COLUMBUS, Ohio — In the state capital, where political ambitions collide with budget realities, Ohio Republican senators have proposed a bold yet controversial plan: to implement a flat income tax rate of 2.75%, which predominantly benefits the wealthiest residents of the state. This move is estimated to cost Ohio’s overall revenue fund a whopping $1.1 billion — a price critics fear will be paid by ordinary residents through cuts to critically important services. As America struggles with economic inequality, this plan at the heart of the industrial Midwest raises the question: can a state prosper by cutting taxes for the rich at the expense of schools, healthcare programs, and children’s safety?
A Plan Dividing the State
The proposal, led by Senate President Rob McColly, a Republican from Napoleon, suggests lowering the tax for those earning over $100,000 from the current 3.5% to 2.75%, aligning it with the rate for the middle class. For Ohio, where the median household income is around $68,000, this change means a modest benefit for most but significant savings for the elite. According to independent organization Policy Matters Ohio, multi-millionaires could receive tax cuts of up to $10,000 a year, while a typical worker would save only a few hundred dollars.
“This isn’t about fairness,” says Bailey Williams, a Policy Matters Ohio researcher and Columbus resident whose income is far from six figures. “I owe my success to public education. But will my younger brothers and sisters have the same opportunities if we cut funding for schools?” His analysis shows that losing $1.1 billion will force the state either to raise regressive taxes, like sales tax, which disproportionately hits poorer families, or to cut spending on education, Medicaid, libraries, food banks, and child care services.
The Senate’s budget already anticipates cuts. Medicaid funding, supporting 3.5 million Ohio residents, will decrease by 4%, which, according to the Legislative Service Commission, will lead to multimillion-dollar losses. Lead poisoning prevention programs that protect children from toxic old buildings in cities like Cleveland and Cincinnati will also be affected. The governor’s proposal to expand child care subsidies for families earning up to 160% of the federal poverty line was scaled back to the current 145%, leaving thousands of parents without support.
Republican Defenders
McColly, the architect of the plan, insists that a flat tax will stimulate economic growth. “Tax cuts attract companies and create jobs,” he said in an interview, referencing Ohio’s previous tax reforms. “This isn’t about benefits for the wealthy but about level playing fields for everyone.” He predicts that an influx of business will offset revenue losses, pointing to neighboring states like Indiana, where lower taxes have encouraged investment.
However, skeptics, including economists from Ohio State University, doubt these promises. “Trickle-down theory rarely works,” says economics professor David Blau. “Tax cuts for the rich often lead to deficits rather than a boom.” Data from Kansas, where a similar experiment in 2012 caused a budget crisis, add weight to the criticism. In 2017, Kansas repealed its tax cuts to restore funding for schools and roads.
McColly dismisses accusations that key programs will be cut. “Medicaid spending is growing too quickly,” he said, though he did not specify how a 4% reduction would not impact access to medical care. “He claims that funding for lead poisoning prevention was ‘extremely substantial,’ and that child care remained at previous levels. But the governor’s proposal cuts have left a significant gap for working families.”
Community Voices
For residents like Williams, these arguments sound hollow. “No multi-millionaire needs a tax break at the expense of children’s health,” he says. “Lead poisoning is not an abstract; it’s a real threat in our old cities.” On X (formerly Twitter), community sentiment reflects the split: some praise the Republicans for ‘smart savings’ (@OhioTaxPayer25), while others accuse them of ‘robbing the middle class’ (@ColumbusMom).
The debates in Columbus mirror a broader national struggle. After Donald Trump’s return to the White House in 2024, Republicans in Congress are pushing to extend his 2017 tax cuts, which, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, added $1.9 trillion to the federal deficit. In Republican-controlled states like Ohio, similar initiatives are gaining momentum but face opposition. A recent post on X from @OhioSenateGOP praising the “fair flat tax” garnered thousands of comments, ranging from support to angry calls to preserve school funding.
What’s Ahead
Budget negotiations will continue through the end of June, when Ohio’s Senate and House of Representatives must agree on a final version. The House, also controlled by Republicans, has proposed its own plan, including less radical tax changes but still maintaining cuts to social programs. Governor Mike DeWine, a moderate Republican, may veto certain provisions, although his influence is limited by the Republican supermajority in the legislative bodies.
For Ohio, a state with a rich industrial history but uneven economic recovery, the choice is clear but painful. Will tax breaks for the rich bring the promised prosperity or leave communities like Columbus and Dayton fighting for leftovers? “It’s not just about numbers,” Williams says, looking at the state Capitol. “It’s about what kind of state we want to be.” As Ohio prepares for a decisive vote, the whole country watches to see whether this experiment will serve as a model for others or serve as a warning.
