Transcript Highlights:

• An access rate, which is based on the percentage of Pell-eligible students, and an affordability rate
• The recommended metrics are a 21% access rate and an affordability rate of $10,149, a graduation rate
• How many institutions are below a 40% passage rate? A 40% passage rate in graduation rate, or?
• rate.
• rate.

Summary: The Higher Education Budget Subcommittee heard and advanced House Bill 1145, which clarifies that public charter schools may participate in the CAP Grant Fund. The bill’s amendment expanded a separate “money-back guarantee” concept for state colleges, requiring participating institutions to offer six eligible programs and refund tuition if graduates do not find qualifying employment within six months under standardized job-search requirements. Members asked about refund rates, student notification, fiscal impact, and whether the proposal accounted for disability or out-of-state job searches. Public testimony on the amendment and bill was in support from Nathan Hoffman of the Foundation for Florida’s Future, and the committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably as a committee substitute by a 16-1 vote, with Representative Aristide voting no over the charter school issue. The committee then received presentations on the William L. Boyd IV Effective Access to Student Education (EASE) Grant and the private nonprofit college sector. Department of Education staff explained that EASE, created in 1979, provides tuition assistance to eligible full-time undergraduates at participating private institutions, with a 2024-25 maximum award of $3,500 and an additional EASE Plus incentive of up to $850 for students in high-demand fields. The department reviewed the program’s funding history, disbursement process, and accountability metrics, including access, affordability, graduation, retention, and postgraduate employment/continuing education. Members asked about award proration, eligibility for other aid, religious-program restrictions, and why some institutions had low or unavailable graduation-rate data. ICUF President Robert Boyd argued that EASE is a strong return on investment and described ICUF institutions as not-for-profit, four-year schools serving many Pell-eligible, adult, military, and minority students. He said the sector produces a significant share of Florida’s bachelor’s, graduate, nursing, and education degrees, and highlighted ICUF’s dashboard with additional transparency metrics, program earnings data, and net price calculators. Boyd and members discussed graduation and completion rates, NCLEX passage rates, affordability, institutional flexibility, and whether schools with lower graduation rates should be compared differently because of their student populations. The presentations ended with no further business, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The legislature determines how the tax base is calculated, and we'll get into the class rates in a couple
• property tax rate to the city's tax base.
• times the city's tax Statewide tax rate times the city's tax basee<00:24:29.720> and<00:24:29.840
• One is a need-based formula, and the other formula is based off of each county's tax base.
• based off of each uh County's tax base based off of each uh County's tax base we'll<00:26:27.960

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Tax Committee met to hear a House Research presentation from Jared Swanson on Minnesota’s property tax system. Before the presentation, the chair announced that the committee would put the governor’s budget on hold until the department could provide the information needed for a proper hearing. The committee then approved the prior meeting minutes without objection. Swanson gave an overview of how property taxes are structured and collected in Minnesota, explaining that the state uses a levy-based system in which local governments set levies and counties collect and distribute payments. He described the property tax cycle, the difference between referendum market value and net tax capacity, and how classification rates shift tax burdens among property types. He also outlined the state general property tax, noting it is split between commercial-industrial property and seasonal recreational property, and reviewed how Minnesota compares with other states, with residential taxes generally around the middle and commercial-industrial taxes relatively higher. The presentation also covered major property tax relief and aid programs. Swanson explained three broad relief mechanisms: shifting burdens through exclusions and classification rates, state-paid credits and refunds, and state aid to local governments or levy reductions. He discussed local government aid (LGA), township aid, and county program aid (CPA), including their funding levels, formulas, and general-purpose nature. Members asked why some cities receive no LGA and how the funds may be used; Swanson said cities with strong tax bases often receive zero aid and that the money generally can be used for the same purposes as property tax revenue. No votes were taken on the presentation itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• RATE WE WOULD SHOW FOR THIS MARKET.
• SO THIS CHART IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF RATES BASED ON THE FOUR LOWEST-PRICED SILVER ON EXCHANGE PLANS FOR
• AND KNOW THAT EACH ONE OF THESE COST IS GOING TO BE INDIVIDUALIZED BASED ON THEIR INCOME, BASED ON THEIR
• POLICY YEAR AND THE RATES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED ARE BASED ON OBVIOUSLY THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE SUBSIDIES
• WELL WE SEE A DECREASE IN THE RATES? LONGER REASONABLE. WELL WE SEE A DECREASE IN THE RATES?

Transcript Highlights:

• the implementation of the alternative methodology-based rate system.
• rates table, as a percentage increase to each rate beginning January 1 of the budget year.
• rate.
• We also see that we must implement the alternative rate methodology now, replacing the outdated market-based
• I concur with our colleagues: the reimbursement rate should not be based on the MIT living wage, not

Summary: The committee took up issue number seven, Child Care Rate Reform Transition Plan, and heard a presentation from the LAO on an eight-part transition plan for the period before implementation of the alternative methodology-based child care rate system. The plan would provide interim rate increases to existing regional market rates and standard reimbursement rates beginning January 1 of the budget year, keep the higher of SRR or ARMR as the single rate, annualize cost-of-care supplements, update hold-harmless language, eliminate the private market cap, authorize one-time systems transition funding with JLBC approval, and require annual reporting on parent co-pays. Members asked about the timeline and public/legislative feedback process, and administration staff said they were working toward the July 1, 2025 deadline while continuing stakeholder engagement through the rate and quality advisory process. Public comment was overwhelmingly focused on child care and early learning funding. Providers, county offices, advocacy groups, and education organizations urged the Legislature to move quickly on the alternative rate methodology, provide interim relief through a cost-of-living adjustment, reimburse based on enrollment rather than attendance, and preserve health and retirement benefits and workforce stability. Many speakers also pressed for funding to expand the promised 200,000 child care slots, warning that waitlists remain long and providers are under financial strain. Several commenters supported maintaining or extending grants and technical assistance for transitional kindergarten, inclusive early education, and mixed-delivery early learning programs. A separate set of comments addressed the Inclusive Early Education Expansion Program, with Sacramento County education officials and others urging a statewide plan that would extend support to the 20 counties not currently receiving grants, especially rural areas. Other speakers raised concerns about facilities and staffing impacts from TK expansion, the need for consistent eligibility rules across subsidized programs, and the importance of statewide systems-level funding. The chair thanked the LAO, administration, and public commenters, said the item would remain open until after the May Revision, and adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• span, with adjustments that increase the base grants for grades K through 3 by 10.4% of the base rate
• and grades 9 through 12 by 2.6% of the base rate.
• funded fully at the base, or the max cap of 2,000 for Rate 2.
• And then also, ...fully at the base, or the max cap of 2,000 for Rate 2.
• the rate based on participation would make it difficult to eventually ramp up to the potential and serve

Summary: The committee heard presentations on the Governor’s education budget proposals for the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), Learning Recovery Block Grant, and Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), followed by testimony from State Board of Education President Linda Darling-Hammond. On LCFF, Finance outlined the proposed 2.43% COLA, repayment of prior deferrals, and a trailer bill penalty for LEAs that fail to adopt Local Control Accountability Plans on time. The LAO said its COLA estimate was slightly lower and raised concerns that the Governor’s proposed TK staffing ratio increase may be more costly than estimated. Members also discussed whether the current COLA formula should better reflect California-specific or district staffing costs, and whether TK should be more clearly separated from the K-3 grade span adjustment to avoid larger K-3 class sizes. The chair asked staff to work with the LAO on both the TK/K-3 issue and alternative COLA calculations. For the Learning Recovery Block Grant, Finance proposed restoring the first of three delayed payments, $378.6 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund, while the LAO recommended adopting the proposal but extending the expenditure deadline by at least a year. The LAO reported that districts had spent $1.6 billion of the $6.8 billion received through 2023-24 and said most districts were only now shifting from federal COVID relief to block grant spending. Members questioned whether the large state and federal investments were improving outcomes, citing declining reading and math trends, while Finance and the State Board president pointed to some signs of improvement, especially in math, attendance, and gains for some student groups. Darling-Hammond emphasized that student needs have grown, that recovery spending has gone to devices, ventilation, staffing, tutoring, summer school, and community schools, and that targeted interventions appear to be helping some districts recover faster than others. On ELOP, Finance proposed adding $435 million to expand universal access by lowering the Tier 1 threshold from 75% to 55% unduplicated pupils, bringing ongoing funding to $4.4 billion. The LAO said the estimate was reasonable but recommended delaying implementation for a year, aligning ELOP with ASES to reduce overlap, moving toward funding based on participation rather than enrollment, and considering a fixed Tier 2 rate. Members and witnesses discussed staffing challenges, the use of funds for students with disabilities, and uncertainty in Tier 2 funding caused by unspent dollars and opt-outs. Darling-Hammond supported ELOP as part of California’s broader after-school and summer learning strategy, said most districts are now offering full-day TK and expanded learning, and urged the state to reduce fragmentation across categorical programs and build more unified systems for funding, reporting, and support.

Transcript Highlights:

• They do that by applying this lower base to a lower rate to a larger base.
• at base broadening but instead raising the rates.
• at base broadening but instead raising the rates.
• at base broadening but instead raising the rates.
• :26.960> the<01:29:27.280> base the rate reduction and the base the rate reduction and

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It takes the rollback rate based on the amount of taxes that you would have levied in the prior year
• So both the proposed millage rate and the proposed taxes at that rate, and the rollback rate information
• , adopted rates, and prior year adopted rates.
• It depends on the growth of your tax base and your individual property, and what that millage rate was
• The property tax rate, not necessarily the millage rate?

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes met for an educational session focused on how Florida funds public schools and how property taxes are assessed and levied. Dr. Jim Zengali of the Department of Revenue explained the FEFP school funding formula, noting that it is built on weighted student counts, a base student allocation, and programmatic add-ons such as transportation, exceptional student education, school safety, and mental health. He said school funding is roughly split between state general revenue and local property taxes through required local effort, with additional discretionary and capital outlay millages contributing to total school funding. He also described the Department of Revenue’s role in certifying property rolls at fair market value and reviewing them for substantial compliance, including the so-called “nuclear option” if a roll is not approved. Members asked about trends in millage rates, county-by-county funding differences, the effect of growth and enrollment changes, and how property appraisals are reviewed. Zengali said aggregate millage for school funding has declined over the last decade while revenues have still increased, and he agreed to provide additional data on county trends, parcel strata, student growth, and enrollment impacts. He also clarified that school funding is equalized so students receive similar resources regardless of county wealth, and that federal funding plays only a small role in the FEFP. Amy Baker of the Joint Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research then discussed existing homestead benefits. She said about half of Florida’s parcels are homestead properties, most fall in the $250,000 to $500,000 value range, and many seniors without mortgages pay property taxes in lump sums rather than through escrow. Baker explained that Florida’s homestead tax burden is middle-of-the-pack nationally and that the main benefits are Save Our Homes and portability on the differential side, plus the $25,000 homestead exemption and related exemptions on the exemption side. She said these benefits reduce taxable value substantially, with homestead properties receiving a large share of the reductions, and noted that the committee requested follow-up data on exemption usage, portability timing, senior exemptions, and county-level patterns. The final presentation, by Lizette Kelly of the Department of Revenue, covered millage rates and the TRIM process. She reviewed the history of truth-in-millage notices, required taxpayer mailings, public hearing notices, and later changes that tied local millage resets to rollback and majority-vote rates. Kelly explained the difference between proposed and adopted millage, the rollback rate, and the majority-vote rate, and described how taxing authorities include counties, cities, special districts, and MSTUs. She also outlined how county taxable value is calculated from just value through assessment differentials and exemptions, and how certain exemptions, such as the additional senior exemption, apply only to the taxing authority that adopted them. No votes were taken during the meeting, but members requested several follow-up data reports for later discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Florida's rate of pre-term deliveries fluctuate us over this time frame, though in 2023 2023 rates have
• With 2020 2022. 2023 rates below the 2019 rate.
• While Florida Medicaid rates for this measure have remained below the national rates.
• While Florida's rate dropped by 6 percentage points, the national rate improve more than Florida's and
• complex value-based purchasing model.

Transcript Highlights:

• grade span, with adjustments that increase the base grants for grades K-3 by 10.4% of the base rate,
• and grades 9 through 12 by 2.6% of the base rate.
• 55% to 65% funding rate.
• fully funded at the base or the max cap of two thousand for Rate 2.
• 1 and Rate 2 going back to Rate 2.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• App-based companies use a business model across the world that is based on skirting those employment
• What is the rate on mechanics and what is the rate presently for body work?
• rate is, not one that's based on contractual arrangements between insurance companies, which are based
• Stark represented, again, it is based on an already substandard rate. Great.
• Again, it is based on an already substandard rate.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Financial Services Committee heard testimony on several insurance, transportation, and labor-related bills. Senator Edwards supported bills addressing app-based delivery workers, arguing that food-delivery drivers should be treated as employees with protections and mileage reimbursement, and that a small surcharge on app-based deliveries could raise revenue for the Commonwealth and localities. Kevin Brousseau of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO also backed the delivery-worker bill, saying it would preserve employee status, add data transparency, and create a process for challenging deactivations. MAPC supported a bill to change transportation network company fees from a flat per-ride charge to a percentage-based assessment, saying the current fee is outdated and that a higher fee could raise more transportation revenue and help address congestion and emissions. A large portion of the hearing focused on auto insurance and collision repair issues. Insurance industry witnesses supported a bill to limit attorney’s fees in PIP cases by giving insurers 30 days after a complaint is served to pay amounts due without fee exposure, arguing that PIP litigation has surged, is clogging courts, and is being driven by out-of-state firms. They also opposed auto body labor-rate bills, saying the market is already adjusting and that a statutory floor is unnecessary. In contrast, auto body shop representatives and the Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of Massachusetts urged favorable action on bills to raise and regularly update collision repair labor rates, saying current reimbursement levels are far below market, have not kept pace with inflation or vehicle technology, and are making it hard to retain workers and keep small shops open. One witness also supported a bill to limit insurance surcharge points for low-damage accidents or minor moving violations. Committee members asked questions about deactivation rights for delivery workers, the mechanics of the PIP litigation issue, and the gap between body-shop and mechanical labor rates. Testimony emphasized that current auto body reimbursement rates are around the mid-$40s per hour, while mechanical work can be reimbursed at much higher rates, and that advisory-board discussions have produced only limited progress. At the end of the hearing, the chairs asked if anyone else wished to testify, then moved to close the hearing; the motion was seconded and approved unanimously.

Transcript Highlights:

• community- based? community- based?
• Uh, the rate study.
• rates funded established by the rate rates funded established by the rate study.<01:33:31.520>
• of the benchmark rate. of the benchmark rate.
• /c><01:36:30.560> do the rate in the rate study has to do the rate in the rate study has to do

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight Advisory Board’s fourth meeting focused primarily on a presentation from University of Kentucky and University of Louisville health leaders about the state university directed payment program. Mark Birdwhistle and Ken Marshall described the program as a long-running, value-based Medicaid arrangement that began in 2019, uses university-provided matching funds rather than provider taxes, and ties a portion of payments to quality outcomes. They said the program has improved measures such as tobacco cessation, diabetes control, depression screening, and cancer screening, while supporting access to specialty care, medical education, and workforce training. They also emphasized that Kentucky’s model is nationally notable and has helped improve health rankings and generate cost savings. A major topic was the federal reconciliation bill signed July 4, which the presenters said will reduce directed payments by 10% annually for 10 years beginning in 2028. UL Health estimated a first-year loss of about $75 million and a cumulative loss of about $600 million over the decade; UK estimated about $100 million in the first year, for a combined first-year impact of roughly $175 million. Both speakers warned the cuts could affect access to care, training capacity, and the sustainability of Kentucky’s value-based model, though they expressed hope that congressional action could alter or delay the changes. They also noted that 340B drug pricing changes could further strain already thin operating margins, but did not provide exact figures during the meeting. Committee members responded positively to the program’s reported outcomes and the institutions’ role in Kentucky health care. Senator Berg praised the quality of care and shared a personal example of being advised to stay at UofL for breast cancer treatment. Representative Moer highlighted Kentucky’s strong cancer-control score and asked for more explanation of the value-based payment structure; the presenters said the system is built around ongoing measurement, accountability, and collaboration with the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the amended August 27 minutes by voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is paying one rate in this state and it's the rate at the location that they're at.
• tax rates.
• It's destination-based. We think it should be both destination-based.
• I use the sales tax rate of historical Because we are in an origin-based state, I use the sales tax
• rate of historically 8.35% in Prescott to determine what my sales tax rate is.

Bills: HB2143, HB2273, HB2290, HB2373, HB2784, HB2794, HB4037

Keywords: public safety, retirement system, investments, trust fund, board of trustees, financial report, income tax rebate, Pinal County, taxpayer eligibility, state revenue, financial assistance, transaction privilege tax, business location, tangible personal property, shared vehicle, sourcing, income tax, veterans, donations, tax refunds

Summary: The House Ways and Means Committee first set aside House Bill 2794 at the sponsor’s request and then took up House Bill 2290, which would clarify Arizona transaction privilege tax sourcing rules for tangible personal property by specifying that an order is received at a seller’s business location and that server location does not control sourcing. The sponsor said the bill codifies existing, historic treatment and would provide certainty for taxpayers, while the League of Arizona Cities and Towns opposed it, arguing it would be a major departure from current practice, could shift revenue away from rural communities, and could create multiple tax rates for a single transaction. The Department of Revenue said it was neutral, acknowledged ongoing ambiguity and administrative complexity, and explained that a 2023 draft ruling had been based on a legal analysis but was never finalized. Several business and association witnesses supported the bill as necessary to prevent inconsistent audits and to preserve origin-based sourcing for in-state sellers. After extended debate, the committee passed HB 2290 on a 5-3 vote, with one member absent. The committee then heard House Bill 2373, which would add a space on the individual income tax return for taxpayers to voluntarily direct part of a refund to the Veterans Donations Fund or a veterans service organization fund. The sponsor and a representative of veterans advocacy groups described it as a simple, voluntary way to support veterans organizations and local projects. No opposition was raised, and the bill was approved unanimously by the members present, 8-0, with one absent. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 2143, a technical change to Public Safety Personnel Retirement System law that would limit the 5% ownership cap to publicly traded corporations. PSPRS representatives said the change would reduce compliance costs and avoid unnecessary workarounds while maintaining existing investment safeguards and diversification rules. Members discussed that ASRS does not have the same cap and that PSPRS already has broader limits on concentration risk. The bill was presented as an administrative cleanup measure, and discussion focused on clarifying that it would not increase investment risk.

Transcript Highlights:

• That was more based on just traditional rate making, those rate increases.
• That was more based on just traditional rate making, those rate increases.
• That was more based on just traditional rate making, those rate increases.
• That was more based on just traditional rate making, those rate increases.
• That was more based on just traditional rate making, those rate increases.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The enacting legislation allowed for adjustment to premium rates based on an actuarial analysis if the
• The enacting legislation allowed for adjustment to premium rates based on an actuarial analysis if the
• The enacting legislation allowed for adjustment to premium rates based on an actuarial analysis if the
• The enacting legislation allowed for adjustment to premium rates based on an actuarial analysis if the
• The enacting legislation allowed for adjustment to premium rates based on an actuarial analysis if the

Bills: HF3

Keywords: legislative auditor, reporting, accountability, state finance, executive agency oversight, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So, for the purposes of our analysis, we’re going to assume it’s reducing all base rates to 4%.
• If you pay the surtax and the base rate, that would be your top marginal rate.
• If you pay the surtax and the base rate, that would be your top marginal rate.
• I would urge the legislature to implement this broad-based rate reduction.
• We estimate that based on the historical average rate of revenue growth.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state’s tax collection cap/62F process so it would be based on prior-year collections plus wage growth and include surtax revenue. The committee chair and House co-chair outlined the hearing process, and the first witness was Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, who testified as the committee’s subject-matter expert on both measures. He said the income tax proposal would lower taxes broadly but would reduce state revenue by about $5.4 billion when fully implemented, with an estimated $800 million hit in FY27, and he discussed possible effects on competitiveness, taxpayer savings, and public finances. On the 62F proposal, he said the revised cap would make refunds more likely, could have produced several large refunds in recent years, and would reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions. Committee members questioned Howgate about competitiveness, outmigration, prior tax ballot measures, spending growth, MassHealth, and the interaction between the income tax and surtax. He emphasized that taxes are only one part of the state’s overall competitiveness and that housing, public services, and other factors also matter. He also noted that the surtax is constitutionally restricted but can still support ongoing spending choices. After his testimony, the committee moved to the proponents’ panel. Proponents of both initiatives, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, the National Federation of Independent Business, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that the measures would improve affordability, help retain residents and businesses, and support job growth. They cited polling support, outmigration, small-business reinvestment, and comparisons to lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, said her model showed smaller revenue losses than critics claim and projected that the revised revenue cap would not create additional annual revenue losses while producing more regular taxpayer refunds. Committee members pressed the panel on competitiveness, prior ballot initiative implementation, and whether the measures would actually address broader affordability pressures; the hearing ended with the committee continuing to take questions from the proponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• The taxing units are required to calculate their tax rates based off of the budget.
• And our school districts have made their budgets and set their taxing rate based on someone else's numbers
• On the appraisal districts numbers yes they would have set their Budgets and their tax rates based on
• So they have, they have based their, their best guess, they've done their best work to set a tax rate
• What their tax rates are going to be based on compression. I'm not 100% sure how that works.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Many taxes have rates set as a percentage of the base, and some taxes have graduated rates.
• the base times the rate may be reduced by tax credits.
• base increasing the rate broadening the base increasing the rate limiting<00:09:37.120> deductions
• base decreasing a rate narrowing a tax base decreasing a rate expanding<00:09:48.959> a<00:09
• For sales and use tax, the combined state sales tax rate is 6.85%, where 6.5% is the base sales tax rate

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Tax Committee met for an organizational and orientation session. Members and staff introduced themselves, with several lawmakers noting their districts, business backgrounds, and interest in tax policy. Chair Greg Davids then opened the committee’s first substantive item: a presentation from House Research and House Fiscal staff on how the committee works and on basic tax concepts. House Research staff Sean Williams and Chris Clayman explained their roles in drafting bills and amendments, writing bill summaries, answering legal and policy questions, and modeling tax proposals. They also described the committee’s key documents, including partisan and nonpartisan bill summaries, revenue estimates, fiscal notes, and supporting materials. Their presentation covered core tax concepts such as tax bases, rates, deductions, exemptions, credits, tax revenues, and tax expenditures, emphasizing that tax expenditures function like spending through the tax code and are reviewed by a legislative commission. The staff then reviewed Minnesota’s major taxes, focusing on the individual income tax and business taxation. They explained that Minnesota’s individual income tax starts with federal adjusted gross income, then applies state additions, deductions, subtractions, and credits, and that the state’s income tax brackets and rates are set separately from federal law. They also outlined the difference between corporate franchise taxes for C corporations and individual income tax treatment for pass-through entities, and discussed how the federal SALT cap led Minnesota and other states to adopt pass-through entity taxes so businesses could preserve federal deductibility of state taxes. Members asked questions about a duplicate “marriage penalty” entry on a slide, the purpose of Minnesota’s marriage penalty credit, comparisons with other states, and the timing and effect of the pass-through entity tax; staff answered that the duplicate was a mistake, the credit offsets bracket-related marriage penalties, and the pass-through entity tax was adopted in response to the federal SALT cap.

Transcript Highlights:

• I just want to mention that these payment error penalty rates are going to be based in 2028.
• They'll be based on either your 2025 error rate or 2026 error rate.
• <00:53:10.760> in penalty rates are going to be based in penalty rates are going to be based
• 2028, they'll be based on either your 2025<00:53:13.880> error<00:53:14.160> rate<00:53
• So, 2025 error rate or 2026 error rate.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• bases a property type is subject to, exclusions, and credits can all affect those effective tax rates
• c> property<01:11:23.159> type rates um which tax bases a property type rates um which tax
• Changes in aid reductions or rates are compounded for smaller tax bases.
• Changes in aid reductions or rates are compounded for smaller tax bases.
• Changes in aid reductions or rates are compounded for smaller tax bases.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The rate was 12%.
• a lower rate and higher income individuals at a higher rate.
• We have a formula-based tax rate, so it's really hard to pin down exactly what. What the rate is?
• Rate is preferred to a narrow tax base with a high rate.
• The chart there showed that the broad base and lower rate was effective.