Kansas House Bill HB2432

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/12/26
• Refer: 1/12/26

Caption

Providing an excise tax on large employers for certain federal benefits paid to employees.

Summary

HB 2432 would create a new excise tax in Kansas on “large employers,” defined as employers with an average of at least 500 employees during the prior calendar year. The tax would equal 100% of the value of certain federal benefits received by employees of those employers, including SNAP/food assistance, school lunch benefits, federal housing assistance, and Medicaid payments made for the employee or dependents. The bill also includes a prohibition on large employers asking job applicants whether they receive these benefits or otherwise seeking that information through applications or inquiries. The measure directs the Kansas director of taxation to administer the tax, collect returns and payments, and remit all revenue to the state general fund. It would amend state tax administration by adding a new employer-level excise tax tied to employees’ receipt of specified public benefits, while also creating a new employment-screening restriction related to benefit status. The bill is titled the “Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act,” signaling its intent to shift costs associated with public benefits onto large employers.

Impact

HB 2432 would significantly affect Kansas tax law by imposing a new excise tax on large employers based on the amount of certain federal assistance received by their employees. It would also create a new statutory restriction on employer hiring practices by barring inquiries into applicants’ receipt of the covered benefits. The bill would require administration by the Kansas director of taxation and would dedicate all collected revenue to the state general fund, potentially affecting large employers, low-wage workers who rely on public benefits, and state revenue policy.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to penalize large employers whose workers rely on public assistance, suggesting a policy approach likely to be viewed favorably by supporters of employer accountability and unfavorably by business groups and advocates for low-income workers. The absence of recorded action means the bill’s practical reception cannot be determined from the supplied context.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely to be the tax’s breadth and fairness, the definition of “employee” and “large employer,” and the policy of taxing employers based on benefits received by workers or their families. Employers and business advocates would likely object that the bill effectively taxes companies for employees’ use of safety-net programs and could discourage hiring or increase compliance burdens. Opponents may also raise concerns about privacy and discrimination, though the bill attempts to address that by prohibiting inquiries into applicants’ benefit receipt. Supporters would likely argue that the measure discourages reliance on public benefits by shifting costs to large employers.