Proposed regulations in Michigan could have a major impact on the state's tourism industry. The series of 10 bills introduced by House Democrats would do more to regulate short-term rentals.

The proposals include a 6% tax on rentals of 15 days or more, increased safety requirements for things like smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors, and a $100 annual registration fee per listing.

Erika Farley, executive director of the Rental Property Owners Association of Kent County, said she has concerns - especially about the additional tax.

"We are looking for more parity along with the hotel industry, basically," said Farley. "The 6% excise tax, along with the other taxes, would actually be a higher tax - anywhere between 5% and 7% for short-term rentals - than it would for an actual, traditional hotel."

Farley added that short-term rentals aren't just for tourists - they're also an affordable option for professionals who need a temporary place to stay while in town on business.

In New Buffalo, a lakefront community with a population of about 1,800, Mayor John Humphrey said he doesn't agree with every aspect of the bills - but he's all for taxing short-term rentals.

Humphrey said his community has suffered for year due to what he calls the "gigantic" unrecovered tourism costs generated by these rentals - including negative affects on roads, sewer, water, and other public infrastructure.

"Every short-term rental has a residential use of 10 - residential use means the number of people that use the home - where a standard residence is only 2.2," said Humphrey. "And those costs are not recovered because there are no excise taxes, there are no use taxes, there are no lodging taxes on short-term rental."

If passed, the legislation could generate between $35 and $70 million. Backers say that money would be distributed to the local governments where the rental properties are located.

The bills have been referred to the Committee on Local Government and Municipal Finance.

New York legislation can address growing anti-trust concerns. The 21st Century Anti-Trust Act updates the state's aged anti-trust laws and closes loopholes companies have abused. This comes as an Institute for Local Self-Reliance report finds corporations in New York and nationwide leverage structural racism and use other tactics to establish market dominance.

Susan Holmberg, associate director for research with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, said one such tactic is stripping communities of local businesses and basic services.

"So, a lot of monopolies, they're just trying to edge out smaller competitors, but by doing that they're wiping out independent businesses that are much more well suited to serve communities of color, often because they live in these communities and their incentives are so different," she explained.

Other patterns Holmberg identifies are imposing high prices and substandard services on areas with no alternatives and exploiting workers of color. Some oppose the bill, saying it's anti-business and anti-consumer, while others say it favors competitors over competition. But Holmberg noted these trends aren't limited to companies such as Amazon. They're economy-wide trends also in the banking, waste, pharmaceutical and grocery industries.

Federal bills can also aid national antitrust practices. The Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act gives federal enforcers the necessary resources to do their jobs and strengthens prohibitions on anticompetitive conduct and mergers. Other federal antitrust work is building a foundation to rein in monopolies, Holmberg said.

"They're really reorienting and returning antitrust to its original intent, how the laws were written which is about dispersing economic power, promoting fair competition and enhancing community self-determination," she added.

She said this is also about safeguarding financial liberties for people in the United States. But, some of the biggest hurdles to this are limited resources for agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and political challenges like a divided Congress.

New Yorkers could see detrimental impacts from a proposed federal budget.

The Republican Study Committee's proposed 2025 budget calls for sweeping cuts some experts feel are not fiscally responsible. It comes as congressional Republicans are calling for trimming government spending. Part of the budget extends Trump-era tax breaks benefiting corporations and wealthy people.

Hae-Lin Choi, District 1 political director for the Communication Workers of America, said tax policy is a top issue for the union's New York members.

"The consequences that we have seen from the devastating corporate tax cuts have been really real for our members," Choi emphasized. "AT&T got a $20 billion windfall and ended up laying off 23,000 members."

The company actually got $42 billion from Trump tax cuts. New York Republican Representatives Nicholas Langworthy, Nicole Malliotakis, Elise Stefanik, Claudia Tenney, Brandon Williams and Nick LaLota are all study committee members who support the budget. Choi argued their budget does not show the lessons of the pandemic have been learned, noting more public service investments are necessary.

The proposed budget aims to cut spending by around $17 trillion and Americans' taxes by more than $4 trillion over a decade.

Porter McConnell, senior director of the Take on Wall Street Project for the group Americans for Financial Reform, noted it would come at a price. Large tax breaks mean making up the revenue in other ways. She said certain public programs will be taking a hit.

"They propose cutting $1.5 trillion in Social Security, and they propose to do that by raising the retirement age to 69 and by lowering the benefits you get when you do retire," McConnell explained. "Basically they're taking money from seniors and redistributing it to corporations and the super rich."

The study committee's proposal slashes funds for the Departments of Education and Labor. However, it calls for increases to the Department of Defense, which has a budget seven times the combined amount the U.S. spends on education and labor.

Leaders of some nonprofit organizations in Arkansas are not happy with a recent tax cut package passed by the Legislature.

The law reduces the tax rate for people who make more than $25,000 a year. The corporate tax rate was also reduced from 4.8% percent to 4.3%. Opponents of the cuts said they only benefit the wealthy.

Syard Evans, CEO of the Arkansas Support Network and co-chair of the Arkansas Coalition for Strong Families, said elected officials are not addressing issues affecting quality of life services for Arkansans and they are concerned the cuts will affect programs.

"Day in and day out we face the challenges of people not having enough resources to meet their basic needs," Evans pointed out. "And to really live a legitimate quality of life that we want and expect for all of our citizens."

Supporters of the tax cuts said Arkansas is expected to have a surplus of more than $700 million annually and community programs will not be affected.

The new rates are retroactive to Jan. 1 and the action mean Arkansas has one of the lowest tax rates in the South. It also has the highest maternal mortality rate in the nation, the second-highest teen pregnancy rate, and the third-highest infant mortality rate. Evans argued the cuts reduce money that could go to programs addressing childhood poverty or incentives for affordable housing.

"It's not even to say that the tax cuts don't need to happen," Evans emphasized. "What we're saying is that in order for things like that to happen we have to be responsible for meeting the needs that the state is obligated to meet."

The tax cut legislation requires almost $300 million to be put into an emergency fund in case the money is needed to make up for any revenue shortfalls.


get more stories like this via email