Honor Past Agreements
Ask any newcomer why they chose Golden Valley, and you’ll likely hear about the open space, rural charm, and peaceful environment. People don’t move here for dense housing, traffic, or noise—they come to escape all that.
The most highly held value is protecting and preserving agricultural zones with acre or larger lots. Knowing this, the largest landholder in Mohave County, Angle Homes, continues to submit a land use proposal that would wipe out over 1400 acres of A/R zoning and create a subdivision of 3,000-4,000+ new homes. Currently, the land is zoned for 36 acre lots and surrounded by an established neighborhood of acre or larger lots. Since 1996, Angle Homes has built over 2,000 homes in the Kingman area. This proposal is their largest project to date.
Prior to 2006, the land was designated for acre or larger development. In 2006, a major plan amendment was approved by the Mohave County Board of Supervisors for a project called “The Dorado.” This amendment would have allowed for over 4,700 homes. In the resolution passed by the board, one of the stipulations was that if the project had not moved forward by the next general plan update, then the land would revert to the previous use. The project never broke ground, the property was defaulted on, and the land never reverted.
This oversight by planning and zoning has caused a major conflict between the current developers and surrounding property owners. Had this land reverted, the developers would have been required to go through a major plan amendment process. Instead, the county is allowing them to submit their gigantic proposal free of charge during the general plan update, typically a cost of $1540, and at the expense of the surrounding property owners who do not support a development of this size.
Residents were even more frustrated when they learned that this proposal was quietly slipped back into the plan after they were told it was not going to be considered. This happened at a public meeting with no agenda notice, sparking multiple Open Meeting Law complaints. This is a clear breakdown in the public process. Residents are being ignored, and developers are being given special treatment. The county must act transparently, honor past agreements, and protect the values that make Golden Valley worth living in.
- Danielle Ohle-Keck, Golden Valley
Meet the New Tax Code: Same as the Old Tax Code
H.R.1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act , has been promoted as delivering the "largest tax cut in history" (H.R.1, 119th Congress). However, a close examination reveals it primarily extends the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-97) by removing its expiration date, rather than introducing transformative reform (H.R.1, Sec. 70101). The TCJA, passed via budget reconciliation, included an eight-year sunset clause, which H.R.1 eliminates, making the TCJA’s tax brackets and policies permanent. While the TCJA’s adjustments to tax brackets were generally beneficial, they did not fundamentally overhaul the tax system. The original inclusion of an expiration date, followed by its removal in H.R.1, suggests a politically engineered "crisis" used to campaign on warnings of a looming "tax bomb" unless voters re-elected Republican lawmakers. This framing positioned H.R.1 as urgent legislation to avert disaster, but it merely removes a sunset clause the Republicans and previous Trump administration created. Claiming this as the "largest tax cut in history" is a huge exaggeration, as it preserves the status quo rather than reducing taxes further. It should further be noted that both TCJA and H.R.1 were passed through budget reconciliation, therefore that process cannot be blamed for the original sunsets. It is curious that budget reconciliation typically operates on 10-year time frames, yet TCJA was set to expire in 8 years, conveniently coinciding with an election cycle.
The notion that taxpayers are "saving money" hinges on the unlikely assumption that Congress would have allowed the TCJA to expire, reverting to pre-2017 tax rates. Taxpayers are only "saving" relative to a hypothetical increase, not compared to the tax policy in place since 2017. H.R.1 does little to reduce taxes beyond maintaining existing rates.
H.R.1 introduces several temporary provisions, which have limited impact:
No Tax on Tips (Less Tax on Tips)
This provision allows a deduction of up to $25,000 for qualified tips, phasing out for incomes above $150,000 ($300,000 for joint filers), but tips remain subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes ([H.R.1, Sec. 70201]; 26 U.S.C. § 3101). With only about 2% of taxpayers being tipped workers, this measure is narrowly targeted and unlikely to benefit most taxpayers.
No Tax on Overtime (Less Tax on Overtime)
A deduction of up to $12,500 ($25,000 for joint filers) is available for overtime pay, defined as compensation exceeding the regular rate under the Fair Labor Standards Act, also subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes ([H.R.1, Sec. 70202]; 29 U.S.C. § 207). Since approximately 8% of taxpayers receive overtime pay, this provision offers limited relief and does not constitute a broad tax cut.
Vehicle Loan Interest Deduction
This provision permits deductions of up to $10,000 for interest on loans for new vehicles with "final assembly" in the United States, excluding loans before 2025 and used vehicles, with phase-outs for higher incomes ([H.R.1, Sec. 70203]). Given high vehicle costs, this benefits a small group, with wealthier taxpayers potentially facing phase-out thresholds.
"TRUMP" Accounts for Children
These tax-advantaged accounts, like IRAs or 529 plans, include a one-time $1,000 government grant, with contributions limited to $5,000 annually and distributions restricted until age 18 ([H.R.1, Sec. 70204]). This is not direct tax relief but a government incentive to encourage having children, offering limited immediate tax benefits.
SALT Deduction Increase
The State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction cap is raised from $10,000 to $40,000 for five years, phasing out for incomes above $500,000 ([H.R.1, Sec. 70120]; 26 U.S.C. § 164). This primarily benefits taxpayers in high-tax states, often Democratic-leaning, and wealthier individuals with significant local tax liabilities. This may be the most substantial tax benefit, despite its limited reach.
These provisions are temporary, set to expire in 2028 and 2029 for SALT. Their expiration dates likely obscure the bill’s deficit impact, though bipartisan support for the tips and overtime deductions as well as SALT suggests they are likely to be extended by either party. Estimates suggest tip and overtime-based taxpayers could save up to $1,800 annually, but these figures likely assume optimal scenarios where deductions are fully utilized. This falls far short of the "largest tax cut ever."
A notable permanent change is the small business deduction, increased from 20% to 23% for qualified business income and made permanent ([H.R.1, Sec. 70105]; 26 U.S.C. § 199A). This modest increase may save small business owners a few hundred dollars annually, which is helpful but not transformative.
Proposals to "tax the rich" were debated but largely abandoned due to harsh rebuke by conservatives and MAGA. However, Sen Crapo cleverly found a group of likely wealthy taxpayers to target with a tax increase unlikely to garner any sympathy. His Senate amendment limits gambling loss deductions to 90% of winnings, down from 100% ([H.R.1, Sec. 70114]; 26 U.S.C. § 165(d)). Under current law, a gambler with $100,000 in winnings offset by $100,000 in losses owes no tax. The new rule would tax $10,000 of fictional income. Given the negative perception of gamblers, this is unlikely to face significant opposition but could affect state gaming tax revenues from casinos and sportsbooks, as professional gamblers operate on tight margins. Be warned, if this idea holds there may be potential to target small businesses with similar limitations on deducting operating expenses, the concept is not unheard of, but as of yet has not gained traction. Consider this a potential “trial balloon”.
In summary, most taxpayers will see no significant change in their tax liabilities under H.R.1, as its primary effect is extending the TCJA. The temporary provisions (tips, overtime, vehicle loans, “TRUMP” accounts, SALT) and the permanent small business deduction offer modest benefits to specific groups but are far from transformative. Earlier discussions of abolishing the income tax were abandoned, replaced by maintaining the TCJA with targeted provisions. The absence of promised deep, transformative spending cuts, initially tied to efforts like DOGE, further undermines the bill’s ambition. Preserving the status quo is not a tax cut. If this is the "largest tax cut in history," it occurred in 2017, not 2025. Claiming savings by preventing a theoretical tax increase is akin to claiming you saved money by not buying an item you never intended to purchase. Taxpayers expected bold reform but are left with minimal change, much like Charlie Brown, perpetually misled by Lucy as she pulls the football away. We expect more and should demand more from both this congress and this presidency. Maybe it will come “later” as is always promised, give another run at that football, what could go wrong?
- Ethan Benson, Kingman