VT J.F.O. Fiscal Facts 2026 Pt 3: More Taxes Ahead

VT J.F.O. Fiscal Facts 2026 Pt 3: More Taxes Ahead

The Vermont Joint Fiscal Office’s Fiscal Facts 2026 report provides a detailed breakdown of how the state could increase revenue, laying out a range of options without endorsing any specific policy direction.

The document frames the issue in straightforward terms: if lawmakers need more revenue, there are three primary levers available—raising existing tax rates, expanding what is taxed, or creating entirely new taxes.

What follows is essentially a menu. Some options are incremental. Others would represent broad structural changes to how Vermont collects taxes.

🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁

Three Core Approaches to Revenue Growth

At the highest level, the report organizes potential revenue strategies into three categories:

  • Increasing existing tax rates
  • Expanding existing tax bases
  • Creating new taxes

This framework reflects how most modern tax systems evolve. Governments can either charge more on what they already tax, apply taxes to new categories of activity, or design entirely new revenue streams.

The report focuses primarily on the first two—rate increases and base expansion—because they can be modeled using existing data.

Raising Existing Taxes: Largest Immediate Impact

The most direct path to new revenue is increasing current tax rates. The report provides estimated yields for several hypothetical 1% increases.

A 1% increase in the personal income tax stands out as the largest single option, generating an estimated $287 million annually.

That reflects the size of the income tax base in Vermont, which accounts for a significant share of non-property tax revenue.

Other rate increases would produce smaller but still notable gains:

  • Sales and use tax: approximately $108.5 million
  • Meals and rooms tax: about $29.1 million

Beyond those, the report includes smaller adjustments such as fuel taxes, cigarette taxes, and corporate tax surcharges. These generate comparatively modest amounts—often in the low millions—but could be combined for incremental revenue growth.

The structure here is simple: rate increases scale with the size of the underlying tax base. Larger taxes produce larger returns from small percentage changes.

Expanding the Sales Tax to Goods

A second major strategy is expanding the sales tax base to include goods that are currently exempt.

Applying Vermont’s 6% sales tax to groceries alone would generate an estimated $146.8 million annually.

Other categories include:

  • Clothing and footwear: $46.2 million
  • Candy: $4.0 million

These categories are currently excluded from the general sales tax, meaning any change would represent a shift in policy rather than a rate increase.

From a structural standpoint, expanding the base spreads taxation across more transactions rather than increasing the burden on existing ones.

Services Represent a Large Untaxed Base

The report makes clear that one of the largest potential revenue opportunities lies in taxing services—particularly professional and technical services that are currently exempt.

Estimated annual revenues from applying the 6% sales tax include:

  • Computer systems design: $43.6 million
  • Architectural and engineering services: $28.5 million
  • Management and consulting services: $26.9 million
  • Legal services: $19.7 million
  • Accounting and payroll services: $12.9 million

These sectors represent a substantial portion of modern economic activity. Unlike goods, which are already broadly taxed, many services remain outside Vermont’s sales tax structure.

Expanding taxation into these areas would significantly broaden the base without changing the existing rate.

Health Care and Personal Services

Another major category identified in the report is healthcare and personal services.

Applying the sales tax to these services could generate:

  • Physician services: $61.9 million
  • Outpatient care centers: $35.9 million
  • Dental services: $22.1 million

Additional services—such as chiropractic care, optometry, and therapy services—are also included in the broader analysis.

Beyond healthcare, the report lists a wide range of additional service sectors that could be taxed, including:

  • Administrative and support services
  • Real estate-related services
  • Repair and maintenance services
  • Personal care services

Taken together, these categories illustrate how much of the service economy currently sits outside the sales tax system.

Scope of Potential Changes

One of the more striking aspects of the report is the sheer breadth of categories analyzed.

The options range from small adjustments—like a few cents added to fuel taxes—to sweeping changes, such as taxing large portions of the service economy or applying sales tax to essential goods like groceries.

This highlights a fundamental policy tradeoff: narrow changes tend to generate smaller amounts of revenue, while broader changes can produce significantly larger returns but affect more sectors of the economy.

Revenue Estimates Come With Caveats

The Joint Fiscal Office emphasizes that all revenue figures are preliminary and based on static estimates.

They do not account for behavioral responses, such as reduced consumption, changes in business activity, or cross-border purchasing.

The report notes that actual revenue collections are likely to be somewhat lower than the “simple yield” estimates presented, with effective yields typically falling between about 90% and 100% depending on the tax and economic conditions.

Factors such as competition from neighboring states, the size of the tax increase, and the type of good or service being taxed all influence how much revenue is ultimately realized.

A Reference Tool, Not a Policy Proposal

The report stops short of recommending any specific course of action.

Instead, it functions as a technical reference, giving lawmakers a clear picture of what different choices could produce in terms of revenue.

By laying out both rate increases and base expansions in detail, the Fiscal Facts 2026 report provides a structured overview of the state’s fiscal options.

As Vermont policymakers continue to navigate budget pressures, the analysis offers a grounded look at the scale—and consequences—of potential revenue changes.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Instagram

#fyivt #VermontPolicy #TaxPolicy #StateBudget

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!

admin Avatar

One response to “VT J.F.O. Fiscal Facts 2026 Pt 3: More Taxes Ahead”

  1. H. Jay Eshelman Avatar
    H. Jay Eshelman

    There is a fourth ‘core approach’ to revenue growth.

    Revenue growth is a relative term. If State spending decreased by 50%, it would have the same effect on the State’s economy as increasing tax revenue by 50%. The only difference being the Vermont Article 9 constitutional caveat – “…previous to any law being made to raise a tax, the purpose for which it is to be raised ought to appear evident to the Legislature to be of more service to community than the money would be if not collected.” A caveat the progressive Vermont legislature continues to ignore.

    Rob Roper’s recent missive, ‘VT Democrats Have a Rural Voter Problem…. ‘ (published on his Substack ‘Behind the Lines’) gets to motive. Why are Vermont progressive democrats acting this way? What are they thinking? What is their motivation?

    Rob’s research implores us ‘cave dwellers’ to consider the following.

    The legislature’s motivation is a self-reinforcing system of ideological conviction, cultural contempt, and economic self-interest that prioritizes a specific progressive vision of Vermont over the practical needs of its rural working base. This isn’t benign oversight or “balancing” priorities—it’s a pattern where policies like Act 181 (expanded rural Act 250 reviews, Tier 3 restrictions, road rules) make generational land use, family-scale building, and economic activity harder in non-urban areas while protecting scenic, preserved landscapes that benefit newcomers, second-home owners, tourists, and the tourism economy.

    1. Ideological commitment to “smart growth” and environmental central planning
    Progressive policymakers in Montpelier (and the nonprofits they empower) genuinely believe centralized rules—protecting forest blocks, habitat corridors, prime soils, and viewsheds—are essential to combat climate change, prevent sprawl, and preserve “Vermont’s character.” Rural resistance is framed as short-sighted or regressive, not as informed local stewardship. This worldview justifies sidelining rural voices even when those voices argue (with evidence from daily land management) that their approach has sustained farms, forests, and water quality for generations without heavy state intervention.

    2. Cultural and class elitism—explicitly voiced
    The “cave dwellers” label from Sen. Alison Clarkson (D-Windsor) at the 2026 Vermont Solutions Summit isn’t a slip; it’s emblematic. It reveals how urban/suburban progressive elites view rural Vermonters: isolated, backward, obstructionist. This contempt makes it easy to dismiss rural plight (outmigration, property-value erosion, housing barriers on family land, workforce shortages) as collateral damage in service of a “better” Vermont. The same circles that fund and defend these policies often moved here (or profit from) the very scenic, low-density rural aesthetic they now gatekeep.

    3. Economic self-interest and regulatory capture via interconnected out-of-state networks
    The ‘if it walks like a duck’ elitist standard becomes undeniable. Who are these people? Consider the tip of the iceberg.

    – Foundations (Lintilhac, Johnson) fund the advocacy groups (e.g., VNRC) that shaped Act 181, the media ecosystem (VTDigger, Vermont Public) that covers it favorably, and the broader “stewardship” narrative. Their philanthropy isn’t neutral charity; it amplifies one side’s expertise and messaging while rural landowners lack equivalent resources.
    – VPIRG-to-SunCommon: Top board members/lobbyists pushed solar subsidies through the legislature, spun off a for-profit company to cash in on the very incentives they created, then sold it for $40 million. Media and legislative response was muted.
    – PUC power structure: The longest-serving commissioner, Margaret Cheney (appointed 2013, reappointed 2020 and 2025, term to 2031), is married to U.S. Sen. Peter Welch. She has approved permits for companies (e.g., T-Mobile in 2018) that then donated to her husband’s campaigns shortly afterward. Recusals happen in high-profile cases, but the family tie to a U.S. Senator overseeing energy/telecom at the federal level, combined with the PUC’s unelected, powerful role in energy mandates and rates, creates exactly the appearance of influence rural critics have flagged for years. No formal violation has been found, but the optics—and the repeated pattern—speak for themselves.

    These aren’t isolated coincidences. They form a closed loop: progressive elites and their funders shape the rules (land use, energy, development), insiders profit or gain influence, compliant media softens scrutiny, and rural pushback is labeled backward. The result is policies that accelerate rural decline while insulating the decision-makers from electoral or economic consequences—urban districts dominate the legislature, unelected commissions wield real power, and foundation money sustains the ecosystem.

    Rural Vermonters aren’t being “ignored” in the passive sense. Their plight is subordinated because the dominant progressive coalition in Montpelier sees the state’s future as compact, green, preserved, and controlled from the center— a vision that treats the rural base as an obstacle rather than a core constituency. The documented rhetoric, funding flows, conflicts, and policy outcomes make that clear. The ongoing rural backlash (Act 181 delays, farmer testimony, local opposition) is the predictable response to a system that has stopped pretending otherwise.

    No, rural Vermonters are not at all being ignored. They’re being systematically eliminated.

    These kinds of entrenched dynamics—where policy, money, media, and cultural framing all reinforce each other — can feel isolating when we live with the consequences day to day, so it’s no small thing to have someone lay it out plainly and back it with the facts.

    Thanks to Rob Roper, we ‘cave dwellers’ still have a voice.

Leave a Reply

By signing up, you agree to the our terms and our Privacy Policy agreement.

RSS icon Subscribe to RSS