Minnesota House Bill HF3171

Minnesota 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/30/23
• Refer: 3/30/23

Caption

Property taxes and individual income taxes modified, first-tier valuation limit for agricultural homestead properties modified, tier limits for homestead resort properties increased, homestead market value exclusion modified, state general levy reduced, unlimited Social Security subtraction allowed, temporary refundable child credit established, and money appropriated.

Impact

Another critical feature of HF3171 is the reduction of the state general levy for commercial-industrial property. This proposed levy will decrease from $716.99 million to $683.91 million for taxes payable in 2024, signifying a tangible impact on state revenue collection from these categories of property. Notably, the bill also establishes an unlimited subtraction for Social Security benefits, designed to alleviate tax burdens on retirees, and introduces a temporary refundable child credit. All these measures collectively showcase an effort to reform Minnesota's tax system to provide economic relief and stimulate growth in certain sectors.

Summary

House File 3171 proposes significant modifications to Minnesota's property and individual income taxes. The bill aims to adjust several aspects of taxation, including increasing the first-tier valuation limit for agricultural homestead properties up to $3.5 million and raising the tier limits for homestead resort properties. Additionally, it introduces changes to the classification of residential properties used for homestead purposes. These adjustments are intended to enhance support for agricultural properties while modifying the obligations of property owners throughout the state.

Contention

While proponents argue that these changes will deliver much-needed relief to farmers and middle-income families, potential criticisms may arise regarding the implications of shifting tax burdens and altering the valuation methodology for properties. Some stakeholders might express concern that such alterations could disproportionately benefit certain demographics while potentially placing a heavier tax burden on other sectors. Additionally, the introduction of a direct payment for eligible residents signifies an increasing emphasis on direct financial support for individuals, which could cause debates regarding the sustainability of such measures in the long term.