Photo by: Office of the Governor of Kansas
Gov. Laura Kelly ceremoniously signs the bipartisan tax cut package passed in June in Olathe on Wednesday, August 28, 2024. At left is State Sen. Robert Olson, R-Olathe.
Governor Laura Kelly ceremoniously signed the bipartisan tax cut package that went into effect earlier this summer in Olathe on Wednesday.
“Kansas residents can expect significant tax cuts and can be assured that they will not jeopardize our ability to continue to fully fund essential services,” Kelly said. “This bipartisan bill delivers the tax relief that Kansans needed, deserved and our state could afford.”
Senate Bill 1, which passed with bipartisan support and was signed by Kelly in June, would provide nearly $2 billion in tax cuts for Kansas residents over the next five years. The bill eliminates state taxes on Social Security income and is expected to save Kansas retirees $152 million in the first year, according to the governor’s office.
The law also cuts property taxes by increasing the residential property tax exemption to $75,000. Residential property owners will save more than $236 million over five years. In addition, the law cuts income taxes while increasing the flat-rate exemption and the child care and dependent care tax exemption.
State Senator Robert Olson (R-Olathe) appeared with Kelly at the signing on Wednesday. Olson, who is not seeking re-election this year, said in June that the compromise bill, while not ideal, was a step in the right direction.
“By responsibly reducing property and income taxes, we are implementing comprehensive tax cuts that will be felt by all Kansas residents,” Olson said Wednesday. “I’m proud to have worked with Governor Kelly and lawmakers from both parties to get this bipartisan package across the finish line.”
The bill passed the House with a large bipartisan majority. Kelly had called the bill in after vetoing three previous tax cut plans, and the House’s regular session ended on May 1. Republican leaders negotiating with her office warned their colleagues that they would risk another veto if they made changes – and they didn’t.
