Reading Time: 5 minutes

Wisconsin municipalities and school districts, which rely on taxpayer dollars to fund their services, are running into rising frustration from the residents who pay those costs.

The frustration comes as more local governments are turning to wheel taxes to fund transportation-related services as costs of construction materials rise and local leaders say the Legislature over the years has constrained ways municipalities can raise additional revenues. Nearly half of Wisconsin residents are paying a wheel tax in 2025, according to the Wisconsin Policy Forum. 

The number of Wisconsin school districts turning to taxpayers to support referendums has also grown in recent years with the state seeing more than 200 ballot questions in 2024, 148 of which were operating referendums. Ninety-four districts sought referendums in elections this year, the most in an odd-numbered election year since 2007, the Policy Forum noted earlier this year. 

But Wisconsin taxpayers’ support for funding revenue needs of local governments and school districts appears to be waning as residents grapple with their own rising costs from energy bills to health care payments.

The Marquette University Law School Poll conducted in October showed 56% of voters found lowering property taxes to be more important than funding public education, a number that has gradually grown in the last two years. Between 2015 and 2022 more voters supported funding public schools over lowering property taxes. Additionally, 57% of Wisconsin voters in October said they would be more likely to vote against a school referendum when, just four months earlier, 52% of voters said they would support one. 

The public discontent with government taxes and fees aligns with a longtime Republican strategy to reduce the size and reach of government. Similar frustration with the role of government in the wake of the Great Recession swept Republicans into power in Wisconsin in 2010, and they’ve kept control of the Legislature since then.

Heading into the next cycle, Republican lawmakers are promoting bills that seek to limit when taxpayers can be asked for more funding.

One bill from Sen. Rob Hutton, R-Brookfield, would require referendums for local governments that want to establish a wheel tax and mandate the municipalities and counties with existing wheel taxes to go to referendum to keep their fees in place. Hutton, who is up for reelection in 2026, holds perhaps the most vulnerable of three Republican Senate seats that Democrats are targeting in elections next year. 

A resident brought the idea for the wheel tax bill to Hutton’s office as New Berlin and Elm Grove considered implementing their own vehicle registration fees earlier this year, his chief of staff said in an email to Wisconsin Watch. The New Berlin Common Council officially rejected the option to pursue a wheel tax in July. 

“Some may argue that these are not make or break amounts of money, and that certainly may be the case,” Hutton said during an October hearing on the Assembly companion to his bill. “But every cost adds up to many citizens in these communities, especially those families who are living paycheck to paycheck.” 

Hutton’s bill is scheduled for a public hearing Wednesday, just a week after the Eau Claire City Council voted to raise the city’s wheel tax from $24 to $50. Eau Claire residents will pay $80 between city and county fees with the new increase, which is currently higher than Milwaukee where city residents pay $60 in wheel taxes split between the city and county. 

The vehicle registration fee increase will give the city of Eau Claire an additional $1.2 million, which the city’s finance director told councilors was necessary for a balanced budget without making other cuts. 

“If we didn’t have the wheel tax available, we would have to make very significant cuts,” Stephanie Hirsch, Eau Claire’s city manager, told Wisconsin Watch. “We can’t really touch our public safety departments because of state laws that require us to maintain spending and service maintenance of effort laws, so it would be coming from those public works functions or the other nonmandated services that we provide like operating a very popular outdoor pool or maintaining parks.” 

But Eau Claire residents opposed to the proposal said it was wrong to approve a wheel tax increase as costs are rising for food, health care, energy and more. 

“Another fee increase, especially on something as basic as the ability to drive to work, drive to school or appointments, should be completely off the table right now,” said Elizabeth Willier, who told the council she organized resident petitions against doubling the wheel tax through conservative group Americans for Prosperity Wisconsin.

Growing tax frustration

Citizen anger against government taxes isn’t new. But it seems that taxpayers in Wisconsin have especially become more engaged in government in the years since the coronavirus pandemic, said Paul Rozeski, the director of government and member relations with Wisconsin Property Taxpayers, Inc. 

More people want answers about where their money is going, he said. 

“We have a lot of small business members, and for them, it’s death by 1,000 paper cuts,” Rozeski said. “Clearly, more and more taxpayers are feeling the same way.” 

That public sentiment on referendums increased as 71% of Wisconsin’s school districts learned in October they will receive less general aid for the 2025-26 school year than they did the prior year. State general education aid funding was kept flat in the biennial budget earlier this year.

It could lead districts to make budget cuts, raise property taxes or even turn to voters with referendums to make up those funding gaps. 

“I think that’s not going to slow down,” Sen. Jeff Smith, D-Brunswick, said last month of school district referendums. “I think we’re going to see even more, sadly.” 

Under current law Wisconsin school districts will receive a $325 per pupil increase each year in how much revenues they can raise from a combination of state aid and property taxes for the next 400 years due to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ creative veto in 2023.

It’s not clear yet how many school districts might seek referendums in 2026. State law gives districts up to 70 days before an election to adopt a resolution for a referendum, a spokesperson said. 

Solutions at the Capitol?

Republican legislative proposals at the Capitol have sought more transparency from school districts that seek additional dollars from taxpayers or more participation from local governments that seek revenues through wheel taxes. Additionally, the Assembly Committee on Education signed off on a series of bills looking to encourage school district consolidation across the state. 

Public hearings were held earlier this session on companion bills that would prohibit recurring operating referendums and limit ballot questions from applying to more than four years. Hutton and Rep. Amanda Nedweski, R-Pleasant Prairie, also brought forward a proposal to bar school districts from pursuing referendums if they are not in compliance with Department of Public Instruction financial reporting requirements. 

Nedweski during a public hearing in October cited Milwaukee Public Schools as a reason for the bill. Voters passed a $252 million MPS referendum in 2024, but the district had failed to file 2023 state financial reports on time, which led DPI to withhold state funding. 

The likelihood of the Republican proposals receiving Evers’ signature is slim. While Hutton’s Senate bill on wheel tax referendums will receive a public hearing, it’s not clear what appetite other lawmakers will have for the proposal. 

The Assembly Committee on Local Government held a public hearing on the Assembly version of Hutton’s bill in late October, but chair Rep. Todd Novak, R-Dodgeville, told Hutton and Rep. Dave Maxey, R-New Berlin, that he opposed the proposal.

“If they don’t like a wheel tax, they can replace the board,” Novak said. 

Hirsch in Eau Claire understands that the increased wheel tax may be a hardship for residents with the combination of city and county fees. But requiring a referendum would take away options the city needs, she said. 

“What we really wish would happen is that the state government would give us more local control and more tools,” Hirsch said. “For example, what we wish for most is a local option sales tax. We really don’t like putting all of the weight on property taxes, and we don’t want to charge people the wheel tax. We wish there were other tools in the tool kit.”

As local governments plead for more revenue, Wisconsin voters are souring on more taxes 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.

Victor Schwartz, founder and president of VOS Selections, spoke to reporters outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025. Schwartz, a New York-based wine and spirits importer of 40 years, was the lead plaintiff in the case against President Donald Trump's sweeping emergency tariffs. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court during lengthy arguments Wednesday weighed whether President Donald Trump violated the Constitution when he became the first U.S. president to impose sweeping global tariffs under an economic emergency powers statute usually reserved to combat rare and unusual threats.

Justices in both the conservative 6-3 majority and liberal minority questioned the sweeping presidential power the administration is claiming under IEEPA, including Chief Justice John Roberts. Questions about how Trump officials interpret the statute and view its limits, or lack thereof, revealed their skepticism.

Members of the president’s Cabinet, members of Congress and even comedian John Mulaney packed into the high court for the first major case of Trump’s second term to be fully argued before the justices. 

Tariffs are the centerpiece of Trump’s foreign policy, and he credits them in his recent negotiations to reach several unfinalized trade framework agreements with the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and China, among other nations.

For nearly three hours the justices poked and prodded at the language of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA, a 1970s-era sanctions law that Trump has invoked since January in a series of emergency declarations and proclamations triggering import taxes on goods from nearly every country.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sat shoulder-to-shoulder with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Greer. 

Not far down the crowded rows were U.S. House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ed Markey of Massachusetts.

Mulaney sat a few rows from the back, and was reportedly there to support former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who argued Wednesday on behalf of several private small businesses who sued Trump over the tariffs. Katyal, who served under President Barack Obama and hosts the “COURTSIDE” podcast, has collaborated with Mulaney on his show.

Small business owners ‘footing the bill’

The case centered on whether the president has unilateral authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA. 

Trump became the first president to ever invoke import taxes under the 1977 emergency powers law, which has traditionally used sanctions to control economic transactions of hostile groups and individuals. For example, IEEPA was first invoked during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis and later used to freeze assets of terrorist groups after 9/11. In all, presidents have declared 77 national emergencies under the statute.

Small business owners who challenged Trump’s usage of the law argued the president doesn’t have the authority to tax them, and that the policy is upending their livelihoods. 

Since Trump declared emergencies around fentanyl smuggling and imbalanced trade relationships, U.S. businesses have been paying anywhere from 10% to upwards of 50% on imports, depending on country of origin.

“It’s American businesses like mine and American consumers that are footing the bill for the billions of dollars collected,” Victor Schwartz, founder and president of the family-owned wine and spirits importer VOS Selections and lead plaintiff, said outside the courthouse following arguments.

Small businesses and Democratic state attorneys general led the charge in the two separate cases, consolidated before the Supreme Court. They allege Trump usurped taxing power, which belongs to Congress as outlined in Article I of the Constitution.

Schwartz’s fellow plaintiffs included a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.

Among the state officials who also joined the suit were state attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon.

Two Illinois-based toy makers that primarily manufacture products in Asia filed a separate challenge.

Solicitor general argues ‘power to tariff’

The Trump administration argues tariffs are a necessary tool to achieve economic and national security goals. Officials claim the president’s power to impose duties under IEEPA is spelled out in the statute’s language authorizing the president to “regulate” importation and exportation during times of an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

“One of the most natural applications of that is the power to tariff,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer — the former Missouri solicitor general — said in response to questioning by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 

“So when Congress confers the power to regulate imports, it is, naturally, conferring the power to tariff,” Sauer continued.

Chief Justice Roberts asked Sauer to clarify the “major power” he claimed was granted in the statute.

“The exercise of the power is to impose tariffs, right? And the statute doesn’t use the word tariffs?” Roberts said.

“But it uses the words ‘regulate importations,’ and historically, a core, central application of that, a big piece of that, has always been to tariff,” Sauer answered, speaking at a quick and excited pace.

Many emergencies

Justice Elena Kagan asked Sauer why a president would ever use any of the other specific and constraint-bound tariff powers delegated by Congress if IEEPA “gives the president the opportunity to blow past those limits.”

“Because if you look at Title 19 (of the U.S. Code), which is loaded with tariffs and duties of various kinds, all of them have real constraints on them. They are, you know, you can’t go over X percent, or it can’t last more than one year. And of course, the way you interpret this statute, it has none of those constraints,” Kagan said.

Sauer responded that IEEPA “has its own constraints.”

“The president has to make a formal declaration of a national emergency, which subjects him to particularly intensive oversight by Congress, repeated natural lapsing, repeated review reports and so forth,” he said.

Kagan swiftly interjected: “I mean, you yourself think that the declaration of emergency is unreviewable, and even if it’s not unreviewable, it is, of course, the kind of determination that this Court would grant considerable deference to the president on, so that doesn’t seem like much of a constraint.”

“And in fact, you know, we’ve had cases recently which deal with the president’s emergency powers, and it turns out we’re in emergencies, about everything all the time, about like half the world,” Kagan said, to laughter in the courtroom.

Trump has petitioned the high court numerous times in 2025, putting cases regarding mass layoffs and immigration on the justices’ unofficial shadow docket, which bypasses a full argument process.

Trump comfort with tariffs

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked why of the nearly 70 emergencies declared under IEEPA in past decades, none of them have invoked tariffs as a solution.

“Why do you think Presidents, Clinton, Bush, Obama, have not used IEEPA to impose tariffs? Because there have been trade disputes, certainly President Bush, steel imports and the like. Why do you think IEEPA has not been used?” Kavanaugh asked.

Sauer answered: “When you go through them one at a time, which we had our team do, it’s really hard to find one when you look at that emergency, you say, ‘Oh, tariffs is the natural tool you would use to address that emergency.’”

There are also “political reasons,” Sauer added. “I think that it’s no question that President Trump is by far the most comfortable with the tariffs as a tool, both economic and foreign policy, than many of others.”

Fentanyl smuggling targeted

Trump began imposing tariffs under IEEPA through a series of executive orders and proclamations in February and March on products from China, Canada and Mexico, declaring these countries responsible for illegal fentanyl smuggling into the United States.

The president escalated the emergency tariffs over the following months on goods from around the globe, declaring trade imbalances a national emergency. In addition to a baseline 10% global tariff, Trump specifically targeted countries that export more goods to the U.S. than they import from U.S. suppliers.

As recently as late August, Trump imposed an extra 25% tariff on goods imported from India, bringing the total tariffs on Indian products to 50%, because of the country’s usage of Russian oil. 

In early August, Trump slapped a 40% tax on all Brazilian goods after he disagreed with the country’s prosecution of its former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup to remain in power in 2022.

Speaking to reporters following the arguments, Bessent said he thought the case “went very well.” 

“I think the solicitor general has made a very powerful case,” he said.

When asked whether the administration was crafting plans for what to do if the Supreme Court invalidates Trump’s emergency tariffs, he replied, “We’re not going to discuss that now.”

A barista prepares a coffee drink. (Nazar Abbas Photography via Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Five Republican U.S. senators joined Democrats Tuesday to terminate President Donald Trump’s national emergency that triggered steep tariffs on goods from Brazil.

The vote came ahead of a major case before the Supreme Court that could decide whether many of the president’s tariffs violate the Constitution.

Sens. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul of Kentucky, along with Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, Maine’s Susan Collins and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, supported a joint resolution in a 52-48 vote.

The measure’s passage in the Senate marks a shift from a previous effort in April, when Senate Republicans blocked a resolution to terminate Trump’s emergency tariffs on Canada. Murkowski, Collins and Paul also supported that measure.

The resolution is not likely to see a vote in the Republican-controlled U.S. House, meaning it is not likely to become law.

Coffee canister in the Senate

Senate Democrats forced Tuesday’s floor vote just days after they filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to find Trump’s unprecedented tariffs, triggered under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, unconstitutional. Murkowski was the lone Republican to join the brief.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., spoke on the floor ahead of the vote with a canister of Maxwell House coffee beside him. 

Kaine said Trump’s tariffs on Brazilian goods are an “abuse of presidential power that people are feeling every time they walk down a grocery store aisle to buy coffee for their families, to buy ground beef for their families.”

“No president, Democrat or Republican, should be able to declare a national emergency justifying the imposition of 50% tariffs because a friend of theirs is being prosecuted for breaking the law in another country,” he said.

Kaine used a decades-old law that allows the minority party to force a vote to terminate a national emergency.

Trump declared a national emergency and imposed a 50% tariff on Brazilian imports on July 30 after accusing Brazil’s government of “politically persecuting” its former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup to remain in power in 2022.

‘No taxation without representation’

Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican who cosponsored Kaine’s bill, said on the floor ahead of the vote Trump is using his emergency powers “to tax us without our consent.”

“I, for one, still believe in the principle of no taxation without representation, and will vote to terminate this contrived emergency and end these unconstitutional import taxes,” Paul said.

The vote to reverse Trump’s tariffs on Brazilian products was the first of three bipartisan resolutions this week protesting the administration’s emergency tariffs.

Kentucky’s senior senator and former Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “Tariffs make both building and buying in America more expensive.”

“The economic harms of trade wars are not the exception to history, but the rule. And no cross-eyed reading of Reagan will reveal otherwise. This week, I will vote in favor of resolutions to end emergency tariff authorities,” McConnell said, referring to Trump’s decision to add another 10% tariff on Canadian goods. That came after the Ontario province ran an anti-tariff ad featuring the words of President Ronald Reagan.

Trump tariffs defended

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, criticized the joint resolution as “counterproductive to the progress already made by President Trump.”

“The president’s historic trade negotiations are bearing fruit. President Trump already announced new deals, trade deals with major trading partners, including, most recently, Cambodia and Malaysia. Other such announcements may still be forthcoming. I urge other trading partners to reach similar trading deals,” Crapo, chair of the Senate Committee on Finance, said on the floor ahead of the vote.

Both tariffs and climate change are to blame for the recent spike in coffee prices, reports the Los Angeles Times.

This summer, President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law, ending  various tax credits a decade ahead of schedule. The credits could be used to buy electric vehicles and to install solar panels on homes. 

The post Wisconsin residents are running out of time to qualify for solar tax credits  appeared first on WPR.

A new study found that while half of the state’s school districts tried performance-based pay incentives for teachers, most have since abandoned it.That trend matches what’s happening in schools around the country.

The post Wisconsin schools largely reject performance-based pay for teachers appeared first on WPR.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Although President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” offers new tax deductions and credits across different income levels, low-income households – the bottom 20% of income earners – are largely excluded from any significant tax benefits. 

“It’s particularly shocking because the law is so big,” said Elaine Maag, a senior fellow at The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. “Typically, when trillions of dollars are spent, you see it really spread across the income distribution.”

The bill was signed into law over the summer.

Benefits that people with low incomes do receive may be outweighed when considered alongside other provisions in the bill, said Andrew Reschovsky, professor emeritus of public affairs and applied economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

This is especially true of cuts to safety net programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, Reschovsky said.

“This is the dilemma – if you count those things in with the tax side, the net will be that a lot of people are going to be worse off.”

Credits and deductions

A credit is an amount subtracted directly from the tax you owe while a deduction reduces the amount of income that can be taxed. Both can help keep more money in taxpayers’ pockets. 

The bill establishes new credits and deductions. 

The bill increases the: 

• Child Tax Credit from $2,000 per qualifying child to $2,200.  
• Child and Dependent Care Credit, which allows taxpayers to subtract certain costs associated with caring for children under 13 or dependents incapable of self-care. 

The bill introduces new deductions for:

• Workers in jobs where tips are common, allowing them to deduct up to $25,000 of tip income. 
• Individuals who work overtime, allowing them to deduct up to $12,500 of overtime pay. 
• People 65 and older, allowing them to deduct $6,000. 

Limitations

These changes may appear to help people who are financially struggling. But the bill affects federal taxes, so its new deductions and credits apply only to income taxable by the federal government. 

People with low income generally owe little or no federal income tax. 

Older low-income adults, for example, often rely primarily or entirely on Social Security benefits and are generally not subject to federal taxes. This means that a new $6,000 deduction would not benefit them, Rechovsky said.   

Rechovsky noted other reasons the new deductions are misleading or extremely narrow. 

“Yes, you’re a waiter and you benefit from not paying taxes on your tips,” he said. “But take someone in the same income range who works as a home health care worker – they don’t benefit at all.” 

Reschovsky also questions how those with low incomes would benefit from reducing the amount owed on overtime pay. 

“One of the reasons some people are low-income is that they’re lucky to get a 40-hour workweek,” he said. 

The same limitation applies to the new credits. 

An analysis by Maag estimates that in 2025 about 17 million children under 17 – or one in four – will receive less than the full value of the Child Tax Credit because their parents earn too little.

The bill also changes which families qualify based on citizenship status.  

The Child Tax Credit will be limited to children who are U.S. citizens and have at least one parent with a valid Social Security number. 

About 2 million U.S. citizen children will lose their Child Tax Credit because of this new requirement, Maag wrote, citing an analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation. 

Safety nets

One benefit to people with low incomes from the bill is that it makes permanent many provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, including lower income tax rates and larger standard deductions. 

“It’s true across the board that if taxes go down, your income after taxes goes up,” Reschovsky said. 

But for those with low incomes, the increase is minimal and will likely be outweighed by changes to Medicaid, premium subsidies provided by the Affordable Care Act and changes to SNAP. 

For example, the lowest 10% of earners may see a $1,600 reduction in annual income and benefits, mainly due to cuts in Medicaid and SNAP, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 

“It’s just that classic view … that, ‘Well, these people are just sucking on the teat of the federal government, so we’re going to just make it as hard as possible for them to do that, because they’re just freeloaders,’” said Anthony Myers, program director of the Riverworks Financial Clinic.

Where to get help

For people with incomes under $67,000, free tax assistance is available through programs such as the IRS’ Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, or VITA. 

VITA sites can be found using the IRS Free Tax Prep Help website. 

Maag and Myers recommend making appointments as soon as possible. 

In addition to serving as a VITA site, Riverworks Financial Clinic operates year-round as the City of Milwaukee Financial Empowerment Center. 

Residents of the city who are 18 years and older can get free one-on-one financial counseling there. 

“Anyone that’s struggling with any of these (One Big Beautiful Bill Act) provisions, we can assist them with navigating through this,” Myers said. 

Here’s how Trump’s new tax law affects people with low incomes 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin was among the bottom 10 states in job and business creation in some 2025 rankings, but higher in others.

For starting a business, National Business Capital, a financier, ranked Wisconsin 42nd, citing high taxes and low available funding. Small-business publication Simplify LLC, whose analysis included new business and job creation rates, ranked Wisconsin 43rd. Wisconsin was ranked 35th by WalletHub and 34th by U.S. News & World Report.

More generally, CNBC ranked Wisconsin 21st for business. Wisconsin scored higher in infrastructure and cost of doing business, lower in quality of life and legal and regulatory burdens. Wisconsin also ranked 21st in a poll of CEOs and business owners on best states for business.

Critics say rankings have limited value or are misleading.

From January 2018 to January 2025, Wisconsin added 63,300 jobs, ranking 40th in job creation, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• National Business Capital: The Best States to Start a Business in 2025
• SimplifyLLC: Research: Best and Worst States for New Businesses
• WalletHub: Best & Worst States to Start a Business 2025
• CNBC: America’s Top States for Business 2025: The full rankings
• Chief Executive: Texas, Florida And Tennessee Top Chief Executive’s 2025 Best & Worst States For Business Poll
• Camoin Associates: Reading Between the Lines: What State Business Rankings Really Tell Us
• Kauffman Indicators of Entreprenuership: FAQs
• Federal Reserve Bank Philadelphia: Early Benchmark Revisions of State Payroll Employment 2018-2025

Do some rankings put Wisconsin among the bottom 10 states in job creation and entrepreneurship? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

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.

Sources

• Congress.gov: H.R.1 – One Big Beautiful Bill Act
• Fortune: The rules for paying taxes on tips and overtime are changing thanks to Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. Here’s what to expect
• RSM: No tax on tips and overtime: What employers should know
• Tax Policy Center: Tax-Free Tips: How Would They Impact Tipped Workers?
• Yale Budget Lab: “No Tax on Overtime” Raises Questions about Policy Design, Equity, and Tax Avoidance
• The White House: President Trump has signed the One Big Beautiful Bill into Law
• Associated Press: What to know — and what isn’t known yet — about US tax deductions for tips and overtime pay
• CNBC: Trump’s ‘big beautiful’ bill promises no tax on tips and overtime, but there’s a limit—here’s who qualifies
• USA Today: Did 'Big Beautiful Bill' include no tax on overtime? What to know about Trump’s 'promises kept'
• BankRate: No tax on tips and overtime: Here's how your taxes may shrink

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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

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.

Sources

• Wisconsin Watch Interview with Sarah Shaw, deputy research director for the Wisconsin Policy Forum
• PBS Wisconsin: Partial veto by Evers to extend school funding boost by 400 years upsets opponents
• Legislative Fiscal Bureau: School District Revenue Limits and Referenda

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.

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. 

1. Expiring Tax Provisions: Expiring tax provisions, including key provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), will impact farm households. These include the child tax credit, earned income tax credit, estate tax exemptions, and bonus depreciation, set to expire by the end of 2025. 

2. Impact on Tax Liabilities: Expiring provisions are expected to increase tax liabilities by nearly $9 billion, with $650 million coming from the estate tax exemptions. The most significant increase will come from the expiration of changes to federal income tax rates, the removal of the state and local tax cap, and the reinstatement of the personal exemption. 

3. Qualified Business Income (QBI) Deduction: The QBI deduction, which allows farm businesses to deduct 20% of their income, will be affected by expiring provisions. Larger farms benefit more from this deduction, but moderate-sales farms face the highest percentage increase in taxes due to the expiration of this provision. 

4. Estate Tax and Exemptions: A major concern for farm households is the estate tax exemption, which will be halved in 2026, potentially leading to higher estate tax liabilities for farm families.  

5. Concerns Over Bonus Depreciation: The phase-out of bonus depreciation, which allows faster write-offs of equipment costs, poses a risk to farm businesses that rely on capital-intensive equipment. The expiration could lead to significant tax burdens unless replaced with alternative provisions. 

6. CTA Compliance and Penalties: The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) mandates reporting beneficial ownership information for entities like LLCs. Failure to comply with CTA filing requirements can result in significant penalties. However, on December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas entered a preliminary injunction suspending enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its implementation of regulations nationwide. 

7. IRS Resources for Farmers: Various IRS resources are available to farmers, including the Farmers Tax Guide, tax tips for farmers, and an online Agricultural Tax Center. These tools help farmers navigate tax complexities, especially regarding crop insurance, disaster payments, and updated provisions like mileage rates and self-employment tax thresholds. 

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.