A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "Cost of Living Tax Cut Act" proposes to change how individual income tax rates are calculated. Starting after 2026, tax rate brackets would be adjusted based on the cost-of-living in the area where a person lives. The Secretary of Commerce would determine a cost-of-living index for different statistical areas. These indexes would be used to create multipliers that adjust the minimum and maximum dollar amounts of tax brackets.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +7
Would people in cities be better off under this?
Urban residents are more likely to live in high-cost statistical areas that trigger the multiplier adjustments.
- Scored +6
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
Middle-class households in high-cost areas will see a significant relative tax reduction by expanding the lower tax brackets.
- Scored +4
Would high-income households be better off under this?
High-income earners in high-cost areas benefit from higher thresholds before hitting the top tax brackets.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -3
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Rural residents are likely to fall under the 97 percent threshold, receiving no benefit while others receive tax cuts.
- Scored -3
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Expanding tax brackets for a portion of the population likely reduces overall federal tax revenue, potentially increasing the deficit.
- Scored -2
Would farmers be better off under this?
Farmers often live in rural areas where cost-of-living differentials are lower, meaning they are less likely to receive the tax benefits.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Regional Tax Adjustments: Under Section 2(a)(9)(B)(i), the dollar amounts for tax brackets are multiplied by a regional multiplier based on where a person's primary home is. This could benefit people in high-cost areas by adjusting their tax brackets to reflect the local cost of living.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No Benefit for Some Areas: According to Section 2(a)(10)(B)(iii), if the cost-of-living differential for a statistical area does not exceed 97 percent, the multiplier is 1. This means people in those areas, as well as those outside the United States, would see no adjustment to their tax brackets.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban residents are more likely to live in high-cost statistical areas that trigger the multiplier adjustments. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households in high-cost areas will see a significant relative tax reduction by expanding the lower tax brackets. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Billionaires residing in high-cost areas would see a reduction in the amount of income taxed at the highest rates. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income earners in high-cost areas benefit from higher thresholds before hitting the top tax brackets. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Those living in expensive statistical areas receive a tax advantage over those in cheaper areas. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — High net worth individuals in high-cost areas benefit from increased bracket thresholds. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income households in high-cost areas may benefit from adjusted brackets, though many may already be in the lowest bracket. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural residents are likely to fall under the 97 percent threshold, receiving no benefit while others receive tax cuts. Would farmers be better off under this? — Farmers often live in rural areas where cost-of-living differentials are lower, meaning they are less likely to receive the tax benefits.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this cut taxes for middle-income families? — Adjusting tax brackets based on regional cost-of-living can lower the effective tax rate for middle-class individuals in high-cost areas. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Increasing disposable income for residents in high-cost areas may stimulate local economic activity. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Expanding tax brackets for a portion of the population likely reduces overall federal tax revenue, potentially increasing the deficit. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The bill creates a tax expenditure without providing a corresponding funding source. Does this raise taxes on the highest earners? — By expanding tax brackets upward in high-cost areas, high earners in those regions may see a reduction in their tax liability.
- 6/8/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Michael LawlerRepublican · New York