Senate committee advances income tax cut, critics warn it will deepen service shortfalls

Senate Bill 8, a proposal to cut the top individual income tax rate to 4.4%, reduce the corporate rate to 4.8% and offer a $150 refundable credit per taxpayer, was advanced by the Senate Revenue & Tax committee after public testimony largely opposed the measure.

Senator Dismain, sponsor of the bill, told committee members the proposal would "lower the individual income tax top rate to 4.4%" and reduce the corporate rate to 4.8%, while providing a $150 credit that phases out beginning at $89,600 for single filers and at $179,200 for married filers. The sponsor said the change would "benefit all taxpayers above $24,300" and framed the measure as part of a broader effort to attract jobs and grow wages.

Opponents at the committee hearing urged caution. Candy Webb of Rural Community Alliance told senators the Positive Youth Development Act (Act 166 of 2011) has never received dedicated funding and warned that winding down of federal rescue funds leaves "more than 10,000 K–12 students" statewide without after‑school supports. Laura Kellams of Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families cited what she said were about "$1.6 billion" in personal income tax cuts enacted over the last decade and argued further reductions would reduce resources for foster care, early‑childhood programs and other child and family services. "Before you look to pass another tax cut, I ask you to take a hard look at our state's needs," Kellams said.

Other witnesses raised related concerns. Bill Kopski of the Arkansas Public Policy Panel said the bill would "lavish the vast majority of the benefits on upper income Arkansans" and leave fewer resources for investments such as pre‑K and rural economic development. Christian Adcock of Disability Rights Arkansas said people with disabilities rely on services — from direct care to transit and crisis diversion — that require stable funding and urged lawmakers to "slow down" additional tax reductions until the costs of recent legislation are better understood. Debbie Goolsby, who said she personally would benefit from the proposal, testified she opposed it because she preferred public investment that makes Arkansas "a more safe, kinder, gentler place where all Arkansans can thrive."

After sponsors closed, a motion to report SB 8 "do pass as amended" was made, seconded and carried by voice vote; no roll‑call tally was recorded in the hearing transcript. Committee action advances the bill to the next legislative step but does not finalize changes; any fiscal impacts identified in public testimony or fiscal notes will be addressed in subsequent legislative processes.

The committee record shows the comment period included several organizations and advocates urging investment in education, rural infrastructure and social services instead of additional tax cuts; sponsors argued the changes will broaden Arkansas' appeal to employers and benefit taxpayers above specified income thresholds. The committee did not record individual roll‑call votes in the transcript provided.