Axe the tax? Should Ohio eliminate the individual income tax?
Apr. 5—LIMA — It is a phrase that almost everyone has heard: the only two constants in life are death and taxes. However, while paying a tax for goods is nothing new, as events like the Boston Tea Party show, taxation on individual income has a somewhat shorter history going back to the ratification of the 16th Amendment on Feb. 3, 1913 and a prior 10-year period in the 1860s when a tax on income helped pay for expenses related to the Civil War.
While Americans have grown accustomed to income taxes, particularly at the federal level, states like Florida, Texas, Tennessee and others, now including Mississippi, do not collect individual income taxes at the state level. In a statement, Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves promoted this move as a means not only for residents to keep more of what they earn but also as a way to attract new residents and new investment.
"Mississippi has the potential to be a magnet for opportunity, for investment, for talent — and for families looking to build a better life," he said in the statement.
When it comes to Ohio, the Tax Foundation, a research firm that analyzes tax policy nationwide, rated Ohio 35th in the nation for state tax competitiveness, giving the state a lower rating for its corporate gross receipts tax and higher local tax levels.
Could eliminating the state individual income tax benefit Ohio?
Some say it is time for a change
One person who has broached this idea is Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who has made it a talking point in his campaign.
"We will eliminate the income tax in Ohio & it turns out most people in our state vehemently agree," he said in an April 1 post on X.
It's your money, not the government's. We will eliminate the income tax in Ohio & it turns out most people in our state vehemently agree. pic.twitter.com/fYe9DkJ4tH
— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) April 2, 2025
Legislators in the Ohio General Assembly have also tried to make this a reality, with Reps. Adam Mathews, R-Lebanon, and Brian Lampton, R-Beavercreek, introducing House Bill 386 in January 2024, which aimed to eliminate both the individual income tax and the 0.26-percent Commercial Activity Tax. That bill only got as far as the House Ways and Means Committee during the 2023-2024 session.
A new bill, House Bill 30, also sponsored by Mathews and Lampton, would, over two years, reduce the state's progressive tax rates of 2.75 percent and 3.5 percent to a flat tax of 2.75 percent for all earners of more than $27,350. This bill, introduced on Feb. 3, has also been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee for review.
Bluffton University economics professor Jonathan Andreas sees the idea of fairness as a potentially compelling argument when it comes to a flat tax.
"Most Americans like a progressive income tax because most of us are like, 'Hey, I'm not rich, and it's harder for me to pay, say, 20 percent of my income than it would for Bill Gates to pay 30 percent of his income,'" he said. "But there's a pretty significant group, higher earners especially, that feel like a flat tax would be the most fair because they don't feel like they get a fair shake if they are paying a higher percentage than middle class people, and so there is a fairness argument."
But at what cost? Is it feasible?
When it comes to that original axiom of the inevitability of death and taxes, Ohio Northern University College of Business Administration Dean John Navin would refute that claim, at least when it comes to individual income taxes.
"The question is, can you get rid of it? The answer is, absolutely," he said. "You can get rid of any tax you have, but you have to decide: do you want to replace the revenue or can you afford to have a budget that is smaller?"
According to the Ohio Legislative Budget Office, the state's combined state and local tax revenue in fiscal year 2021 totaled $62.85 billion, with 26 percent, or just over $16.34 billion, coming through individual income taxes. Only sales tax revenue (40 percent) and property tax revenue (29 percent) were higher sources of tax revenue for the state.
If the state's portion of that $16.34 billion in tax revenue were to be eliminated, the state would have to find that revenue using other means, Navin said.
"Either we could raise the sales tax and the use tax, and that's certainly an option, or you could raise corporate income tax," he said. "While it's an option, it's not one that's appealing if your goal is to increase businesses in the state of Ohio."
Navin also looked at the situations of some of the no-income-tax states like Florida and Texas, situations that may not apply as well to Ohio.
"In the case of Florida, it's pretty obvious how Florida gets its money with tourism taxes," he said. "Sales tax and use tax in Florida are huge. Texas is oil and gas [production] tax, so they don't have to have a state income tax. Alaska has the same natural resource tax with oil, for the most part."
Are things really that bad? Could the problem lie elsewhere?
When asked about the potential for the elimination of individual income tax in Ohio, House Speaker Matt Huffman, R-Lima, began his answer by noting there are already people in the state who pay no income tax. Along with individuals making less than $27,350 and pay no income tax, for small business owners who file "single" or "married filing jointly" returns, the state will not charge income tax on the first $250,000 of business income.
"So when you think about small businesses in downtown Lima and what they generate as a sole proprietor or as an LLC, most of those folks are paying zero income tax now," he said. "So that's not a flat tax. It's even better."
Huffman also noted that for those promoting a flat tax alternative, issues like the business income deduction will have to be considered, since such a move could inadvertently increase taxes for some rather than reduce them.
"Two things are going to happen if you either lower the income tax to 2.75 percent or eliminate the tax," he said. "Especially if you eliminate the tax, either there are going to be services that you don't provide or some other taxes or going to go up, or a combination of the two."
When asked about the state's current tax policy, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine said that the state has already taken strong measures to reduce the tax burden on residents, reducing the number of tax brackets from as many as eight down to just two today.
"It's the lowest it's been in 50 years in the state of Ohio, so we're very competitive with other states," he said. "And I've never seen a company that looks at Ohio and comes in and says to me, 'Well, Gov. DeWine, we'd love to come to your state, but your income tax is too high.' It's just not an issue anymore."
The more pressing issue, he said, centers around property taxes, which have risen rapidly as property values have risen with equal speed.
"When you have a reappraisement for your house that you've been living in for 30 or 40 years and you've paid it off but now you're 70 years old and seeing the real estate tax go up and you're on a fixed income, that's pretty tough," DeWine said. "So I think that's where the real focus is."
Huffman also pointed to another factor that could be overlooked: local income taxes and levies.
"Ohio is the most expensive local government state in the United States," he said. "We have over 6,000 local taxing districts between school districts, cities, villages, townships, counties, the local sewer levy, the fire levy, whatever those things are. Ohio is the 13th highest-taxed state when you consider all taxes, state and local, but when you consider just states, we're in the 30s. So the state tax burden is already pretty competitive."
Huffman pointed to efforts in the statehouse to alleviate this burden, but he noted that this is a decision that the voters have to make in their own localities.
"One of the things we're doing in this budget that's about to come out is that school districts — many of them, not all of them, but many of them — have more money than they can spend," he said. "So we're going to say in this budget that if you have extra money, you need to reduce the real estate taxes of the people who pay the following year, so we're getting immediate relief."
Featured Local Savings
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
27 minutes ago
- USA Today
Texas enacts robotaxi rules on the eve of Tesla's Austin rollout
AUSTIN - Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, has signed legislation requiring a permit to operate self-driving vehicles just before Tesla's planned launch of a robotaxi trial on Sunday, June 22 in Austin, according to the governor's website. The law does not take effect until Sept. 1, but the governor's approval of it on Friday sends a strong signal that state officials from both parties want the driverless-vehicle industry to proceed cautiously. A group of Democratic state lawmakers earlier this week asked Tesla to delay its planned robotaxi trial because of the legislation. Neither Tesla nor the governor's office immediately responded to requests for comment. The law marks a reversal from the state's previous anti-regulation stance on autonomous vehicles. A 2017 Texas law specifically prohibited cities from regulating self-driving cars. In recent days, Tesla has sent invites to a select group of Tesla online influencers for a small and carefully monitored robotaxi trial, which the company has said would include 10 or 20 Model Y vehicles operated in a limited zone of Austin. The governor's signature on the law puts the automaker in the position of choosing whether to proceed with a rollout it might have to terminate before Sept. 1. The law requires autonomous-vehicle operators to get approval from the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles before operating on public streets without a human driver. It also gives state authorities the power to revoke permits if they deem a driverless vehicle "endangers the public" and requires firms to provide information on how police and first responders can deal with their driverless vehicles in emergency situations. Musk pledges safe robotaxi rollout The planned Tesla robotaxi launch, which the company warned might be delayed, comes after more than a decade of CEO Elon Musk's unfulfilled promises to deliver self-driving Teslas. Most of Tesla's sky-high stock value now rests on its ability to deliver robotaxis and humanoid robots, according to many industry analysts. Tesla is by far the world's most valuable automaker. Musk has said Tesla would be "super paranoid" about safety for the Austin rollout. The company planned to operate only in areas it considered the safest and to have "safety monitors" riding in the front passenger seat. It is not clear how much control the monitors would have over the vehicles in an emergency situation. The service in Austin will have other restrictions as well. Tesla plans to avoid bad weather, difficult intersections, and will not carry anyone below the age of 18. Musk has said he is ready to delay the start for safety reasons, if needed. The planned launch has generated buzz among Tesla fans. "Wow. We are going to ride in driverless Teslas in just a few days. On public roads," posted Omar Qazi, an user with 635,200 followers who writes often about Tesla using the handle @WholeMarsBlog and received an invite. Commercializing autonomous vehicles has been risky and expensive. GM's Cruise was shut down after a fatal accident and regulators are closely watching Tesla and its rivals, Alphabet's Waymo, which runs a paid robotaxi service in several U.S. cities, and Amazon's Zoox. Tesla is also bucking the young industry's standard practice of relying on multiple technologies to read the road, using only cameras. That, says Musk, will be safe and much less expensive than lidar and radar systems added by rivals.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
With military strike his predecessors avoided, Trump takes a huge gamble
(News Analysis) Over the past two decades, the United States has used sanctions, sabotage, cyberattacks and diplomatic negotiations to try to slow Iran's long march to a nuclear weapon. At roughly 2:30 a.m. Sunday in Iran, President Donald Trump unleashed a show of raw military might that each of his last four predecessors had deliberately avoided, for fear of plunging the United States into war in the Middle East. After days of declaring that he could not take the risk that the mullahs and generals of Tehran who had survived Israel's strikes would make a final leap to a nuclear weapon, he ordered a fleet of B-2 bombers halfway around the world to drop the most powerful conventional bombs on the most critical sites in Iran's vast nuclear complexes. The prime target was the deeply buried enrichment center at Fordo, which Israel was incapable of reaching. For Trump, the decision to attack the nuclear infrastructure of a hostile nation represents the biggest -- and potentially most dangerous -- gamble of his second term. He is betting that the United States can repel whatever retaliation Iran's leadership orders against more than 40,000 U.S. troops spread over bases throughout the region. All are within range of Tehran's missile fleet, even after eight days of relentless attacks by Israel. And he is betting that he can deter a vastly debilitated Iran from using its familiar techniques -- terrorism, hostage-taking and cyberattacks -- as a more indirect line of attack to wreak revenge. Most importantly, he is betting that he has destroyed Iran's chances of ever reconstituting its nuclear program. That is an ambitious goal: Iran has made clear that, if attacked, it would exit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and take its vast program underground. That is why Trump focused so much attention on destroying Fordo, the facility Iran built in secret in the mid-2000s that was publicly exposed by President Barack Obama in 2009. That is where Iran was producing almost all of the near-bomb-grade fuel that most alarmed the United States and its allies. Trump's aides were telling those allies Saturday night that Washington's sole mission was to destroy the nuclear program. They described the complex strike as a limited, contained operation akin to the special operation that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011. 'They explicitly said this was not a declaration of war,' one senior European diplomat said late Saturday, describing his conversation with a high-ranking administration official. But, the diplomat added, bin Laden had killed 3,000 Americans. Iran had yet to build a bomb. In short, the administration is arguing that it was engaged in an act of preemption, seeking to terminate a threat, not the Iranian regime. But it is far from clear that the Iranians will perceive it that way. In a brief address from the White House on Saturday night, flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump threatened Iran with more destruction if it does not bend to his demands. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' he said. 'If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' 'There will be either peace,' he added, 'or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left.' He promised that if Iran did not relent, he would go after them 'with precision, speed and skill.' In essence, Trump was threatening to broaden his military partnership with Israel, which has spent the last eight days systematically targeting Iran's top military and nuclear leadership, killing them in their beds, their laboratories and their bunkers. The United States initially separated itself from that operation. In the Trump administration's first public statement about those strikes, Rubio emphasized that Israel took 'unilateral action against Iran,' adding that the United States was 'not involved.' But then, a few days ago, Trump mused on his social media platform about the ability of the United States to kill Iran's 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, anytime he wanted. And Saturday night, he made clear that the United States was all in, and that contrary to Rubio's statement, the country was now deeply involved. Now, having set back Iran's enrichment capability, Trump is clearly hoping that he can seize on a remarkable moment of weakness -- the weakness that allowed the American B-2 bombers to fly in and out of Iranian territory with little resistance. After Israel's fierce retaliation for the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks that killed over 1,000 Israeli civilians, Iran is suddenly bereft of its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Its closest ally, Syria's Bashar Assad, had to flee the country. And Russia and China, which formed a partnership of convenience with Iran, were nowhere to be seen after Israel attacked the country. That left only the nuclear program as Iran's ultimate defense. It was always more than just a scientific project -- it was the symbol of Iranian resistance to the West, and the core of the leadership's plan to hold on to power. Along with the repression of dissent, the program had become the ultimate means of defense for the inheritors of the Iranian revolution that began in 1979. If the taking of 52 American hostages was Iran's way of standing up to a far larger, far more powerful adversary in 1979, the nuclear program has been the symbol of resistance for the last two decades. One day historians may well draw a line from those images of blindfolded Americans, who were held for 444 days, to the dropping of GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs on the mountainous redoubt called Fordo. They will likely ask whether the United States, its allies or the Iranians themselves could have played this differently. And they will almost certainly ask whether Trump's gamble paid off. His critics in Congress were already questioning his approach. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Trump had acted 'without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community' that Iran had made no decision to take the final steps to a bomb. If Iran finds itself unable to respond effectively, if the ayatollah's hold on power is now loosened, or if the country gives up its long-running nuclear ambitions, Trump will doubtless claim that only he was willing to use America's military reach to achieve a goal his last four predecessors deemed too risky. But there is another possibility. Iran could slowly recover, its surviving nuclear scientists could take their skills underground and the country could follow the pathway lit by North Korea, with a race to build a bomb. Today, North Korea has 60 or more nuclear weapons by some intelligence estimates, an arsenal that likely makes it too powerful to attack. That, Iran may conclude, is the only pathway to keep larger, hostile powers at bay, and to prevent the United States and Israel from carrying out an operation like the one that lit up the Iranian skies Sunday morning. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump ropes Fed into debt fight as GOP faces fiscal mess
President Trump is pushing the Federal Reserve to go beyond its legal mandate and help him manage the national debt as Republicans face growing pressure over the nation's finances. In a series of remarks and social media posts, Trump has ripped Fed Chair Jerome Powell for refusing to lower interest rates, insisting he should help the White House manage the costs of servicing more than $36 trillion in national debt. ''Too Late' Jerome Powell is costing our Country Hundreds of Billions of Dollars. He is truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government, and the Fed Board is complicit,' Trump wrote Thursday on Truth Social, a day after the Fed held rates steady. While Trump has spent most of his two White House stints berating Powell to cut rates, only recently has he tied those demands to the country's deteriorating fiscal health. 'We're beginning to see what I think are the early warning signs that the Fed is going to be increasingly called upon to keep the government solvent,' said David Beckworth, senior research fellow and monetary policy director at the Mercatus Center, a libertarian-leaning think tank at George Mason University. 'When you begin to see this type of rhetoric, it's a clear sign that people are beginning to get nervous,' Beckworth explained. 'And how else can we save money? Well, let's turn into the Fed and put pressure on them.' Trump's escalating pressure on Powell over the national debt comes as he and Republicans stand to add trillions of dollars to it through a major tax-cut bill. Republican lawmakers are attempting to find common ground on what Trump has called his 'big, beautiful bill.' The legislation features an extension of his 2017 tax cuts, additional cuts the president proposed during the 2024 campaign, and steep cuts to social safety net programs. While GOP lawmakers claim the bill would help solve the country's fiscal woes, a range of ideologically diverse analysts forecast the bill to add anywhere between $2 trillion to nearly $4 trillion to the national debt. At the same time, Trump is attempting to secure GOP support to raise the debt ceiling before the Treasury Department runs out of ways to avoid a default — a deadline that could come as soon as August. Trump is 'kind of speaking out of both sides of his mouth,' said Dan Alpert, managing partner at investment firm Westwood Capital 'He's got this enormous, $3.5 trillion dollar continuation of a tax cut from his first term that he wants to get across the line,' Alpert added. Republican lawmakers have argued that such estimates don't take into account the economic growth unlocked by lower tax rates, which they say would help narrow deficits over time. But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that even when accounting for growth impacts, the bill would still add $3.3 trillion to the debt over the next ten years — more than the CBO projected without considering the preferred GOP scoring. 'The fundamental issue is we have a Congress and a president who cannot bring the budget deficit under control,' Beckworth said. While both Republicans and Democrats are to blame, he added, 'for a party that has claimed historically it is concerned about their debt burden, it is going to blow things up even more.' Trump's efforts to push the Fed into managing the debt mark a significant break from more than 70 years of federal economic policy. During World War I and II, the Fed yielded to pressure from presidential administrations to keep interest rates low and ease the burden of the rising debt. While that practice extended for nearly a decade after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Fed and Treasury eventually reached an agreement in 1951, setting the stage for the next seven decades of economic management. 'The purpose of the 'accord' was to make Treasury manage its debt, rather than expecting the Fed to 'monetize' it. In turn, the Fed asserted its control of monetary policy via the setting of interest rates to meet congressional mandates for price stability and maximizing employment,' said Sarah Binder, political science professor at George Washington University and co-author of 'The Myth of Independence: How Congress Governs the Federal Reserve.' The Fed has since avoided anything that could be considered financing the federal debt while sticking to its 'dual mandate' of balancing unemployment and inflation. And while several presidents have verbally pressured the Fed to keep rates low since 1951, none has made a formal move to limit its legal authority over monetary policy. 'Based on most concepts of 'independent' monetary policy, the central bank shouldn't be monetizing the debt. That is, it shouldn't be taking the administration's financing needs into account when it aims to meet its mandates,' Binder said. 'Those mandates are price stability and strong labor markets,' she added. 'Congress has not given the Fed an additional mandate to make it easier for the Treasury to finance its debt.' But Trump could be laying the groundwork for a shift toward a 'fiscal dominance' regime, Beckworth warned, in which the Fed would be forced to clean up the government's fiscal mess and abandon the bank's legal obligation to keep prices stable and unemployment low. 'Maybe we're not there yet, but we're getting close,' Beckworth said. 'If they push, push, push, and then at some point, the Fed loses independence … and it's no longer able to control inflation.' Trump griped Wednesday, hours before the Fed's latest hold, that he was unable to sway Powell into making major interest rate reductions. 'He's not a smart person,' Trump said of Powell. 'I think he hates me, but that's OK, you know, he should. He should. I call him every name in the book to get him to do something.' Powell brushed off several questions Wednesday about Trump's attacks and the potential debt impact of the president's agenda, but has implored the White House and Congress throughout his time as Fed chief to get the nation's finances on a sustainable track. Trump will be able to add 'former Chair' to his list of names for Powell come 2026, when his four-year term leading the Fed board lapses. Whomever Trump nominates to succeed Powell will almost certainly be more aligned with the president's thinking and face an easy path to confirmation in a GOP-controlled Senate. Even so, Powell is but one of 12 Fed officials on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) who vote to set interest rates — all of whom voted to keep borrowing costs steady Wednesday. 'Even if you got rid of Powell, you'd have to remake the FOMC with yes-men,' Beckworth said. Powell could also choose to stay on as a member of the Fed board through 2028. That would be an usual move for a former Fed chair, but Powell has not ruled it out. 'Powell has not budged, and the FOMC has not budged despite Trump's incessant ranting and pressure and whatever else he can throw at them,' Beckworth said. 'They're still sticking to their guns.'
