Louisiana House Bill HB284

Louisiana 2017 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/30/17
• Refer: 3/30/17
• Refer: 4/10/17

Caption

Reduces rates of the tax levied on individual income tax (OR -$22,650,000 GF RV See Note)

Impact

The introduction of HB 284 has potential wide-reaching implications on state tax revenues. The expected decrease in income tax rates may result in an estimated reduction of approximately $22.65 million in general fund revenue per year. This reduction could affect the state's ability to fund various services and programs that rely on tax revenue. Discussions surrounding the bill indicated varied opinions on how such tax cuts could impact state budgeting and fiscal responsibility in the long run.

Summary

House Bill 284 proposes to significantly reduce individual income tax rates in Louisiana, lowering existing rates of 2%, 4%, and 6% to 1%, 3%, and 5% respectively. This reduction applies to specific income brackets, aiming to provide tax relief to Louisiana residents. The bill is set to impact taxable periods beginning January 1, 2018, if an accompanying constitutional amendment is adopted. The overall intent behind these adjustments is to alleviate the tax burden on individuals, which proponents argue will enhance financial wellbeing and stimulate spending within the economy.

Sentiment

Supporters of HB 284 view it as a necessary step towards a more favorable financial environment for individual taxpayers in Louisiana. They argue that reducing tax rates can lead to increased disposable income for residents, thereby boosting consumer spending and potentially benefiting local businesses. Conversely, critics of the bill express concerns over the potential for reduced state revenue, which might undermine funding for essential public services and programs. This division highlights a broader debate over the balance between tax relief and the need for adequate state funding.

Contention

Notable points of contention arose regarding the sustainability of the proposed tax cuts and their long-term effects on the state's budget. While proponents assert that economic growth can offset the initial revenue loss, opponents highlight the risks of relying on increased consumer spending as a remedy for budget shortfalls. The conflicting views emphasize the challenge of fiscal management within the state, particularly in light of the potential constitutional amendment required for the bill to take effect.