Wisconsin is sharing $1.4 billion with local governments this year, keeping a promise it made two years ago. But the head of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities says cities, villages and towns are still too reliant on property taxes.
The post Wisconsin lawmakers kept promise to give more to local governments, advocate says appeared first on WPR.
Middle income Wisconsinites got a $180 tax cut and lost services worth much more than that. | 3D illustration rendering by Getty Images Creative
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers and state legislators cut taxes by $1.3 billion in the new state budget, paying out a quarter of the state’s $4.6 billion surplus so that Wisconsinites who earn up to $200,000 can get a tax break worth an average of $180 per year.
That’s not a lot of money to trade for losing access to child care, reducing services that help veterans find jobs and housing, and cutting programs at schools. But somehow cutting taxes has become an agreed-upon, bipartisan top priority, even as the defunding of everything begins to take a major toll on our quality of life.
As Baylor Spears reports, more than 65% of Wisconsin school districts will face a reduction in funds under the new state budget. Many will go to local property taxpayers to ask for more – to the annoyance of citizens who are getting tired of the constant begging from schools that no longer receive adequate funding from the state. Local residents were willing to say yes to a record number of school funding referenda in 2024. But there are signs their patience is wearing thin.
Republican legislators are tapping into that annoyance with a bill to repeal the results of Evers’ partial veto of the last budget, which extended a temporary increase in the cap on revenue school districts could raise for the next 400 years. Evers’ maneuver outraged Republicans, who challenged the veto before the Wisconsin Supreme Court and lost. The new bill would undo the veto’s effect on school revenue caps (and the bill itself will also, presumably, be vetoed by Evers).
“The pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock 402 years before this veto,” the Republican sponsors of the bill write. “It is hard to justify locking in a funding increase for just as long into the future.”
But like the 180 bucks a year in “tax relief” Republican legislators are touting as a major victory for middle class Wisconsinites, Evers’ 400 year veto amounts to less than meets the eye. For one thing, it doesn’t lock in an increase — it just allows districts to raise an additional $325 per pupil through a combination of local property taxes and state aid. Individual school boards must still vote to pass any property tax increase. And the state could head off those property tax increases by putting more money into schools. Instead, Republican legislators insisted on no increase at all in general school aid in the budget. The same legislative Republicans who are howling about property tax increases created the problem, refusing to fund education and then blaming districts that turn to the only other source of funding they can tap.
Overall, the Wisconsin Policy Forum reports, Wisconsin has slipped from one of the top states for education spending into the bottom half over the last 25 years. Tax-cutting replaced education as the state’s top priority. While most other states increased spending on education after the pandemic, in Wisconsin spending on schools went down. And we spend far less as a share of personal income on education now than we did in the early 2000s, and less than the national average.
Behind all of this budget math is the sad reality that, if we don’t agree to shoulder some expenses as a society, a lot of the elements of a decent life are out of reach for most people. Not paying for things through taxes doesn’t make expenses go away. It just makes them more burdensome on the smaller group that has to pay. It takes a bigger bite out of local property tax payers to pick up the cost of their schools than if the cost is spread across the state in the form of income taxes, and it’s even more expensive for individual families to pay the full cost of educating their kids. In the early 2000s, Wisconsin had the best school system in the Midwest at a cost of about 5% of personal income for taxpayers, according to the Wisconsin Policy Forum. That’s about $2,500 of a $50,000 income. Try to find full-time private education for less than that.
Not just schools but a clean environment, public safety, good roads and reliable services and infrastructure that doesn’t fail are things we’ve long taken for granted. Those things are all threatened now.
When I was a high school exchange student in Quito, Ecuador, I learned that running water in the affluent suburb where I lived was not guaranteed. Sometimes the water would go out when you were taking a shower. Keeping a bucket of water in the bathroom just in case was normal. Then a well known government official moved into the neighborhood and the problem, temporarily, cleared up.
We are moving toward that sort of social setup now in the U.S.
The assumption that drives tax-cutting mania at the state and national level is that we shouldn’t have to spend money toward collective, public goods. We should all pay our own way. That’s fine if you can hire your own private security firm, send your kids to private academies, and avoid contact with an increasingly desperate populace. For most people, it’s a terrible bargain.
It’s both cheaper and better for all of us, as individuals, to support a decent society for all. It only becomes unaffordable when we start pulling apart the fabric of society, convincing people they’ll be better off going it alone, after liquidating our collective wealth.
Undermining confidence in public institutions and cutting taxes so those institutions are underfunded and strained are part of the same push to increase the wealth of the already wealthy, and help them shirk any responsibility to contribute to society
Why should poor people have health care? Why should the elderly and disabled be protected from being thrown out on the street? Why should little kids have nutritious meals? If you weren’t clever enough to be born rich, you deserve nothing. That’s not exactly how the Trump administration puts it, or the Republicans in the state Legislature who have been insisting for years on frittering away the state’s budget surplus on tax cuts worth very little to anyone who doesn’t already make a ton of money. But it’s the basic, underlying idea.
This argument is compelling only to people who don’t understand the math.
Elon Musk, whose $400 billion fortune is more than the wealth owned by one-half of all U.S. citizens combined, doesn’t want to pay what for him is a pittance to help maintain the health and wellbeing of our country.
Wisconsin Republicans were unwilling to spend $4 million — .004% of the total state budget — to maintain veterans’ services to keep military vets from becoming homeless.
Efficiency, cost savings — these are the alleged goals of the federal and state austerity programs. But the real goal is to make you forget what it was like to live in a functional society, one where kids had enough to eat and people didn’t die of preventable diseases, the environment was clean and Wisconsin children could get a great, free education, afford to go to college and dream of owning a home.
What the anti-government tax-cutters want is a society riven by resentment and anger, where people are divided against each other and the dysfunction makes it easy to “divide and conquer” as our last Republican governor memorably put it.
Down with education, down with clean water, down with health care and nutrition for poor kids. Up with lurid crime stories and hateful, divisive rhetoric.
When society falls apart, it’s much easier for greedy charlatans to plunder and steal the wealth of the state. And after we’ve codified irresponsibility — spent down the treasury and starved society and made permanent the arrangement whereby the richest people in society are not obligated to contribute, well then it becomes much harder to make the rich pay their fair share.
Try to remember what it was like to have a decent, functional Wisconsin. Try not to give in to the politics of distraction and division. Because $180 is a pathetic bribe to give up stability, security and the opportunity for the kids of today to grow up with hope that they can still have a decent life.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.
President Donald Trump’s recently enacted big bill removes the federal income tax on certain tips and overtime, but those tax deductions end in 2028 and have other limitations.
Under the new law, restaurant servers, barbers and other workers who typically work for tips can deduct up to $25,000 of tip income – meaning that amount isn’t taxable.
For overtime pay, the tax deduction is up to $12,500.
Both deductions generally are for people who earn less than $150,000 annually.
Federal payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare (FICA), and state and local taxes, still apply.
The tipped income provision would affect about 2% of households, and they would receive an average tax cut of $1,800 annually, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimated.
About 8% of hourly workers and 4% of salaried workers regularly work overtime, according to the Yale Budget Lab.
The average annual savings for the overtime provision is $1,400, according to the White House.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
We’ve written more extensively about this topic in a different article. You can read more about it here.
Does Trump’s big bill end taxes on tips and overtime? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
Transportation Secretary Kristina Boardman joined WPR’s “Wisconsin Today” to discuss how changes to state and federal funding will affect infrastructure in the state.
The post Wisconsin DOT secretary explains impact of transportation funding and fee increases from new state budget appeared first on WPR.
Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.
Gov. Tony Evers’ 2023 partial veto increased K-12 public school districts’ revenue fundraising limits by $325 per student each year until 2425, but that doesn’t guarantee property tax increases each year.
Revenue limits set how much a district can increase funding through a combination of property taxes and general state aid. School districts could raise property taxes in order to reach the maximum revenue, or the Legislature and governor could provide more general aid through the biennial budget. The average limit across districts last year was $13,363.
This year, the Republican-controlled Legislature kept general state aid flat. School boards can raise property taxes up to their allowed maximum funding in their annual budgets.
In future budgets, the Legislature and governor could provide enough state aid to cover the limit increase in whole or even exceed it, which would force districts to reduce property taxes. They also could repeal the 400-year revenue limit provision.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Does Gov. Tony Evers’ 2023 budget veto increase property taxes each year for the next 400 years? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
We’ve learned a bit about American society amid the rhetoric over President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill.” For example, unauthorized immigrants don’t get Medicaid, but millions of working-age adults have gone on it. We’ve also knocked down some false claims about the bill along the way.
As of July 3, the nearly 900-page measure, filled with tax breaks and spending cuts, had moved toward passage but was still being debated in Congress.
Wisconsin Watch fact briefs have cleared up misstatements about the bill itself and about programs it would cut, such as Medicaid and food stamps.
Note: Our fact briefs answer a factual question yes or no based on the facts available when the brief is published.
Here’s a look.
No.
The largest-cut claim was made by Republican U.S. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, who represents part of southeastern Wisconsin. His office cited a $1.7 trillion claim made by the Trump administration.
Even if the net cut were $1.7 trillion, it would be second to a 2011 law that decreased spending by $2 trillion and would be the third-largest cut as a percentage of gross domestic product, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
But when Fitzgerald made his statement, the bill’s net decreases were $1.2 trillion, after taking its spending increases into account, and $680 billion after additional interest payments on the debt.
Yes.
Millions of nondisabled working-age adults have enrolled in Medicaid since the Affordable Care Act expanded eligibility in 2014.
Medicaid is health insurance for low-income people.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 2024, average monthly Medicaid enrollment included 34 million nonelderly, nondisabled adults — 15 million made eligible by Obamacare.
Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who represents most of northern Wisconsin, complained about “able-bodied” adults being added, saying they are “draining” Medicaid.
The nonpartisan health policy organization KFF said 44% of the working-age adults on Medicaid, some of whom are temporarily disabled, worked full time and 20% part time, many for small companies, and aren’t eligible for health insurance.
No.
Unauthorized immigrants are not eligible for traditional, federally funded Medicaid and have never been eligible.
Fourteen states, excluding Wisconsin, use state Medicaid funds to cover unauthorized immigrants.
Trump’s bill proposed reducing federal Medicaid funds to those states.
Opponents of the bill, including Democratic U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, who represents the Madison area, said Trump administration officials claimed that unauthorized immigrants receive traditional Medicaid.
Yes.
In April, 2,004 residents of Menominee County in northeast Wisconsin received benefits from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
That’s about 46% of the county’s 4,300 residents.
SNAP, formerly known as food stamps and called FoodShare in Wisconsin, provides food assistance for low-income people.
Menominee County’s rate was cited by U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., at the Wisconsin Democratic Party convention. He commented on the bill’s provision to remove an estimated 3.2 million people from SNAP, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Yes.
Nonpartisan analysts estimate that the “big beautiful bill” would add at least $2 trillion to the national debt over 10 years.
The debt, which is the accumulation of annual spending that exceeds revenues, is $36 trillion.
U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Milwaukee, and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., claimed the bill would add trillions.
Among other things, the bill would make 2017 individual income tax cuts permanent, add work requirements for Medicaid and food assistance, and add funding for defense and more deportations.
After we published this brief, the Senate passed a version of the bill that would increase the debt by $3.3 trillion.
No.
Most Americans would not face a tax increase near 65% if Trump’s 2017 tax cuts are not extended under the bill.
The tax cuts are set to expire Dec. 31.
The Tax Foundation estimates that if the cuts expire, 62% of taxpayers would see a tax increase in 2026. The average taxpayer’s increase would be 19.4% ($2,955).
GOP U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, who represents western Wisconsin, made the 65% claim.
Do you have questions about this bill and how it affects Wisconsin? Submit them here, through our Ask Wisconsin Watch project.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Here are 6 claims about Donald Trump’s big bill — and the facts is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks during a press conference inside the Capitol building on Wednesday, June 18, 2025. Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden is at right. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — The next hurdle for Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate and the “big, beautiful bill”: Democrats — and possibly a few of their own members — in a marathon voting session will make last-ditch attempts to change the tax and spending cut measure.
The vote-a-rama, as it’s known, is expected to begin sometime during the last full week of June as Congress heads toward the Fourth of July recess. It will likely begin in the afternoon and last overnight into the next morning. Senators will debate and vote on dozens of amendments attempting to revise the massive legislation that could have an effect on nearly every American.
Democrats, who have 47 votes in the Senate compared to 53 for Republicans, plan to zero in on Medicaid, taxes, corruption, policies that could raise energy costs and proposals that would increase the deficit, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and the committee chairs tasked with drafting pieces of the package have spent weeks combing through the House-passed bill to figure out what needs to be altered to avoid divisive floor votes.
They’ve rewritten numerous policy proposals to comply with the strict rules that go along with the complex reconciliation process and are now trying to work out disagreements among GOP senators that could doom or complicate a final deal.
The goal is to avoid a protracted debate over core GOP provisions in full public view once the vote-a-rama begins, though some senators are already predicting votes on GOP amendments.
Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, who has raised concerns about the bill’s impact on rural hospitals, said he hopes GOP leaders reach a consensus before vote-a-rama but didn’t rule out offering his own amendments if they don’t settle their disputes.
“Amending it on the floor, that’s a potentially messy process,” Hawley said. “I would hope that we could get to a good place before that. But we have to fix the rural hospital issue.”
Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville said he will likely propose amendments during floor debate, though he declined to say what specific policies he’d seek to change or eliminate from the package.
“Yeah, we’ll have some,” Tuberville said. “And we’ve got them all, we just haven’t turned them in yet.”
Thune said he and other negotiators are making “headway” toward consensus on the more significant provisions in the package, which in many respects is far from its final form.
“The meetings right now are on the major provisions in tax and health. We have sort of pre-litigated a lot of that,” Thune said. “But there are a lot of the other provisions in the bill, chapters in the bill that are still subject to going through the Byrd bath, and we’re in the process of doing that. But hopefully that’ll be done by early next week.”
Republicans are using the reconciliation process to pass their sweeping tax and spending cuts package through the Senate with just a simple majority vote, requiring them to comply with the Byrd rules.
That includes the Byrd bath — going before the Senate parliamentarian to explain how each provision has an impact on federal revenue or spending that is not “merely incidental.” Democrats then usually debate before the parliamentarian the various changes that don’t meet that threshold. The process is named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat.
Once the parliamentarian rules what elements comply and which need to be removed, the bill can go to the floor and senators can trudge through vote-a-rama. Eventually, all 100 lawmakers will vote to approve or disapprove of the legislation.
GOP senators passing their version of the package would send it back to the House, which passed its version on a slim 215-214 vote earlier this year — and could make yet more changes in the Senate bill.
Democrats are hoping to highlight policy divisions among Republicans during the vote-a-rama. And even if they don’t succeed in getting any of their amendments adopted, several votes could serve as fodder for campaign ads during next year’s midterm elections.
Schumer said Wednesday during a press conference it would be “difficult” for Democrats to peel off at least four GOP senators from the rest of the party in order to get an amendment adopted, but said he’s hopeful Republicans will “vote with us on some things they’ve all said they’ve agreed with.”
Democratic senators, he said, have created a task force to reach out to Republicans on major issues in the package, including how it would impact rural hospitals.
“Many of these hospital administrators and employees are Republican,” Schumer, a New York Democrat, said. “In many of the rural hospitals, they are the largest employer in the county, and in most they’re the only supplier of health care. It infuriates the rural counties, and they tend to be Republican.”
West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said she’s not concerned about having to vote on dozens of amendments.
“We’re here to vote,” Capito said. “As a creature of the House, we voted all the time on everything, so this doesn’t bother me. And, you know, just let the body work its will. If some changes are made, those will have to be dealt with. But I’m not worried about that.”
Arkansas Republican Sen. John Boozman said he expects the vote-a-rama will be “a very late night” and that he’s not planning to offer any of his own amendments.
As chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, Boozman expects to spend a considerable amount of time during vote-a-rama arguing against amendments seeking to change those provisions — including controversial cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food aid for lower-income families.
Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson said he plans to spend much of the vote-a-rama “going back and forth from my hideaway,” the ceremonial office that every senator holds in the Capitol building.
But Johnson cast doubt on actually being able to amend the package during that process, saying changes to the various bills that Senate committees have released need to be agreed to before then.
“You’ve got to get this before it ever goes to the floor. I mean, you’re not going to change things substantially or significantly with amendments. I know people have some idealized version that happens. It doesn’t,” Johnson said. “You’ve got to get these things in the base bill. Amendments; it’s just a show, it’s a charade.”
The Senate has held two vote-a-ramas so far this year, and both demonstrated how difficult it is to change a piece of legislation.
The first all-nighter in February went along with Senate debate on its budget resolution and included votes on 25 amendments, with lawmakers adopting just two — one from Alaska Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan and one from Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee.
The second vote-a-rama took place in April just before the Senate voted to approve the budget resolution that ultimately cleared the way for Congress to use the budget reconciliation process to advance the “big, beautiful bill.” Senators debated 28 amendments, voting to adopt one change from Sullivan.
Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, ranking member on the Finance Committee, said he and staff on the panel will continue to parse through details of the panel’s bill, which Republicans just released Monday.
Wyden said he plans to hold several town hall meetings in GOP areas of his state over the weekend to gauge how residents there view the policy revisions Republican senators have put forward.
“We’ve had this bill for basically 36 hours. The first time I had it, I stayed up all night, so last night I got a little sleep,” Wyden said on Wednesday. “But on the plane, I’ll be working through it. And I expect to be working through it all through the next few days, except when I’m having these town hall meetings where I’ll have a number of questions.”
House Republicans were jubilant after muscling through President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” tax and immigration package by a single vote. But across the Capitol, senators were more cautious.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune can afford to lose three Republican senators and still pass the bill, and there are more than that, right now, who have problems with it. Like the House, he will have to balance the concerns from moderate and conservative members of his conference.
Republicans’ aspirational deadline is July 4, ahead of a potential debt default. Thune said groups of senators had already been meeting to discuss the legislation and that they would want to take some time to review it. “And then we’ll put our stamp on it,” he said.
“We’ll see how it goes,” Thune said. “What does it take to get to 51?”
A look at a few of the potential sticking points in the Senate:
Several Republican senators have said the House’s multi-trillion-dollar tax package doesn’t have enough savings. Thune said many in his GOP conference favor the tax breaks in the bill but “when it comes to the spending side of the equation, this is a unique moment in time, in history, where we have the House and the Senate and the White House, and an opportunity to do something meaningful about how to control government spending.”
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., a sharp critic of the House bill, wants the United States to go back to pre-pandemic spending levels. He has indicated he would be a no on the bill as it stands now, and he says he has at least three other senators aligned with him.
Senate Republicans are generally on board with stricter work requirements for older Medicaid recipients that make up much of the bill’s $700 billion savings from the program. But Republican Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Susan Collins of Maine, among others, have voiced concerns about other changes in the bill that could potentially cut funding to rural hospitals or increase copays and other health care costs for recipients.
The senators could have a powerful ally in Trump, who has frequently said he doesn’t want cuts to Medicaid, even as he’s endorsed the House bill. Hawley said he talked to Trump this week on the phone and “his exact words were, ‘Don’t touch it, Josh.’”
Others have been wary of the House bill’s effort to shift some costs of the food stamp program to states, potentially a major issue for some red states that have high numbers of food aid recipients. The House bill saves $290 billion from the food aid, and Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman said the Senate savings will be “probably be a little bit lower.”
Thune said this week that “one of the principal differences” between the House and Senate is that Republican senators want to make many of the tax cuts permanent while the House bill has shorter time frames for many of its cuts — including no taxes on tips, overtime pay, car-loan interest and others.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo said Thursday that trying to make some of the cuts permanent is “an objective right now.”
One of the biggest questions for the Senate: whether the tax breaks really need to be offset by cuts elsewhere.
To offset the costs of lost tax revenue, House Republicans have proposed more than $1 trillion in spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and green energy program rollbacks. However, Republicans in the Senate do not believe there is a cost associated with permanently extending the existing taxes, setting up a political and procedural showdown ahead.
The House bill includes a $4 trillion increase in the debt limit. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has warned that the United States is on track to run out of money to pay its bills as early as August without congressional action.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he won’t support the bill if the debt ceiling increase is included. He said he’s willing to consider it if it’s taken out.
But most Republican senators want it to avoid a separate fight that would require 60 votes in the Senate. Texas Sen. John Cornyn said that if they deal with the debt ceiling outside of the legislation then they would have to “pay a king’s ransom” to Democrats to get enough votes.
Several Republican senators have said they are concerned about House provisions that repeal or phase out clean energy tax credits passed in 2022 that have spurred investment in many states.
Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, John Curtis of Utah and Moran wrote Thune a letter last month arguing that removing the credits could “create uncertainty, jeopardizing capital allocation, long-term project planning, and job creation in the energy sector and across our broader economy.”
The House bill would ban states and localities from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade, giving the federal government more control over the policy. It’s an approach that has been favored by the AI industry but has drawn concern from members on both sides of the aisle.
And even if it has enough support, the provision may not pass muster from the Senate parliamentarian because it’s unlikely to have impact on the federal budget.
With a narrow margin for victory and only 53 Republicans in the Senate, every senator’s top priority takes on outsize importance. South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds said he supports the House bill but that the way that it deals with spectrum auctions — selling off telecommunications signal rights — is a “dealbreaker” for him. He said he’s in talks with other senators on the issue.
Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said one of his main goals is that they include money for certain farm safety net programs and set up passage for a broader farm bill later this year.
“In the end, we have to have 50 plus one supporting it,” Hoeven said. “So we’ve got some work to do.”
What to watch as Trump’s tax and immigration bill moves to Senate is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.
Most Americans would not face a tax increase near 65% if President Donald Trump’s tax cut extension does not become law.
The bill would extend income tax cuts set to expire Dec. 31. It would offset some costs with Medicaid and food stamp cuts.
The Tax Foundation estimates that if the cuts expire, 62% of taxpayers would see a tax increase in 2026. The average taxpayer’s increase would be 19.4% ($2,955).
House Republicans estimated 22%, a figure cited by the White House.
GOP U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, who represents western Wisconsin, claimed May 17 at the Wisconsin Republican Party convention that “the vast majority of Americans” would see a 65% increase.
His office did not respond to requests for information.
Tax Policy Center expert Howard Gleckman said “there is no income group that would get anything like a 65% tax hike.”
University of Wisconsin-Madison economist Andrew Reschovsky also said the 65% claim is far from accurate.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Would ‘the vast majority’ of Americans get a 65% tax increase if GOP megabill doesn’t become law? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
The December Farm Foundation Forum, Tax Year 2025: Potential Impacts and Opportunities for Farmers and the Agriculture Sector, covered the possible outcomes and impacts for farms and the greater agricultural sector from potential changes to taxation policy in 2025 and beyond. Some key aspects discussed included the impact of expiring tax provisions, and specific issues like estate tax and bonus depreciation.
The conversation was moderated by Todd Van Hoose, president and CEO of Farm Credit Council, and included input from Mark Albright, public affairs specialist in tax outreach partnership and education at the Internal Revenue Service; Kent Bacus, executive director of government affairs at National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; Tia McDonald, research agricultural economist with USDA Economic Research Service; Paul Neiffer, agribusiness and business advisor with Farm CPA Report; and Elizabeth Swanson, national tax senior manager with Pinion.
Below are some of the main points presented by the panel.
The two-hour discussion, including the audience question and answer session, was recorded and is archived on the Farm Foundation website.
Please note: This summary was created with the help of ChatGPT. Please refer to the recorded session for full details.
The post Farm Foundation Forum Detailed Possible Impacts of Upcoming Changes to Taxation Policy appeared first on Farm Foundation.
Login