DES MOINES – Iowa Republican legislators passed a tax reform bill that cuts the tax burden on many Iowans, but Democrats called it “a bad deal.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds praised the Iowa House of Representatives and Iowa Senate Saturday following their passage of historic tax reform, Senate File 2417.
“Republicans led on tax reform in 2018,” Gov. Reynolds said. “As a result, hardworking, middle class Iowa families, farmers, small business owners and workers get meaningful relief, all while Iowa’s budget priorities in future years are protected.”
Senate File 2417 modernizes Iowa’s outdated tax code by prioritizing Iowa’s hardworking, middle class families; reducing rates and eliminating federal deductibility, making Iowa’s tax code more competitive and transparent; dramatically simplifying Iowa’s overly complicated tax code; ensuring fairness for Main Street businesses in the modern economy; and protecting budget sustainability in future years.
Meanwhile, Democrats fumed at the bill’s passage.
“Republicans passed a tax giveaway bill today that gives most of the benefits to out-of-state companies and millionaires,” Iowa Democrats said in a statement. “It’s a bad deal for most Iowans. It will raise property taxes on families, seniors and small businesses, and it will result in cuts to health care, job creation, education and other critical services.
“Senate Democrats came into the 2018 session promising to support tax reform that would:
Make the tax system fairer for working families and small businesses
Make Iowa businesses more competitive
Take into account our current budget crisis
Tackle corporate tax giveaways, the fastest growing part of the state budget
“By every measure, the tax plan unveiled in the 11th hour of the 2018 session and passed by the Senate today fails every one of those tests. That’s because the bill is filled with giveaways to millionaires, wealthy corporations and people who don’t even live in Iowa.”
Iowa Democratic Representative Marti Anderson said, “I don’t know how we can do this huge tax cut when we don’t have funds to pay our bills. We’ve de-appropriated state funds four times in the last two years, haven’t fully funded public safety, human services, corrections, or other state departments. And, the private for-profit MCOs are asking for ever more funds to manage Medicaid. We should wait to see the impact of the new Federal tax and the effects of proposed tariffs on our economy. I will be voting no on this bill.”
Thank you Iowa Republicans …. Russia Russia Russia !
Their just campaigning for votes from the public sector people who voted 95% for Hillery Clinton and the demorat party of liars and thieves. Taking money from the private sector because public servants bring no earned income into the GDP of city/county/state or federal coffers – why can’t any of these departments invest in something that actually shows a profit instead of a burden on the private sector?
From above, “public servants bring no earned income into the GDP of city/county/state or federal”
Is that because they spend all their money in Canada?
Man, you’re stupid. They buy everything people in the private sector buy, therefore contributing to the GDP.
GDP is the market value of all final goods and services from a nation in a given year. It’s calculated by adding consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports). It has nothing to do with individual earned income.
When individuals pay less tax we all have more Liberty.
Don’t fall for the mindless talking points of the looney toon left.
when you are short on money to pay your bills how do you cut your income and keep your head above water??? just wait, other taxes will be raised to make up the shortfall and we will end of with less money in our pocket then we do have now. Bend over and hold on
Oh my, now we will just have to cut back on those give away social programs. Of course we can always cut those unearned pensions that teachers get.
Teachers pay into their pension fund (IPERS), just like factory workers, accountants or railroaders — who pay into railroad retirement. Are those all “unearned” pensions, or just the the teachers?
They can have what they paid in. We will take what we paid in.
We can also stop paying for their insurance. They can pay just like we do.
In his own words his opinion does not count
L’V’S’ Reply Report comment
October 17, 2014 at 5:15 pm
@Anonymous-anyone who trolls around under the anonymous name is not entitled to an opinion. You are a coward, sneak and backstabber without enough guts to stand on your own.
The reason the schools pay part of insurance is because they traditionally paid teachers minimal salaries. That was one way they had to get competent teachers to stay. Look at Oklahoma, Arizona, W. Virginia. Their teachers are striking because of low pay and are winning the battles. To Figure It Out all I can say is that I have made the argument before on this site but they don’t care. They think schools can find good teachers for $4.50 an hour.
They can have what they paid in. We will take what we paid in.
Anonymous
May 7, 2018 at 6:40 am
We can also stop paying for their insurance. They can pay just like we do.