Lawmakers unveil Nebraska's ‘One Big Beautiful Bill' aimed at property tax relief

Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, center, shakes hands with State Sen. Tom Brandt of Plymouth, whom the governor worked with to merge two state agencies in efforts to focus attention on the state's water resources. To the right is State Sen. Barry DeKay of Niobrara. May 7, 2025. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)
LINCOLN — A new 'One Big Beautiful Bill' unveiled Wednesday will be the last train out of Nebraska's 2025 legislative session for additional property tax relief this year.
The new amendment to Legislative Bill 170, led by State Sen. Tom Brandt of Plymouth, would inject an additional $100 million each year into property tax relief, which would come at the cost of sales taxes being added to 20 currently exempt goods and services, effective Oct. 1, and increasing nicotine-based taxes on vapes (by 30%) and cigarettes (by 72 cents), effective July 1.
Proposed targets for expanded sales taxes range from animal grooming and dating services to lobbying and chartered flights, as well as soft drinks and energy drinks.
Supporters have dubbed the LB 170 package as 'One Big Beautiful Bill' in a nod to a federal spending package working its way through Congress with President Donald Trump's support.
'It's why I came here,' State Sen. Jana Hughes of Seward, who worked with Brandt on the package, said of property tax relief. 'It's all I heard about.'
$42 million — 72-cent increase on cigarette taxes, up to $1.36.
$28 million — sales taxes on 18 currently exempt 'optional' goods or services.
$25 million — sales taxes on soft drinks and energy drinks.
$15 million — increasing vape taxes from 10% to 40% wholesale.
The only viable path to additional property tax relief this year requires the proposed revenue streams in LB 170, because lawmakers advanced, and will more than likely pass Thursday, budget bills leaving about $1.1 million to spend on other priorities.
That calculation includes proposed 1.5% increases to judges' salaries each of the next two years that lawmakers have signaled they intend to pass.
Brandt said he was pleased to get through the budget 'in pretty good shape' and praised the Appropriations Committee for its work.
'Now we can go back to working on broadening Nebraska's tax base,' Brandt said.
A similar property tax relief plan failed throughout 2024, including during the summer special session called by Gov. Jim Pillen focused on property taxes.
Opponents, including progressives and some conservatives, refused to vote for what they saw as a reliance on sales and 'sin' taxes that they said would 'shift' the burden onto low-income or middle-class working Nebraskans. Scaled-back proposals also failed to gain traction.
Under Brandt's proposal, sales taxes would be added to 20 goods and services, as well as to soft drinks and energy drinks, a smaller subset than he previously proposed in LB 169. Taken together, the new sales taxes would generate about $53 million each year ($25 million of which is projected to come from pop or energy drinks alone). The package would not add sales taxes to candy, as had been proposed in LB 170.
The full list of new goods or services that would be subject to the sales tax if the bill passes:
Animal grooming of pets (grooming of livestock would continue to be exempt).
Chartered flights.
Dry cleaning or other cleaning of clothing (excluding coin-operated laundromats).
Dating services.
Interior design and decorating services.
Lobbying services.
Local passenger transportation by chartered road vehicles, including limousines or similar 'luxury' vehicles.
Telemarketing services.
Telefloral delivery services for out-of-state purchasers of items to be delivered in Nebraska.
Personal instruction services for dance, golf or tennis.
Sightseeing services by ground vehicles.
Swimming pool cleaning and maintenance services.
Travel agency services.
Massage therapy services (excluding medical).
Nail care services (excluding medical).
Skin care services (excluding medical).
Tattoo or body modification services (excluding medical).
Weight loss services (excluding medical).
'Soft drinks' — nonalcoholic beverages that contain natural or artificial sweeteners, excluding drinks that contain milk or milk products; soy, rice or similar milk substitutes; or greater than 50% of vegetable or fruit juice by volume.
'Energy drinks' — carbonated or noncarbonated beverages containing a stimulant such as fortified caffeine, guarana, glucuronolactone or taurine 'specifically formulated to enhance energy, alertness or physical performance.'
Brandt said that when he and other lawmakers determined which items to consider adding state and local sales taxes to, at 5.5 cents for the state, plus local taxes of up to 1.5 cents, he said 'optional' items were the focus. Lawmakers also tried to tread carefully, he said, on massage, nail care, skin care or tattoo/body modification services that are for medical reasons.
Under the amendment to LB 170, taxes on cigarettes would increase from 64 cents per 20-pack to $1.36, the same as Iowa. Estimates that Brandt provided indicate it would generate about $42 million each year.
Lawmakers would distribute about 88% of the tax to the state's general fund. That's a greater share than under current law, at about 77% of the tax. Revenue is currently divided among multiple cash funds, including for cancer research, outdoor recreation development and construction.
The package also includes LB 712, from Hughes, to create a uniform 40% tax on electronic nicotine delivery systems, or vapes. It's estimated to generate about $15 million each year.
The current system, which Hughes established in 2023, taxes vapes containing 3 milliliters or more of consumable nicotine at 10% of wholesale price, or 5 cents per milliliter on smaller devices.
Also included is LB 212, from State Sen. Dave Wordekemper of Fremont, which aims to close a 'loophole' on taxes on cigars, cheroots or stogies purchased online from out-of-state retailers, subjecting those to a 20% excise tax. Estimates that Brandt provided indicate it would generate about $100,000 each year.
The property tax relief push might also be paired with tweaks to the 2023-enacted income tax cuts that will drop income tax rates for corporations and anyone making more than $18,000 down to 3.99% by Jan. 1, 2027. Rather than pausing the reductions, as in Brandt's LB 171, some senators have suggested a longer stair-step down to 3.99%, by 2029 rather than 2027.
Last month, Pillen called pausing the rate reduction a 'a crazy thought.' He has vowed to keep property taxes flat and said he was '100% confident' that lawmakers would deliver property tax relief.
A separate tax relief measure at Pillen's request, LB 303 from Hughes, advanced from the Education Committee last week but has been significantly changed. It no longer includes a highly supported provision to directly lower school property tax rates, which is an alternative to increasing property tax credits to offset school property taxes.
Instead, the measure includes only a committee to review and suggest long-term changes to how the state finances K-12 schools, with property tax relief in mind.
Property taxes in recent years have grown annually by about $285 million. Last year was a noteworthy exception, with the state taking on the property tax portion of funding community colleges. Property taxes declined by $6 million last year off of a $5.3 billion total.
LB 170 will likely be debated Monday, multiple senators said. That discussion is expected to last eight hours.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

Social Security Benefits Are an Estimated 8 Years Away From Being Slashed -- and the Cuts Are Even Bigger Than Initially Forecast

Most retirees rely on their Social Security income, to some varied degree, to make ends meet. The 2025 Social Security Board of Trustees Report is calling for an even steeper reduction to retired-worker and survivor benefits come 2033 than was forecast last year. Ongoing demographic shifts are (mostly) responsible for Social Security's financial woes. However, the longer Congress waits to implement reforms, the costlier it'll be on working Americans. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Social Security represents more than just a monthly check for most retirees. To many, it's a financial lifeline that surveys and studies have shown they'd struggle to make do without. For 23 consecutive years, national pollster Gallup surveyed retirees to determine how important their Social Security income was to covering their expenses. Every year, no fewer than 80% of respondents noted it was necessary, in some capacity, to cover their costs. A separate analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that Social Security pulled 22 million people above the federal poverty line in 2023, including 16.3 million adults aged 65 and above. If the Social Security program didn't exist, the poverty rate for this group would be nearly four times higher (37.3%, estimated) than it was in 2023 (10.1%). For lawmakers, ensuring the financial health of Social Security should be of paramount importance. But based on the latest Social Security Board of Trustees Report, America's leading retirement program is on anything but stable ground. In January 1940, the Social Security program doled out its very first retired-worker benefit. Since then, the Social Security Board of Trustees has published an annual report intricately detailing how the program generates income, as well as where every dollar in outlays ends up. But what tends to garner even more attention is the Trustees' forecasts of what's to come for Social Security. Specifically, the short- (10-year) and long-term (75-year) projections, which are regularly updated to reflect fiscal policy changes, monetary policy shifts, and an assortment of demographic adjustments. Last week, the 2025 Social Security Board of Trustees Report was released -- and it contained some rather chilling news for current and future retirees. To begin with, the program's long-term unfunded obligation continues to widen. Every annual report since 1985 has pointed to a 75-year funding deficit between projected income to be collected and forecast outlays, which includes annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs). In present-day dollars, discounted to Jan. 1, 2025, this 75-year deficit stood at a staggering $25.1 trillion. However, the more worrisome news is the short-term forecast for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund (OASI). This is the fund responsible for doling out monthly benefits to retired workers and survivors of deceased beneficiaries. Beginning in 2021, the OASI began outlaying more in benefits than was being collected in income. This outflow from the OASI's asset reserves is expected to grow with each passing year. By 2033, the OASI's asset reserves are projected to be completely exhausted. Before going any further, let's make clear that the OASI doesn't need a penny in asset reserves to remain solvent and continue to pay benefits to eligible recipients. With the lion's share of Social Security income collected from the 12.4% payroll tax on wages and salary, there will always be income to disburse to qualified beneficiaries. But if the OASI's asset reserves are depleted in eight years, as the latest Trustees Report predicts, the current payout schedule, inclusive of COLAs, won't be sustainable. The Trustees are forecasting a 23% cut to payouts may be necessary for retired workers and survivor beneficiaries by 2033 -- this is up from an estimated 21% cut outlined in the 2024 Trustees Report -- to sustain monthly benefits without the need for any further reductions through 2099. With Social Security providing a financial foundation to retirees for more than eight decades, the obvious question for current and future retirees is simple: How did Social Security get into this mess? What can be said with certainty is that "congressional theft" and "undocumented migrants receiving traditional Social Security benefits," which are two common myths/scapegoats mentioned by some people online, are the wrong answers. Rather, Social Security's worsening financial outlook is a function of numerous ongoing demographic shifts, as well as inaction on Capitol Hill. Some of these shifts are well-documented and understood by the public. For example, baby boomers reaching retirement age and leaving the workforce in larger numbers are weighing down the worker-to-beneficiary ratio. Likewise, people are living longer today than they were when Social Security initially began paying retired-worker benefits in 1940. To be somewhat blunt, the program wasn't designed to dish out payments to retirees for two or more decades, as is somewhat commonplace today. But a number of these demographic shifts aren't nearly as visible -- nevertheless, they're playing a key role in weakening the program. For starters, the U.S. fertility rate (i.e., hypothetical lifetime births per woman) hit an all-time low in 2023. A laundry list of factors, ranging from people waiting longer to get married and have children, to concerns about the health of the U.S. economy, have reduced the number of children being born and will, eventually, weigh down the worker-to-beneficiary ratio. Rising income inequality is another issue for Social Security. Based on data from the Social Security Administration, approximately 90% of all earned income (wages and salary, but not investment income) was subject to the 12.4% payroll tax in 1983. By 2023, only 83% of earned income was subject to this program-funding tax. In simple terms, the wages and salaries for high earners have been increasing at a faster pace than the National Average Wage Index, which determines the upper range of earned income exposed to the payroll tax. In short, more earned income is escaping the payroll tax as time passes. Insufficient net migration into the U.S. has been problematic, too. Social Security relies on younger people migrating to the U.S. and contributing to the program for decades via the payroll tax before earning a retirement benefit for themselves one day. Since 1997, the net migration rate into the U.S. has dropped off dramatically. The final culprit is the aforementioned lack of action by lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Although plenty of bills have been proposed, the cavernous ideological gap between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill as to how best to strengthen Social Security has led to an ongoing stalemate. If there's a silver lining here, it's that lawmakers do have a knack for coming to Social Security's rescue in the 11th hour. But the longer Congress waits to tackle this issue, the costlier it's going to be on working Americans to fix. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security Benefits Are an Estimated 8 Years Away From Being Slashed -- and the Cuts Are Even Bigger Than Initially Forecast was originally published by The Motley Fool 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

USA Today

an hour ago

• USA Today

Medicaid handouts only create dependency. Able-bodied adults should work.

Does Medicaid need an overhaul? Does Republicans' proposed $800 billion cuts go too far – or not far enough? Readers respond in USA TODAY's Opinion Forum. With the deadline for President Donald Trump and Republicans' "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on the horizon, Americans are turning their attention to a major provision of the budget bill: changes to Medicaid. The bill calls for sweeping changes, including cuts of nearly $800 billion to the program, a mandatory work requirement of 80 hours per month, and an overhaul of the current Medicaid and Medicare systems – consolidating them for the purpose of centralized enrollment. Additional changes include banning federal funding for gender-affirming care and transitioning procedures and reducing the amount of federal funding allotted to states for noncitizens. As Congress debates these provisions before a final vote in the Senate, Americans are sounding off – largely in support of the program. More than 71 million Americans benefit from Medicaid, and new polls from KFF Health found 83% of respondents have a favorable view of Medicaid. More than half of respondents who are enrolled in Medicaid say changes to the program will make it "very difficult" to afford medications (68%), see a health care provider (59%) or get alternate insurance coverage (56%). A June 11 Quinnipiac University poll found half of American voters polled said funding for Medicaid should go up, not down, while an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released June 16 found that 50% of Americans think we spend too little on Medicaid. But we wanted to hear from you, our USA TODAY readers, directly. We asked what changes, if any, you want to see to the program and how Medicaid has impacted your life or the lives of those you know. Do the proposed cuts go too far? Or not far enough? Here's what you told us for our Opinion Forum. I couldn't have made it as a mom ‒ or cancer survivor ‒ without Medicaid As a Stage 3 breast cancer survivor, mother to a son with profound disabilities and a full-time working member of society, I've had to navigate the unimaginable. Without Medicaid, I could not have managed any of it. The program covers our son's in-home care, and it gave me the ability to focus on both my treatment and career. For families like mine, Medicaid is not a luxury ‒ it is the foundation that holds everything together. Proposed cuts threaten the care millions rely on. We must protect Medicaid so parents are not forced to choose among their health, their job and their children's needs. — Caroline Johnson, Louisville, Kentucky Able-bodied people should be working. Entitlements weren't meant to last forever. As I understand it, the only people who would be cut from Medicaid are able-bodied adults who would need to work a minimum number of hours a week to keep receiving it. I don't believe that disabled people, older folks and children would be affected. Also, illegal migrants would be kept off, because American taxpayers are not responsible for paying their way. We have enough American citizens who need help. Those who are not supposed to get these entitlements should be cut. These entitlement programs were never meant to be a way of life. They were supposed to be a safety net only for those who really needed them. Able-bodied adults should work. There is pride in working for what you need or want. Handouts only cause dependency, which is not good for anyone. Every citizen who is able should strive to be independent. The same should go for food stamps. It should only be for the really needy disabled, elderly and children with low incomes. — Renee Bertoni, Holley, New York Real government waste is MAGA's excess I am a retired Health and Human Services Department worker. I think this administration is so shortsighted about Medicaid and food assistance cuts for working families and individuals. If low-income people and working families have inadequate food and no medical coverage, it hinders their ability to work and function in society. All people deserve medical coverage and nutritious foods! I don't think I will ever support Republicans again. This is supposed to be a government for the people, by the people and of the people. These MAGA supporters are all lacking in human decency. Yes, I believe they will cut more and more because they are focused on self-indulgence. Increase taxes for the wealthy who have too much and know that "trickle-down economics" is just a buzz phrase. It doesn't work. Big cuts were made to the federal work force with no strategy and no concern for talented and dedicated employees, along with lots of publicity for fake fraud claims that didn't exist. The minions are hard at work trying to sell the public on their distorted strategy: more for them and less for everyone else. Let's think about the waste of the Trump military parade. That's what's shameful. — Joyce Schulz, Tawas City, Michigan As an ER doctor, I saw what cuts to Medicaid would cost us all As an emergency physician, I cared for uninsured patients who were signed up for Medicaid insurance in the emergency department. Medicaid health insurance allowed these patients to follow up with primary care doctors and providers who otherwise could not afford to care for uninsured people. Studies show that adding Medicaid insurance saves lives. And taking away Medicaid insurance leads to worse health outcomes. I am very concerned that any cuts to Medicaid insurance would lead to avoidable illness and even death for newly uninsured patients. Primary care physicians and specialists cannot afford to care for patients who lose their Medicaid health care coverage. Also, rural hospitals and rural clinics would lose a significant portion of their financial support from Medicaid. Primary care providers and rural hospitals would be forced to close their doors, leaving uninsured patients without access to care. I am afraid that Republican politicians will choose tax cuts for the rich over Medicaid health insurance for the poor. I think that Republican politicians should have their own government health insurance taken away from them. Why should taxpayers pay for the health insurance of these well-off Republicans who are voting to take away Medicaid from poor people? — Gary Young, Sacramento, California I've worked hard to get everything I have. Democrats don't seem to see people like me. I don't see the problem with having work requirements. If you can work, why not? As a taxpayer, I pay for my own medical insurance. I am single and have no dependents. I have no fault with us having a Medicaid program for the elderly, children and disabled, but that should be it unless you are working and need a short-term helping hand. I have been working full-time since I was 22, so I don't understand people having an issue with a work requirement to get medical coverage. I think we have to cut spending across the board. I hear Democrats talking about taking things away, but I don't seem to hear anything from them about how to cut spending. We are over $36 trillion in debt. If spending is not controlled, our country could go bankrupt, and then no one would have any programs to use. What is the Democrats' plan to get the debt under control? They had the past four years to do it, and you see where we are. I'm tired of the talk about these cuts going to the billionaires. We don't know for sure where it's going, and you can't understand how tired of this rhetoric people are. Additionally, I would like to see the cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development and Department of Education all codified so these programs do not exist. There seems to have been a bit of waste and abuse over many years that needs to be dealt with. I make under $70,000 a year, so I have worked hard to get where I am. I was a Democrat for over 35 years, and about five years ago, I went Republican, as parties seem to have switched. I believe that the Democrat Party is full of elitists who feel we poor peons will do what they tell us, rather than realizing a lot of peons can think for ourselves and should not be condescended to and not told we are bad peons if we disagree with them. — Teresa Loy, Tucson, Arizona My brother was saved by Medicaid. Many more would die without it. My brother had AIDS/HIV and AIDS-related cancer. He was too sick to work and relied on Medicaid for all his medical benefits, both physical and mental. He eventually worked for the nonprofit Hope and Help in Orlando. He was a mentor to others, a champion, an activist, an orator and a published writer. He died in August 2020. All his efforts and the efforts of many would die in vain without their medication that was available through Medicaid. I'm extremely worried. The effects aren't self-contained, and the negative effects would permeate into an already strained system. Medical insurance is unaffordable in this country's economy, and it only gets worse. The Republicans need to vote according to the wants and needs of their constituents and reinstall empathy in their party. Maybe that will resonate and 'trickle down.' We have to limit tax cuts for the wealthiest. And here's a novel idea: Let's go back to a time when employers paid for employees' health care and pensions. Those two items can't be supported by today's salaries. — Karen O'Donnell, Lake Mary, Florida

Newsweek

2 hours ago

• Newsweek

US Home Prices Break Records Despite Cooling

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. U.S. home sale prices reached a record high during the four weeks ending June 15, hitting a peak of $396,500, according to the latest Redfin data, up 1 percent from a year earlier. It might be a discouraging figure for prospective homebuyers who have been struggling for years now with sky-high prices and historically elevated mortgage rates. But while home prices are still holding steady, experts do not expect them to continue rising for long, as new listings continue rising and inventory grows across the country. Why Are Home Prices Still Climbing? The main reason why home prices continue rising is that there is still a massive imbalance between supply and demand in the country, even if inventory has finally started rebounding over the past year. According to an estimate by the Washington-based think-tank Brookings, the U.S. housing market was short by nearly 5 million homes in 2024. In an aerial view, single-family homes in a neighborhood in Thousand Oaks, California, on April 18, 2025. In an aerial view, single-family homes in a neighborhood in Thousand Oaks, California, on April 18, while prices are still inching up, they are doing so at a much slower pace than they were over the previous five years, which saw double-digit year-over-year increases, or at the beginning of the year, when it was around 5 percent. In fact, we could say that they are now flatlining. Buyers are also negotiating and obtaining significant discounts over sellers' original asking price; according to Redfin data, the median sale price of a typical U.S. home is roughly $26,000 lower than the median asking price of $422,238. This is happening because buyers are gaining the upper hand in a market where sellers outnumber them by roughly 500,000, according to a recent Redfin report. While many sellers have decided to stop waiting for mortgage rates to come down to sell their properties, many buyers are being kept on the sidelines by high prices and monthly payments, and are leaving those listings sitting idle on the market for increasingly long periods of time. New listings of homes for sale were up 4.4 percent in the four weeks ending June 15 compared to a year earlier, while total listings were up 14.5 percent. Pending sales, during the same time frame, were down 1.5 percent year-over-year, and mortgage-purchase applications were down 3 percent week-over-week. The result is that sellers, especially those who approached the market hoping to get as much as they would have for their home during the pandemic homebuying frenzy, are having to meet buyers where they are at, lowering their asking price. "I'm explaining to sellers more and more that we need to be strategic in our pricing strategy because homes that are overpriced, even slightly, are likely to sit on the market and invite buyers to negotiate," said Kelly Connally, a Redfin Premier agent in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in a press release. "Pricing is most important, but with fewer buyers than usual out there, sellers should also make sure their home is in excellent condition and be ready to make repairs upon inspection," Connally added. "There are a few exceptions: homes in desirable locations that are in perfect condition are still hot and typically sell at or above asking price." When Will Prices Finally Come Down? Experts believe that, by the end of the year, home prices will finally start falling, even if modestly. Redfin expects home prices to decline by 1 percent year-over-year by the end of 2025, with parts of the country that have experienced the biggest surges in inventory reporting even steeper price drops. "The key for price changes will be to track growing inventory and time on market, especially relative to their pre-pandemic levels when the market was more balanced," senior economist Jake Krimmel previously told Newsweek. "Markets with high inventory and longer time on market are more likely to see price corrections. Overall, we expect a slow rebalancing rather than a sharp correction—unless economic conditions shift more dramatically."