New term, new tax debate
Pureval used his second-term swearing‑in ceremony last week to signal that a higher earnings tax is now central to his agenda for stabilizing Cincinnati’s finances. With the city facing a projected multimillion‑dollar deficit in the next fiscal year, he argued that new revenue is needed to avoid deep cuts to services and to fund “public safety and disrupting poverty,” as he described it in his inaugural remarks.
The mayor framed the proposal as a choice between proactive investment and reactive austerity, saying new funds would “support our police and fire in an extraordinary way” while also backing efforts to tackle the economic conditions that fuel violence. He has asked City Council to move quickly enough that voters could see a tax question on the ballot later this year, either in May or November.
How much of an increase?
Cincinnati’s current income tax rate is 1.8% on wages earned in the city, with the revenue split between the General Fund and capital needs. While previous advisory work by the Cincinnati Futures Commission pointed to a combined 0.15‑percentage‑point hike—0.05% dedicated to public safety and 0.1% for economic development—Pureval has not committed to that exact figure in his current plan.
In public comments this month, the mayor has repeatedly declined to pin down a specific rate, promising instead to deliver a detailed proposal within about 60 days. That means the precise size of the increase, the share earmarked for police, fire, and anti-poverty initiatives, and its projected revenue impact remain open questions as the political debate intensifies.
City Council reaction
Inside City Hall, Pureval’s announcement has landed unevenly, with some council members supportive of exploring a tax hike and others frustrated over what they describe as a rollout that moved faster than internal discussions. Budget Committee chair Jeff Cramerding has warned that without new revenue, a future recession could force “drastic cuts and layoffs,” calling the city’s fiscal position “perilous” and treating a voter‑approved increase as a way to avert that scenario.
Other members, however, have raised concerns about process and public trust, arguing that a major change to the city’s earnings tax should be shaped through deeper consultation with both council and residents before any ballot language is finalized. Their skepticism centers less on the need for funds than on whether the administration is moving too quickly and without sufficient detail to justify the ask.
Public safety and poverty focus
Pureval has tied the proposed tax hike closely to Cincinnati’s struggle with gun violence and persistent neighborhood‑level poverty, saying additional dollars would be “targeted toward public safety and disrupting poverty, which is the root cause of so much of the violence.” He has pointed to potential investments in affordable housing, neighborhood development, and support for minority‑owned businesses as part of a broader anti‑poverty strategy.
Community leaders active in anti‑violence and housing advocacy have responded with cautious interest, emphasizing that residents will want clear assurances that any new revenue is transparent, accountable, and reaches the communities most affected by crime and economic hardship. Business and civic groups that participated in the Futures Commission process have similarly stressed that if Cincinnati raises its income tax, it must show measurable improvements in safety and opportunity.
What happens next
Any increase in the income tax must be approved directly by voters, and council faces a tight deadline if it wants a measure on the May ballot. The mayor’s pledge to release a full proposal within the next two months sets up an intense period of negotiation, with details on the rate, duration, and specific spending commitments likely to shape whether the measure ultimately makes it to the ballot—and whether it survives once it gets there.
For now, Cincinnati residents and commuters know only that their 1.8% income tax could be going up, not by how much. That uncertainty ensures that the city’s first major political fight of Pureval’s new term will turn on both numbers and trust: how large an increase the mayor decides to seek, and whether voters believe the promise that paying more now will mean a safer, more equitable city in the years ahead.