Ohioans earning more than $200,000 a year would account for 40 percent of the revenue envisioned by Gov. Ted Strickland's plan to balance the state budget by delaying a scheduled incometax cut, state data show.

And taxpayers earning between $100,000 and $200,000 would contribute about 20 percent of the $844 million that would be collected from the tax change during the next two years, according to Taxation Department data requested by The Dispatch.

That means an average of $44 per person would come next year from the majority of taxpayers - those earning between $20,000 and $80,000 a year. v The governor's plan has the grudging support of many busi- ness groups, as long as the tax-cut delay is temporary. But others fear that the change will undercut the purpose of the cut: making Ohio more competitive for jobs.

Still others say the taxes should be higher to pay for needed state services, while some wonder whether most Ohioans even realized that their taxes had been changing in the first place.

After an Ohio Supreme Court ruling raised doubts about the state's ability to use revenue from video slot machines for the budget, Strickland said his alternative is to delay the final year of a phased-in, five-year incometax cut.

The plan calls for freezing income-tax rates at 2008 levels, meaning a 4.2 percent cut that took effect Jan. 1 would disappear for at least two years.

The proposal needs legislative action, and General Assembly leaders have been noncommittal. Many Republican lawmakers have criticized the plan, saying the state should consider restructuring government and other options.

Strickland noted last week that increasing the sales tax historically has been the more popular approach to raising state revenue, but he said that move could dampen consumer spending and slow Ohio's recovery from the recession.

The governor also said delaying the last year of the 21 percent income-tax cut would have "a minimal impact on the totality of the tax reforms" enacted by Republicans in 2005. Strickland, a Democrat, also championed the reform, saying it made Ohio more attractive to businesses and preserved jobs.

But Thomas M. Zaino, a former Ohio tax commissioner who now is managing partner of the Columbus office of law firm McDonald Hopkins, said increasing the sales tax might make more sense now.

Although Ohio's sales-tax rate still would be competitive with other states' even with an increase, delaying the income-tax cut hurts because other states have much lower tax rates - or, like Florida, no state income tax, he said.

"What message does this send to folks who have the ability to leave the state for a lower tax rate?" Zaino asked of Strickland's plan.

If the 2009 cut is suspended, Ohio's top rate, paid on income over $200,000, would be 6.2 percent, instead of 5.9 percent. That top rate would be higher than most surrounding states', but that doesn't always mean Ohioans pay more.

For example, Ohioans making up to $80,000 a year pay an overall rate of less than 4 percent, lower than Michigan's 4.35 percent flat tax, according to 2008 data.

While Ohio's top rate might be higher than is found in most of its border states, it doesn't kick in until income crosses $200,000. Top rates in Kentucky and West Virginia hit at $75,000 and $60,000, respectively.

Nationally, 24 states had top income-tax rates of 6 percent or more in 2008. When Ohio Republicans passed the 21 percent income-tax cut in 2005, part of the goal was to get the state's top rate under 6 percent.

"I don't like the idea of raising the income tax," said state Sen. Jon Husted, R-Kettering, who was House speaker when the tax reductions were passed. "It is the tax that is most likely to chase businesses and people out of the state." Others contend that a sales-tax increase would be unfair to low-income Ohioans. The Center for Community Solutions, a nonprofit socialservices group based in Cleveland, says the state income tax and commercialactivities tax paid by businesses should be increased, and that tax loopholes should be closed to raise money for critical state services.

"A temporary freeze of income-tax rates is a small step in the right direction but is not a real solution to Ohio's budget problems," said Jon Honeck, the group's director of public policy.

But the governor has said, and some major business groups have agreed, that delaying the tax cut is the best of the limited options available to fill an $851.5 million hole in the two-year state budget caused by the expected loss of slots revenue. The idea is to restore the cut in the future, which Senate President Bill M. Harris, R-Ashland, and business groups have said is key.

"The (chamber) urges the governor and legislative leaders to adopt a mechanism that automatically restores the tax cut when specific criteria are met," said Andrew Doehrel, president of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

Such triggers would be largely symbolic, Husted said, because the law could simply be changed again down the road.

With the state facing a potential $7 billion hole in the next two-year budget mostly attributed to the loss of one-time federal money, Husted said he worries that the change will not only not be temporary but also will mark the start of tax increases. Strickland's plan would not have an immediate effect on Ohioans' pocketbooks because withholding amounts would remain the same.

That means Ohioans would not see any change until they file their 2009 returns next year. Seventy-six percent of the 2008 returns had a refund, and the Tax Department estimates that 71 percent of 2009 returns would still get a refund if Strickland's plan is implemented. A statewide poll commissioned in the spring by a coalition of human-services and education organizations found that a scant 8 percent of Ohioans were even aware that the state income-tax rate had dropped in recent years.

"To tell you the truth, most people in my district I talked to didn't even know they had a decrease," said Rep. Marian Harris, D-Columbus.

"This is the fifth year (of the tax cut), and it certainly didn't help the economy."