priority for them,' Senate President Matt Regier said in a statement following the vote. 'SB 203 is a historic step to limit government and help all Montana income tax payers prosper.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Colombian presidential candidate in a critical condition following assassination attempt
Colombian presidential candidate in a critical condition following assassination attempt

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Colombian presidential candidate in a critical condition following assassination attempt

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — Miguel Uribe, a conservative Colombian presidential hopeful, was in critical condition on Monday after being shot in the head from close range during a rally at the weekend. In a statement, doctors said the 39-year-old senator had 'barely' responded to medical interventions, that included brain surgery, following the assassination attempt that has had a chilling effect on the South American nation. Uribe was shot on Saturday as he addressed a small crowd of people who had gathered in a park in Bogota's Modelia neighborhood. On Sunday hundreds of people gathered outside the hospital where Uribe is being treated to pray for his recovery. Some carried rosaries in their hands, while others chanted slogans against President Gustavo Petro. 'This is terrible' said Walter Jimenez a lawyer who showed up outside the hospital, with a sign calling for Petro's removal. 'It feels like we are going back to the 1990's,' he said, referring to a decade during which drug cartels and rebel groups murdered judges, presidential candidates and journalists with impunity. Petro has condemned the attack and urged his opponents to not use it for political ends. But some Colombians have also asked the president to tone down his rhetoric against opposition leaders. The assassination attempt has stunned the nation, with many politicians describing it as the latest sign of how security has deteriorated in Colombia, where the government is struggling to control violence in rural and urban areas, despite a 2016 peace deal with the nation's largest rebel group. The attack on Uribe comes amid growing animosity between Petro and the Senate over blocked reforms to the nation's labor laws. Petro has organized protests in favor of the reforms, where he has delivered fiery speeches referring to opposition leaders as 'oligarchs' and 'enemies of the people." 'There is no way to argue that the president… who describes his opponents as enemies of the people, paramilitaries and assassins has no responsibility in this' Andres Mejia, a prominent political analyst, wrote on X. The Attorney General's office said a 15-year-old boy was arrested at the scene of the attack against Uribe. Videos captured on social media show a suspect shooting at Uribe from close range. The suspect was injured in the leg and was recovering at another clinic, authorities said. Defense Minister Pedro Sánchez added that over 100 officers are investigating the attack. On Monday, Colombia's Attorney General Luz Adriana Camargo said that minors in Colombia face sentences of up to eight years in detention for committing murders. Camargo acknowledged that lenient sentences have encouraged armed groups to recruit minors to commit crimes. However, she said that Colombian law also considers that minors who are recruited by armed groups are victims, and is trying to protect them. 'As a society we need to reflect on why a minor is getting caught up in a network of assassins, and what we can do to stop this from happening in the future' she said.

This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market
This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market

Dario Amodei, CEO of the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, published a guest essay in The New York Times Thursday arguing against a proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation. Amodei argues that a patchwork of regulations would be better than no regulation whatsoever. Skepticism is warranted whenever the head of an incumbent firm calls for more regulation, and this case is no different. If Amodei gets his way, Anthropic would face less competition—to the detriment of AI innovation, AI security, and the consumer. Amodei's op-ed came in a response to a provision of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which would prevent any states, cities, and counties from enforcing any regulation that specifically targets AI models, AI systems, or automated decision systems for 10 years. Senate Republicans have amended the clause from a simple requirement to a condition for receiving federal broadband funds, in order to comply with the Byrd Rule, which in Politico's words "blocks anything but budgetary issues from inclusion in reconciliation." Amodei begins by describing how, in a recent stress test conducted at his company, a chatbot threatened an experimenter to forward evidence of his adultery to his wife unless he withdrew plans to shut the AI down. The CEO also raises more tangible concerns, such as reports that a version of Google's Gemini model is "approaching a point where it could help people carry out cyberattacks." Matthew Mittelsteadt, a technology fellow at the Cato Institute, tells Reason that the stress test was "very contrived" and that "there are no AI systems where you must prompt it to turn it off." You can just turn it off. He also acknowledges that, while there is "a real cybersecurity danger [of] AI being used to spot and exploit cyber-vulnerabilities, it can also be used to spot and patch" them. Outside of cyberspace and in, well, actual space, Amodei sounds the alarm that AI could acquire the ability "to produce biological and other weapons." But there's nothing new about that: Knowledge and reasoning, organic or artificial—ultimately wielded by people in either case—can be used to cause problems as well as to solve them. An AI that can model three-dimensional protein structures to create cures for previously untreatable diseases can also create virulent, lethal pathogens. Amodei recognizes the double-edged nature of AI and says voluntary model evaluation and publication are insufficient to ensure that benefits outweigh costs. Instead of a 10-year moratorium, Amodei calls on the White House and Congress to work together on a transparency standard for AI companies. In lieu of federal testing standards, Amodei says state laws should pick up the slack without being "overly prescriptive or burdensome." But that caveat is exactly the kind of wishful thinking Amodei indicts proponents of the moratorium for: Not only would 50 state transparency laws be burdensome, says Mittelsteadt, but they could "actually make models less legible." Neil Chilson of the Abundance Institute also inveighed against Amodei's call for state-level regulation, which is much more onerous than Amodei suggests. "The leading state proposals…include audit requirements, algorithmic assessments, consumer disclosures, and some even have criminal penalties," Chilson tweeted, so "the real debate isn't 'transparency vs. nothing,' but 'transparency-only federal floor vs. intrusive state regimes with audits, liability, and even criminal sanctions.'" Mittelsteadt thinks national transparency regulation is "absolutely the way to go." But how the U.S. chooses to regulate AI might not have much bearing on Skynet-doomsday scenarios, because, while America leads the way in AI, it's not the only player in the game. "If bad actors abroad create Amodei's theoretical 'kill everyone bot,' no [American] law will matter," says Mittelsteadt. But such a law can "stand in the way of good actors using these tools for defense." Amodei is not the only CEO of a leading AI company to call for regulation. In 2023, Sam Altman, co-founder and then-CEO of Open AI, called on lawmakers to consider "intergovernmental oversight mechanisms and standard-setting" of AI. In both cases and in any others that come along, the public should beware of calls for AI regulation that will foreclose market entry, protect incumbent firms' profits from being bid away by competitors, and reduce the incentives to maintain market share the benign way: through innovation and product differentiation. The post This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market appeared first on

Democrats have a dirty secret - they actually like some of the tax cuts in Trump's ‘big beautiful bill'
Democrats have a dirty secret - they actually like some of the tax cuts in Trump's ‘big beautiful bill'

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Democrats have a dirty secret - they actually like some of the tax cuts in Trump's ‘big beautiful bill'

Some of the sweeping tax cuts proposed in President Donald Trump's massive spending package have found support among Democrats — even as they are expected to oppose the legislation over proposed cuts to Medicaid and other government services when it comes up for debate in the Senate later this month, according to a new report. The gargantuan budget package, which House Republicans and the White House have dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed the House by a single vote last month and is now drawing heat from fiscal hawks in both chambers as well as Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who was fresh off his months-long stint as a special government employee when he began threatening to back challengers to any legislator who votes for the bill. Still, there are facets of the proposal that have appeal for some Democrats, the New York Times reports. Virginia Rep. Don Beyer, a Democrat who is also a wealthy car dealership owner, told the Times his party is 'in general very much in favor of reducing taxes on working people and the working poor' when asked about Trump's plan to end taxes on service workers' tips. 'Those people are living on tips,' he added. Trump's tip tax cut plan has also attracted attention from Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada, a state where service workers make up a large and powerful voting bloc that has traditionally supported Democrats but shifted to Trump in large numbers during the 2024 presidential election, handing him the Silver State's electoral votes. Rosen, a Democrat, took to the Senate floor last month to advance a bill approving Trump's 'no tax on tips' plan. It passed unanimously even though the measure was largely symbolic because the U.S. constitution requires tax laws to originate in the House 'I am not afraid to embrace a good idea, wherever it comes from,'. she said at the time in remarks on the Senate floor. Yet despite the support for some of the individual tax provisions in the plan, it's highly unlikely that it will be able to muster enough if any Democrats to ease the way to Trump's desk, even under a Senate procedure known as budget reconciliation, which fast-tracks some types of spending legislation without subjecting it to the upper chamber's de facto 60-vote threshold for passage. Democrats are expected to unanimously vote against the legislation in the upper chamber, where it has also attracted opposition from some Republicans who've complained that the cuts to spending in the package don't go far enough to offset the reduced revenue caused by provisions meant to enact Trump campaign promises to end taxes on tips for service workers, as well as taxes on overtime pay for hourly workers and on social security benefits for seniors. Nonpartisan experts such as those at the Congressional Budget Office have warned that the reduced tax receipts would blow a massive hole in the federal budget and jeopardize America's long-term fiscal outlook, but that hasn't stopped some prominent Democrats from getting behind the individuals tax cuts. Trump and his allies hope the prominent tax cut proposals will blunt Democrats' efforts to paint the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as a giveaway to wealthy GOP donors that will gut government services while only providing limited relief for working-class voters. To that end, the president and others in his camp have routinely taken to social media to argue that anyone who votes against the bill is effectively voting for tax increases because the legislation makes permanent a number of temporary tax cuts enacted in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which Trump signed into law during his first term. Democrats, meanwhile, remain opposed to the bill's massive cuts to Medicare and other measures that make it harder for people to claim tax credits meant to boost lower-income Americans' bottom lines. Rep. Brad Schneider, an Illnois Democrat, told the Times that the whole bill had to be considered rather than any individual provision or provisiosn. 'Any one thing — a tax credit or a tax cut — might make sense, but you've got to take a look at the whole picture,' he said.

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