Huntsville grocery shoppers react to lowering of Grocery Tax
On Thursday, News 19 stopped by a grocery store in Huntsville to see how shoppers are feeling about this news.
'It's a good thing, you know, anytime they lower the cost for consumers, I'm happy with it,' said Tim Bright. He was one of many shoppers that News 19 spoke with who seemed to be excited by the change.
Bright said this may bring a little relief to his wallet, as the prices of groceries have soared.
📲 to stay updated on the go. 📧 to have news sent to your inbox.
'You get sticker shock,' he said about walking into a grocery store. 'You go to the store and you're going like 'Where have I been?''
The sales tax change comes as both the Alabama House and Senate voted earlier this week to lower the statewide Grocery Tax. The new 2% rate will go into effect on Sept. 1 if signed by Governor Kay Ivey.
A spokesperson for Governor Ivey's Office did not provide News 19 with a timeline for when she will sign it into law. However, the spokesperson said, 'The bill now goes before the governor for her signature.'
The non-profit, public policy group Alabama Arise showed support for the bill, saying it 'will improve life for every Alabamian.'
Executive Director Robyn Hyden told News 19 that it will help families save money.
'It does mean for the average Alabama family, another $150 a year that they get to hold on to,' she said.
Hyden said it is a good move, especially for lower-income and working families.
'You know, everyone has to buy food, and as a result, poor people are disproportionately taxed via these sales taxes,' Hyden said.
The Alabama Legislature already lowered the Grocery Tax from 4% to 3% in 2023.
However, Hyden said that Alabama Arise would like to see that percentage disappear altogether.
'We still are, you know, wanting to finally get rid of all of the state sales tax on food,' she said.
Shopper Tim Bright said he wouldn't mind that either.
'Anytime they want to lower them, go ahead,' he said about the grocery tax.
Food City just opened the doors of its newest north Alabama location off of Old Gurley Road in northwest Huntsville.
Store Manager Michael West said he thinks his customers will appreciate the lower sales tax.
'Having that extra percentage knocked off is going to be a real saver for a lot of people,' West said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Treasury has ‘got the balance right' on taxing wealthy, says Reeves
The Treasury has 'got the balance right' on tax, Rachel Reeves said, as she faced questions about Labour calls to weigh up a wealth tax. The Chancellor said tax decisions would be announced at a future budget 'in the appropriate way', after former minister Anneliese Dodds said it was 'important' for the Government to consider evidence set out by the Wealth Tax Commission. Ms Dodds, who resigned as a Foreign Office minister in February over the Government's decision to cut overseas aid to fund a defence spending boost, said the commission's work 'has changed the debate'. Ms Reeves told the PA news agency: 'In the budget last year, we got rid of the non-domicile status in our tax system, so people who make Britain their home have to pay their taxes here. 'We introduced increased taxes on private jets, on second homes, and increased capital gains tax, so I think we've got the balance right in terms of how we tax those with the broadest shoulders, but any further decisions will be ones that are made at a budget in the normal way.' Asked about Ms Dodds' suggestion, the Chancellor had earlier said: 'Decisions around tax are decisions that are made at a budget and we'll make those decisions in the appropriate way, but the number-one priority of this Government is to grow the economy. 'And that means bringing more investment into Britain, creating more good jobs paying decent wages here in Britain. 'We've got to get the balance right on taxation because we want that investment, we want those jobs to come here. 'That's why we're reforming the planning system, secured three trade deals in the first year of this Labour Government, cutting back on unnecessary regulation, and reforming our pension system to unlock money for businesses to be able to invest here in the UK.' Speaking to Sky News' Electoral Dysfunction, Ms Dodds said this week that the Wealth Tax Commission 'looked at the operation of lots of different wealth tax, they looked at all of that evidence and set out how it would be possible to deliver something like that in a UK context'. The Oxford East MP added: 'I would hope that the Treasury is considering that kind of evidence as well as other changes that have been put forward. 'We've seen the deputy leader of the Labour Party, for example, put forward suggestions. I think it's important for all of those to be considered now.' On Ms Reeves' approach to welfare, Ms Dodds called for a 'longer-term approach' and said: 'An attempt was made to deal with a quite immediate problem, but I don't think you can, particularly via cuts, actually deliver the kind of fiscal room that is necessary.'
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Should the UK introduce a wealth tax? Yahoo Finance UK readers have their say
At the start of the week we asked whether you thought the UK should introduce a wealth tax. The idea has resurfaced recently as a potential way for chancellor Rachel Reeves to plug a hole in public finances. Former Labour minister Anneliese Dodds recently argued that it was important for the government to consider evidence set out by the Wealth Tax Commission, which looked at whether such a tax would be desirable and deliverable in the UK. Read more: UK set to lose 16,500 millionaires this year as non-dom status ends Top economists went a step further, saying Reeves and UK prime minister Keir Starmer should prepare Britain for a wealth tax as the measure could help tackle rising inequality. Our poll received 3,231 votes. The results were relatively split, with 44% believing that a wealth tax was the right move for the UK, while 51% disagreed and 5% were undecided on the matter. Read more: Europe's most expensive city revealed, as living costs near £3,500 per month IMF wants Bank of England to ease interest rates 'gradually' The big tax change set to push vulnerable people out of workSign in to access your portfolio
Forbes
7 hours ago
- Forbes
Inside The Republican's Battle To Roll Back New Tax Disclosure Rules
Starting in 2025, corporations will undergo a seismic shift in the tax information they disclose to the public. Under Accounting Standards Update 2023-09, corporations must now provide enhanced tax information in their annual financial statements that includes a more specific rate reconciliation, more disaggregated disclosure of where companies pay their taxes, and additional qualitative information explaining their tax function. While this increased tax disclosure is music to the ears of many investors and external stakeholders who have long been demanding more tax transparency, it has recently met a roadblock from House Republicans. This article discusses the new requirements of ASU 2023-09 and analyzes the unusual battle between the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the legislative branch. Accounting Standard Update 2023-09 On December 14, 2023, the FASB issued ASU 2023-09, marking the largest change to tax disclosures in public company financial statements since FIN 48 in 2007. The primary goal of this new standard is to 'enhance the transparency and decision usefulness of the income tax disclosures.' These new requirements go into effect for companies with a fiscal-year end after December 15, 2025, meaning a large swath of public companies will need to comply with the new disclosure requirements starting this year. The key changes involve more disclosure of their tax activities. They can be broken out into two key components. First, public companies must now disclose annually the specific categories of their rate reconciliation and provide additional information for reconciling items that meet quantitative thresholds. The rate reconciliation is an existing disclosure that takes the statutory tax rate (currently 21%) and creates a roadmap from that statutory rate to the effective tax rate to which the company actually pays for taxes. For instance, in 2023, Apple reported an effective tax rate of 14.7%. This means that even though the corporate tax rate is 21%, Apple paid several percent lower, resulting in billions of dollars in savings. Specifically, Apple's expected tax based on the corporate tax rate was $23,885 million. The rate reconciliation shows the key categories that led to Apple only paying $16,741 million in federal income taxes. The new standard now requires specific categories to be disclosed, including state and local tax, foreign tax effects, effects of changes in tax laws, effect of cross-border tax laws, tax credits, changes in the valuation allowances, nontaxable or nondeductible items, changes in unrecognized tax benefits, and any other significant reconciling items. More importantly, the new disclosure rules require more uniformity in the disclosures by requiring the reconciling items to be presented on a gross (rather than net) basis, and it requires certain qualitative discussions when reconciling items eclipse specified quantitative thresholds. These changes will drastically enhance financial statement user's ability to understand how companies are lowering their tax expense. Second, public companies must now disclose annually additional information about income taxes paid. In particular, it now requires public companies to disclose the amount of income taxes paid disaggregated by individual jurisdictions when those jurisdictions comprise more than 5% of total income taxes paid. Thus, companies with significant overseas operations will now need to be more transparent about the nature and extent of their overseas operations. This change will shed additional light on where companies are operating and how those operations impact their taxes paid. The House Republicans Versus The FASB The Republicans in the House of Representatives are now threatening funding for the FASB due to this change in the standard. According to Bloomberg, a spending proposal release by the House Appropriations Committee includes a provision that prevents the SEC from approving their annual budget unless ASU 2023-09 is withdrawn. This article also reports that large business groups and the House Republicans asked the FASB to drop these requirements. These actions by the legislative branch are not the first time that they have attempted to exert influence on the FASB and financial accounting rules. For instance, according to Congressional records, in May of 1994, Congress pushed back on the FASB at they attempted to prevent the entity from implementing mandatory expensing of stock options. Similar situations arose relating to the FASB's proposed rules surrounding fair value accounting during the 2008 financial crisis and, in recent years, changes to the accounting treatment for leases. The reasons for dropping these new tax disclosure requirements appear to be self-serving for large multinational corporations who might wish to keep this information confidential. While disclosing more information can often be viewed as a benefit to corporations and their shareholders since it enhances their information, past tax disclosures, like FIN 48, were met with similar resistance. As discussed in The Tax Adviser, corporations that had to begin disclosing unrecognized tax benefits in their financials felt as though the disclosures would provide a roadmap for the IRS to strengthen their scrutiny over tax positions. Put differently, companies feared that the benefits of enhanced tax transparency would be outweighed by the lower realizability of their tax benefits, particularly those that are labeled more uncertain. The concerns about what tax information will now be disclosed is understand by the over 60 comment letters the FASB received about the new requirements and the standard's implementation. In particular, Big 4 accounting firms, such as PricewaterhouseCoopers, cast significant doubt over whether ASU 2023-09 will meet its intended objectives. In their comment, PwC makes statements like, 'We believe that changes in unrecognized tax benefits should be disclosed in the rate reconciliation in the aggregate, not on a jurisdictional basis' and 'We do not agree with the application of a 5% threshold to disaggregate income taxes paid (net of refunds received) by individual jurisdictions.' While these are not statements suggesting the new reporting standard should not be enacted at all, they underscore the severity of the disclosures and how there could be unintended consequences to enacting it. Despite some of the concerns, many consultants highlight the need for more transparent tax disclosures to meet social responsibility demands. For instance, KPMG highlights that tax has emerged as an important element of ESG and that it is important to stakeholders that these demands are met. Furthermore, country-by-country reporting, which is a key part of the OECD BEPS project, has been implemented across the globe for most countries besides the U.S. While ASU 2023-09 differs from the prescribed OECD proposed actions, it does provide some uniform disclosure between U.S. firms and their international counterparts. Even though ASU 2023-09 appears to be a step in this direction, Congress has different ideas, setting up an unusual showdown between the legislative branch and the FASB.
