Ohio bill would give counties the power to cut property taxes

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – A new Ohio proposal would give counties the authority to lower property taxes if they determine the amount collected is more than needed.
Every county in the state has a budget commission, made up of the county auditor, treasurer and prosecutor, which is tasked with overseeing the taxation process for local governments.
As Fort Rapids sale looms, Columbus church eyes plan to redevelop waterpark
House Bill 309, introduced by David Thomas (R-Jefferson) in May, would require the panels to review the budgets of taxing authorities annually. If a local government is collecting more money than a public entity — such as a school or law enforcement agency — needs, the legislation gives budget commissions the power to suspend or reduce tax rates.
'If the local government doesn't actually need the full amount of that revenue, or if they're providing the service for less, or can, why should the taxpayers still be charged a much higher tax rate?' Thomas said.
Christopher Galloway, the Lake County auditor, testified in support of the bill at its first hearing. He said county prosecutors' different interpretations of legal precedents have resulted in budget commissions' responsibilities being unclear and varying across counties.
Galloway claimed that while the Lake County budget commission has 'been a rubber stamp' on tax budgets for decades due to its prosecutors' legal opinions, its neighboring county of Geauga rolls back rates when an entity's budget does not require the full amount of taxes. He said he wants all 88 counties to have that ability.
Chillicothe paper mill will close in August after stating it would remain open
'HB309 won't be talked about around kitchen tables like a statewide initiative to eliminate property taxes, but it is in fact a REAL and effective means of controlling property taxes in the State of Ohio,' he said in written testimony.
The legislation comes as many Ohioans are expressing frustrations with the costs of property taxes, including a group of citizens who recently started collecting signatures to amend Ohio's constitution and eliminate property taxes altogether.
'Clearly, our taxpayers are telling us across Ohio that the current status quo is not working,' Thomas said.
However, not everyone is in support of the bill, with some claiming it is an attempt to undermine the will of voters. The nonprofit League of Women Voters is among those who have criticized the legislation.
'House Bill 309 is just another example of this gerrymandered state legislature's effort to take power away from local governments and voters,' a spokesperson said in a statement. 'Slowly but surely, corrupt politicians in the Ohio Statehouse are trying to end local control and reduce the rights of Ohio citizens. What Ohioans need are real solutions to real problems, not this.'
Dispensary reacts to Ohio marijuana limit changes
Thomas disagreed with such concerns, stating if the legislation passed, voters would still have the 'full authority and say over the services they want.'
The provision has also been folded into a larger property tax relief overhaul, House Bill 335, which combines multiple bills and would deliver $3.5 billion in property tax relief, according to Thomas.
House Bill 309's second hearing will take place on Wednesday, when opponents of the measure will have the chance to testify. House Bill 335 was introduced last week and awaits its first hearing.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

2 hours ago

• The Hill

Justice Thomas delights conservatives in shunning gender-affirming care ‘experts'

Justice Clarence Thomas's shunning of 'experts' defending gender-affirming care is delighting conservatives in their assault on liberal influence in academics and medicine, a mission now reaching the courts. The conservative justice argued in a solo opinion concurring with the court's 6-3 decision to uphold Tennessee's transgender youth care ban that so-called experts have jumped on the bandwagon to embrace such treatment while evidence to the contrary mounts. 'This case carries a simple lesson: In politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty, courts should not assume that self-described experts are correct,' Thomas wrote. Thomas's opinion quickly garnered the attention of prominent Republicans, including Vice President Vance, who made his debut on liberal social media platform Bluesky by complimenting the opinion as 'quite illuminating.' 'I might add that many of those scientists are receiving substantial resources from big pharma to push these medicines on kids. What do you think?' Vance wrote Thursday, quickly sparking thousands of replies dripping with snark. Since Trump has taken office, his administration has abandoned President Biden's defense of gender-affirming care. Trump's Justice Department dropped the legal challenge to Tennessee's ban, and in May, his Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declared there is a 'lack of robust evidence' for the treatments. In a New York Times opinion piece following the Supreme Court ruling, the mother of the transgender teen who challenged Tennessee's law mourned the decision to block care for her daughter. 'I am deeply afraid for what this decision will unleash — politically and socially,' Samantha Williams wrote. 'Now that the Supreme Court has denied the rights of young people like my daughter and families like ours, what's next?' Major American medical groups have said gender-affirming care for transgender youth and adults is medically necessary. But Thomas in his opinion wrote that it's legally irrelevant, saying trusting those groups would otherwise allow 'elite sentiment' to 'distort and stifle democratic debate.' 'There are particularly good reasons to question the expert class here, as recent revelations suggest that leading voices in this area have relied on questionable evidence, and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance,' Thomas wrote. The Supreme Court's decision instead looks to Europe, citing health authorities in Finland, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The justices particularly emphasized the Cass Review, an influential 2024 report from England questioning the treatments. 'Health authorities in a number of European countries have raised significant concerns regarding the potential harms associated with using puberty blockers and hormones to treat transgender minors,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. The increased prominence of conservatives' attacks come as public trust in health officials and agencies continues to plummet more broadly, a decline that began during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trust in state and local public health officials dropped by 10 percentage points to 54 percent, while the share of those who say they trust the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has also slipped five percentage points, according to January polling from KFF, formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation. 'Justice Thomas soundly put to rest the persistent sham that we should quiet down and 'trust the science' when it comes to life-altering experimentation on minors,' Katherine Green Robertson, chief counsel of Alabama's attorney general's office, said in a statement following the decision. The state filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case that urged the justices not to decide it on 'euphemisms about 'affirming care' and unsupported appeals to 'expert' organizations.' 'Alabama is proud to have armed the Court with a full rundown of the medical community's shameless political collusion on this matter, which should permanently discredit every organization involved,' she said. The justices' reliance on outside research has come into question before. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson caught heat after a study she cited in her 2023 dissent in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which sharply limited the use of race as a factor in college admissions, was disputed. In an impassioned dissent expounding on the benefits of diversity in education, Jackson pointed to a friend-of-the-court brief by the Association of American Medical Colleges, which referenced the 2020 study. 'It saves lives,' she wrote, pointing to the research which showed that having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that a high-risk Black baby will live. In the following months, critics began to debunk the claim, suggesting at first that the justice misrepresented the statistic, and later, that the research itself was inaccurate. 'Even Supreme Court justices are known to be gullible,' lawyer Ted Frank wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed at the time. It's not just studies that support left-leaning views that have come under scrutiny, either. A month before the Supreme Court weighed a challenge to mifepristone access, one of the two common drugs used in medication abortion, a medical journal retracted two studies claiming to show the harms of the pill. The studies, published in the Sage journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology and backed by an anti-abortion group, were retracted after a reader raised concerns about the study's accuracy and a review found the conclusions 'invalidated in whole or in part.' U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk had pointed to the studies in his decision siding with the conservative medical group Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which invalidated the Federal Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of mifepristone because it overlooked safety concerns. The justices ultimately ruled unanimously last year that the anti-abortion doctors did not have standing to challenge access to mifepristone, declining to address the underlying regulatory or safety issues. In the gender-affirming care case, the Supreme Court's decision aligned with the conservative voices that have called on the court to give credence to political forces over educational ones — and the shift did not go unnoticed. 'The vibe shift is real,' Roger Severino, a vice president at the Heritage Foundation who ran HHS's civil rights office during Trump's first term, told supporters after the decision. 'Not only was it political in the last election, President Trump's closing argument is that 'she is for they/them, and he is for you,'' he continued. 'And here, the court — not that they're political animals — at least they're consistent with where the American people are.'

Los Angeles Times

2 hours ago

• Los Angeles Times

Social Security is still in good shape but faces challenges — from Trump

The annual reports of the Social Security and Medicare trustees provide yearly opportunities for misunderstandings by politicians, the media, and the general public about the health of these programs. This year is no exception. A case in point is the response by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.) to the Social Security and Medicare trustees' projections about the depletion of the programs' reserves: 'Doing nothing to address the solvency of these programs will result in an immediate, automatic, and catastrophic cut to benefits for the nearly 70 million seniors who rely on them.' The reports say nothing about an 'immediate' cut to benefits. They talk about cuts that might happen in 2034 and 2033, when there still would be enough money coming in to pay 89% of scheduled Medicare benefits and 81% of scheduled Social Security benefits. House Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) used the release of the reports to plump for the budget resolution that the House narrowly passed on orders from President Trump and that is currently being masticated by several Senate committees. The reports, Smith said, make clear 'how much we need pro-growth tax and economic policies that unleash our nation's growth, increase wages, and create new jobs.' The budget bill 'would do just that,' he said. Neither Arrington nor Smith mentioned the leading threats to the programs coming from the White House. In Social Security's case, that's Trump's immigration, taxation and tariff policies, which work directly against the program's solvency. For Medicare, the major threat is a rise in healthcare costs. But those have flattened out as a percentage of gross domestic product since 2010, when the enactment of the Affordable Care Act brought better access to medical care to millions of Americans. That trend is jeopardized by Republican healthcare proposals, which encompass throwing millions of Americans off Medicaid. Policy proposals by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. such as discouraging vaccinations can only drive healthcare costs higher. Let's take a closer look. (The Social Security trustees are Kennedy, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer and newly confirmed Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, all of whom serve ex officio; two seats for public trustees are vacant. The Medicare trustees are the same, plus Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.) The trust funds are built up from payroll taxes paid by workers and employers, along with interest paid on the treasury bonds the programs hold. At the end of this year, the Medicare trust fund will hold about $245 billion, and the Social Security fund — actually two funds, consisting of reserves for the old-age and disability programs, but typically considered as one — more than $2.3 trillion. Trump has consistently promised that he won't touch Social Security and Medicare, but actions speak louder than words. 'Trump's tariffs and mass deportation program will accelerate the depletion of the trust fund,' Kathleen Romig of the Center on Budget and Policy priorities observed after the release of the trustees' reports this week. 'The Trump administration's actions are weakening the country's economic outlook and Social Security's financial footing.' Immigration benefits the program in several ways. Because 'benefits paid out today are funded from payroll taxes collected from today's workers,' notes CBPP's Kiran Rachamallu, 'more workers paying into the system benefits the program's finances.' In the U.S., he writes, 'immigrants are more likely to be of working age and have higher rates of labor force participation, compared to U.S.-born individuals.' The Social Security trustees' fiscal projections are based on average net immigration of about 1.2 million people per year. Higher immigration will help build the trust fund balances, and immigration lower than that will 'increase the funding shortfall.' All told, 'the Trump administration's plans to drastically cut immigration and increase deportations would significantly worsen Social Security's financial outlook.' A less uplifting aspect of immigration involves undocumented workers. To get jobs, they often submit false Social Security numbers to employers — so payroll taxes are deducted from their paychecks, but they're unlikely ever to be able to collect benefits. In 2022, Rachamallu noted, undocumented workers paid about $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes. Trump's tariffs, meanwhile, could affect Social Security by generating inflation and slowing the economy. Higher inflation means larger annual cost-of-living increases on benefits, raising the program's costs. If they provoke a recession, that would weigh further on Social Security's fiscal condition. Trump also has talked about eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits. But since at least half of those tax revenues flow directly into Social Security's reserves, they would need to be replaced somehow. Trump has never stated where the substitute revenues could be found. Major news organizations tend to focus on the depletion date of the trust funds without delving too deeply into their significance or, more important, their cause. It's not unusual for otherwise responsible news organizations to parrot right-wing tropes about Social Security running out of money or 'going broke' in the near future, which is untrue but can unnecessarily unnerve workers and retirees. The question raised but largely unaddressed by the trustee reports is how to reduce the shortfall. The Republican answer generally involves cutting benefits, either by outright reductions or such options as raising the full retirement age, which is currently set between 66 and 67 for those born in 1952-1959 and 67 for everyone born in 1960 or later. As I've reported, raising the retirement age is a benefit cut by another name. It's also discriminatory, for average life expectancy is lower for some racial and ethnic groups than for others. For all Americans, average life expectancy at age 65 has risen since the 1930s by about 6.6 years, to about 84 and a half. The increase has been about the same for white workers. But for Black people in general, the gain is just over five years, to an average of a bit over 83, and for Black men it's less than four years and two months, to an average of about 81 and four months. Life expectancy is also related to income: Better-paid workers have longer average lifespans than lower-income workers. The other option, obviously, is to leave benefits alone but increase the programs' revenues. This is almost invariably dismissed by the GOP, but its power is compelling. The revenue shortfall experienced by Social Security is almost entirely the product of rising economic inequality in the U.S. At Social Security's inception, the payroll tax was set at a rate that would cover about 92% of taxable wage earnings. Today, rising income among the rich has reduced that ratio to only about 82%. That could mean hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues. The payroll tax is highly regressive. Those earning up to $176,100 this year pay the full tax of 12.4% on wage earnings (half deducted directly from their paychecks and half paid by their employers). Those earning more than that sum in wages pay nothing on the excess. To put it in perspective, the payroll tax bite on someone earning $500,000 in wages this year would pay not 12.4% in payroll tax (counting both halves of the levy), but about 4.4%. Eliminating the cap on wages, according to the Social Security actuaries, would eliminate half to three-quarters of the expected shortfall in revenues over the next 75 years, depending on whether benefits were raised for the highest earners. Taxing investment income — the source of at least half the income collected by the wealthiest Americans — at the 12.4% level rather than leaving it entirely untaxed for Social Security would reduce the shortfall by an additional 38%. Combining these two options would eliminate the entire shortfall. Social Security has already been hobbled by the Trump administration, Trump's promises notwithstanding. Elon Musk's DOGE vandals ran roughshod through the program, cutting staff and closing field offices, and generally instilling fears among workers and retirees that the program might not be around long enough to serve them. In moral terms, that's a crime. Those are the choices facing America: Cutting benefits is a dagger pointed directly at the neediest Americans. Social Security benefits account for 50% or more of the income nearly 42% of all beneficiaries, and 90% or more of the income of nearly 15% of beneficiaries. The wealthiest Americans, on the other hand, have been coasting along without paying their fair share of the program. Could the equities be any clearer than that?

Business Insider

3 hours ago

• Business Insider

Coatue's founders say private companies should go public

The founders of hedge fund giant Coatue Management have called on large private companies to step out of the shadows and go public. Speaking to the "BG2 Pod" podcast that aired on Friday, Thomas and Philippe Laffont said that large companies should be more transparent. "I happen to believe that all these companies should go public," said Thomas Laffont. He framed the issue as partly ideological, saying there's a "democratic element" to going public as "wealth creation belongs to the public market." His comments counterpoint a dominant trend in recent years: Companies, fueled by billions in private equity, venture capital, and private credit, are staying private for far longer. While private companies are subject to less regulatory oversight, going public can benefit them beyond access to public money. "It could be a brand-defining event for a company, for your product, for your employees, giving the level of transparency to your customers that you're well funded, that you have a fortress balance sheet, you can withstand the regulatory scrutiny that comes," he said. Philippe Laffont agreed, even as he acknowledged the imperfections of public-market mechanics like mark-to-market accounting. He said that the balance between public and private markets is healthy, but only up to a point. "I just think that these super, super large private companies, if you're not willing to submit yourself to the sunshine and ray of light of the public markets, you're going to get it through a regulatory agency," he said. Not all investors are coaxing private companies into an initial public offering or other public market debut. Peter Singlehurst, the head of private companies at British investment management firm Baillie Gifford, said on a March podcast that companies can build better businesses by staying private for longer. "You can have people owning your shares for all sorts of reasons that are misaligned with what you're trying to do as a company," Singlehurst said. Like Coatue, Baillie Gifford has a variety of public and private investments. "All your competitors get to know pretty much everything about your business because you have to tell your shareholders pretty much everything about your business," he said.