Latest news with #HouseBill30
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ohio lawmakers look to eliminate highest income tax rate, switch to flat tax
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Ohio lawmakers are looking to eliminate the state's highest income tax rate and instead switch to a flat tax of 2.75%. Supporters of the bill said the change would help Ohio compete with neighboring states. Opponents said the bill would mostly benefit the state's wealthiest residents and could lead to higher costs for low- and middle-income residents. Ohio has three tax rates: 0%, 2.75%, and 3.5% for tax year 2024. House Bill 30 would phase out the 3.5% rate and tax all income levels at a flat 2.75% beginning in tax year 2026. For tax year 2025, the highest income tax rate would be reduced from 3.5% to 3.125%. Ohio 'Given Name Act' proposes strict rules for names, pronouns in schools Beginning in tax year 2026, the highest tax rate would be eliminated and all income over $27,350 would be taxed at a rate of $378.69 plus 2.75% of excess over $27,350. Taxable Income Tax Rate $0 – $26,050 0% of nonbusiness income $26,051 – $100,000 $360.69 + 2.75% of excess over $26,050 $100,001+ $2,394.32 + 3.50% of excess over $100,000 Taxable Income Tax Rate $0 – $26,700 0% of nonbusiness income $26,701 – $102,400 $369.69 + 2.75% of excess over $26,700 $102,401+ $2,451.44 + 3.125% of excess over $102,400 Taxable Income Tax Rate $0 – $27,350 0% $27,351+ $378.69 + 2.75% of excess over $27,350 The House Ways and Means Committee had its first hearing on the bill on Wednesday. In sponsor testimony, Reps. Adam Matthews (R-Lebanon) and Brian Lampton (R-Beavercreek) wrote that getting rid of the highest tax rate and switching to a flat tax of 2.75% would help Ohio compete with neighboring states for growth and investment. Burger, hot dog chain to open first Ohio locations in Columbus area The bill's sponsors said that neighboring states like Pennsylvania and Indiana have flat taxes that are lower than Ohio's highest rate. 'House Bill 30 and its implementation of a 2.75% flat tax rate will put Ohio in a position to lead the Midwest with a lower tax than our neighbors, thereby making us an economic model for the region,' the sponsors wrote. Matthews and Lampton said Ohio's population has declined every census since 1971 when the state had nine tax brackets with a top rate of 9.5%. 'This legislation is another important step that continues to build on the work we have already done to reduce the burden of taxation on the people,' Lampton said in an statement to NBC4. 'By leaving more money in the hands of those who have earned it, we empower Ohioans to pursue their own ends and create more opportunities for economic growth in our great state.' 'Ohio is ready to reclaim our role as the economic engine of the Midwest. In just two years, we could have the lowest income tax in the region, thereby becoming a beacon of economic freedom and encouraging new investment in our state,' Matthews said. Bodycam shows shooting of teenage murder suspect in northeast Columbus Policy Matters Ohio, which opposes the bill, said the proposal would not provide any benefits to households with incomes less than six figures while gutting the state's budget. Bailey Williams, a tax policy researcher with Policy Matters Ohio, said that if the bill passed, it would mean libraries and school teachers would pay the same tax rate as corporate CEOs and professional athletes. 'A flat tax is a handout to the most well-off among us — and it will devastate Ohio's ability to provide services that benefit everyone,' Williams said in a statement. Citing the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the organization said the bill would cost more than $1 billion — equal to about 11% of the state's income tax revenue for fiscal year 2024's General Revenue Fund. 'Ohio is already struggling to constitutionally fund our public schools, stabilize our failing childcare market, and provide meaningful property tax relief,' Williams said. 'Instead of addressing those issues, lawmakers would rather continue to shift Ohio's taxes onto low- and middle-income families.' Williams said that local governments would have to either cut back on services or ask citizens to pay more, usually through property tax levies, as more public service costs would be passed on to local communities. Columbus residents cautioned about 'brake checking' and staged accident risks 'The historic rise in property values since the pandemic has shown the problem with overreliance on property taxes,' he said. 'HB 30 will make things worse for those who can afford it least.' Policy Matters Ohio called on lawmakers to reject HB 30 and instead close 'wasteful loopholes,' tax corporations and target tax credits where they're most effective. Matthews expressed optimism about getting the bill passed. 'Previous General Assemblies have included tax cuts in our recent state budgets, and I would expect we can get one done now as well,' he said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ohio Republicans introduce measure to flatten income tax to 2.75%
(Getty Images) Ohio Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill to implement a flat income tax of 2.75%, claiming the measure would help Ohio compete with surrounding states and keep residents in the state. Policy advocates and Democratic legislators pushed back on that idea, saying the move wouldn't help relieve property tax struggles and would mean the loss of necessary government services due to lost revenue. State Reps. Adam Mathews, R-Lebanon, and Brian Lampton, R-Beavercreek, presented their plan to the Ohio House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday to phase in the 2.75% flat tax over the next two years, by way of House Bill 30. 'This bill builds upon the work of previous General Assemblies to simplify and reduce the tax burden on Ohioans and ensure our state remains a destination for businesses to grow and attract people wishing to work, raise a family and truly thrive here,' Lampton told the committee. Under the bill, 2025 non-business income tax would be reduced for the top income bracket – those making more than $102,400 – from 3.5% to 3.125%, with the bottom income bracket staying at 2.75%. In 2026, the top tax bracket is dropped further to 2.75%, matching that of the lower brackets. According to the Legislative Service Commission breakdown of the bill, the tax for business income would remain at 3%. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX In comparison with Pennsylvania's 3.7% income tax and Indiana's 3% rate, lowering Ohio's rate as laid out in H.B. 30 would 'put Ohio in a position to lead the Midwest with a lower tax than our neighbors, thereby making us an economic model for the region,' Mathews said. Democrats on the committee questioned the move, especially as discussions of staggering property tax rates in the state are a top priority for constituents who reach out to their legislators. 'The one thing we are constantly hearing about is 'do something about property taxes,'' said state Rep. Daniel Troy, D-Willowick. 'This change of dropping the tax rate some more, it basically takes away the revenue that's needed for property tax relief.' Tax collections from the state General Revenue Fund feed the Public Library Fund as well, which has seen a $27 million drop in the last budget, and library systems are struggling to get by as they await the next budget decisions related to their state funds and potential federal cuts. State Rep. Elgin Rogers, D-Toledo, pointed to that loss as another way the flat tax could cause damage, along with cuts to other important government services. 'Everyone wants their taxes cut,' Rogers said. 'With that, there are cuts in government services and also, we want a strong Ohio that's educated, and it's my belief that this will have a a negative impact on the Public Library Fund.' Republicans on the committee seemed supportive of the bill, with state Rep. Steve Demetriou, R-Bainbridge Twp., laying out a different outlook on the tax changes. 'When we're talking about taxes, this money doesn't belong to anyone else except the taxpayer,' Demetriou said. 'It doesn't belong to the state, it doesn't belong to the libraries, it doesn't belong to the schools. It's their money, so we're just helping get more of that back into their pockets.' The think tank Policy Matters Ohio released information about House Bill 30 just before the measure had its first committee hearing. An analysis of the bill from the group found the bill would 'tax the income of everyday Ohioans at the same rate as the state's wealthiest households.' 'With H.B. 30, librarians and school teachers will pay the same tax rate as professional athletes and corporate CEOs,' according to Bailey Williams of Policy Matters Ohio. 'A flat tax is a handout to the most well-off among us – and it will devastate Ohio's ability to provide services that benefit everyone.' Citing the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the think tank said H.B. 30's tax changes would cost the state an estimated $1.1 billion, with more than 98% of that going to Ohioans with income in the top 20%. The Public Library Fund and the Local Government Fund were both mentioned by Policy Matters as pots of money that would be reduced, thereby shifting the burden onto taxpayers through local property tax levies. Public libraries have been vocal about the need for more state support to keep up with inflationary costs and the rising demand for the many services Ohio libraries provide to their communities, from literature and materials to social services and tax help. Lampton told the committee the tax changes wouldn't necessarily mean a reduction in the overall General Revenue Fund, and 'to say it will cut library spending may or may not be a direct result of that.' H.B. 30 will be subject to further hearings in the House Ways and Means Committee, including opportunities for testimony for and against the measure. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
17-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Some Judicial reform bills stalling, cast aside
Senator Daniel Emrich, R-Great Falls, votes 'No' during a session of the Montana Senate on February 12, 2025. (Nathaniel Bailey for the Daily Montanan) The GOP-controlled Montana Legislature laid out reining in the judicial branch as a priority at the start of the 69th legislative session currently underway, but that ambition has not smoothly born out as almost a third of its planned actions have failed. The push for judicial reform centers on a suite of 27 bills that came from the interim Judicial Oversight and Reform committee, formed by former Senate President Jason Ellsworth, R-Hamilton, following several court decisions that went against Republicans' favored outcomes. Six weeks into the 90-day session, almost all of those judicial bills have been debated on a chamber floor, with a majority receiving at least one passing vote. However, several bills deemed most important by members of the interim committee have been foiled by a voting bloc comprising all Democrats, who chose not to participate in the committee because they did not want to legitimize its efforts, and a group of moderate Republicans. One bill that died on the Senate floor late last month was Senate Bill 44, carried by Sen. Daniel Emrich, R-Great Falls, which would have codified the separation of powers doctrine in the Montana Constitution into statute, and defined the powers of the Board of Regents of Higher Education and the Board of Public Education. Emrich previously said the bill is 'one of the most important bills you may see this session.' The bill passed second reading in the Senate in a 32-18 party line vote, but the next day failed on third reading 23-26 with eight Republicans switching their votes. More recently, Senate Bill 43, sponsored by Emrich, and House Bill 30 also failed to garner enough support to pass the Senate during the chamber's first Saturday floor session on Feb. 15. SB 43 would have limited the injunctive powers of courts by narrowly tailoring them to the plaintiffs of a case — instead of applying to all Montanans. 'I'm struggling with this one because I didn't fully understand the consequences of how this could be, I guess, abused,' said Ellsworth, who noted the bill came from his committee. 'We've seen activist judges across the country, and I don't think this actually solves that problem, I think it compounds it.' Two Democratic senators, both lawyers, laid out scenarios where a narrowly tailored injunction that applied to specific counties or regions could leave the rest of Montanans having to file their own lawsuits to receive the same protection from an alleged constitutional violation. 'It's unfair to all Montanans,' Sen. Andrea Olsen, D-Missoula, said. 'If you have a constitutional violation to one person, it's a violation to everybody.' The Senate voted down SB 43 in a 21-28 vote. House Bill 30, which passed by a single vote in the lower chamber, was defeated by the same one-vote margin in the Senate. HB 30 would have required the state Supreme Court to uphold legislative acts as constitutional unless challengers can prove otherwise 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' On Valentine's Day, the Senate indefinitely tabled two more bills from the House that failed to garner enough support to pass the upper chamber, but moved a few others through the process. House Bills 35 and 36, which would have moved the Judicial Standards Commission — a body that can discipline and recommend removal of judges for conduct violations — to the Department of Justice and altered its structure, also died. The Senate did pass Senate Bill 20, carried by Ellsworth, prohibiting retired judges from hearing constitutional cases. Lawmakers also approved of House Bill 39, allowing political parties to financially contribute directly to judicial candidates. The bill is now headed to the desk of Gov. Greg Gianforte, who has also called for judicial reform. HB 39 is one of three related bills seeking to make Montana's judicial elections partisan affairs, along with HB 169, which allows judges and judicial candidates to take part in political activities, and SB 42, which will require judges to declare a political party for the ballot. The Senate also passed HB 65 to perform a performance audit of the State Bar of Montana. That bill will have a hearing before the Senate Finance and Claims Committee before returning for a final vote in the Senate. That bill will have to be accepted by the House again after an amendment changed the audit from focusing on finances — as the House approved — to focusing on performance — which was initially rejected by the lower chamber's vote. Two bills have been withdrawn — SB 16 and SB 52 — dealing with legislative committee contempt subpoenas and the creation of a new court. The latter proposal, which would have created a Chancery Court to hear cases dealing with constitutional, land use and business suits, was withdrawn by bill sponsor Sen. McGillvray, who said it was getting too complicated. Instead, he is working to draft a new version of the specialized court for the session, but narrowing the scope to focus to remove the land and business portions. The new version, a 'Governmental Claims court,' would be 'more streamlined and simple, and I think it's gotten more buy-in from more parties,' McGillvray told press last week.
