MoCo looking at increasing income taxes for those making above $150K

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will continue until people start either voting differently at the ballot box or voting with their feet and moving to a different county.

I do not expect either of those to happen.

You are correct. Very unlikely we escape this spiral.

Yes. Expect a savings plan this winter that cuts ride on routes, library hours, rec center hours, transfer station hours, possibly fire services. Perhaps when people see the actual service impacts, they will begin to care. Maybe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF $150K here is nothing. Is this $150K for single filers?

MoCo keeps increasing taxes rather than thinking about cutting the budget. And the kids are not doing any better year after year of giving MCPS more money.

So sick of this place.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/05/08/straw-vote-divided-county-council-supports-progressive-income-tax-structure/

This is funnier:

The ITOC is a $692 property tax credit for homeowners who claim their home as their principal residence. It used to be automatically applied to qualifying county property tax bills, but homeowners now have to fill out a one-time application to receive it.

Elrich has spoken out on multiple occasions against the proposed elimination of the ITOC, which he says will result in most homeowners paying more than they would under his proposal to raise the property tax rate.

Supporters of the proposed elimination of the ITOC emphasize that the credit does not benefit everyone, including people who qualify but may not be aware of it.

“Unfortunately, it doesn’t provide the credit equally to everyone,” Balcombe said on Friday. “Renters don’t get this credit, it is owner-occupied eligible only.”

Renters don't need the credit because they don't pay property taxes in the first place. Idiots.

These council members are morons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will continue until people start either voting differently at the ballot box or voting with their feet and moving to a different county.

I do not expect either of those to happen.

You are correct. Very unlikely we escape this spiral.

Yes. Expect a savings plan this winter that cuts ride on routes, library hours, rec center hours, transfer station hours, possibly fire services. Perhaps when people see the actual service impacts, they will begin to care. Maybe?

Budget cuts are necessary when there is not enough revenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will continue until people start either voting differently at the ballot box or voting with their feet and moving to a different county.

I do not expect either of those to happen.

You are correct. Very unlikely we escape this spiral.

Yes. Expect a savings plan this winter that cuts ride on routes, library hours, rec center hours, transfer station hours, possibly fire services. Perhaps when people see the actual service impacts, they will begin to care. Maybe?

Budget cuts are necessary when there is not enough revenue.

They always choose to inflict maximum pain instead of jettisoning dead weight like https://apps.montgomerycountymd.gov/BASISOPERATING/Common/Program.aspx?ID=99D&PROGID=P99P17

Aren't fire services more important than a poet laureate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will continue until people start either voting differently at the ballot box or voting with their feet and moving to a different county.

I do not expect either of those to happen.

You are correct. Very unlikely we escape this spiral.

Yes. Expect a savings plan this winter that cuts ride on routes, library hours, rec center hours, transfer station hours, possibly fire services. Perhaps when people see the actual service impacts, they will begin to care. Maybe?

They care about virtual signaling stuff. "We deserve fewer library hours and quality of life services!!!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will continue until people start either voting differently at the ballot box or voting with their feet and moving to a different county.

I do not expect either of those to happen.

You are correct. Very unlikely we escape this spiral.

Yes. Expect a savings plan this winter that cuts ride on routes, library hours, rec center hours, transfer station hours, possibly fire services. Perhaps when people see the actual service impacts, they will begin to care. Maybe?

Budget cuts are necessary when there is not enough revenue.

They will be fine this year because of the extra money they’re raising by killing the ITOC (a funding source that disproportionately targets low-income homeowners).

Next year may be a disaster. Income taxes are very volatile because receipts depend on a small group of people who report highly variable amounts of capital gains. If these people sell a lot of stock for a gain, income taxes overperform. If they don’t, income taxes underperform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will continue until people start either voting differently at the ballot box or voting with their feet and moving to a different county.

I do not expect either of those to happen.

You are correct. Very unlikely we escape this spiral.

Yes. Expect a savings plan this winter that cuts ride on routes, library hours, rec center hours, transfer station hours, possibly fire services. Perhaps when people see the actual service impacts, they will begin to care. Maybe?

Budget cuts are necessary when there is not enough revenue.

They should have slowed compensation increases.

[Anonymous]

The income tax increase effectively begins at around $600k of taxpayer income because the 0.1% increase at the top bracket first has to erode the much larger decreases getting up to that $150k. Pretty basic math. Because of this, there will be a decrease in income tax collection overall -- the extra 0.1% times the amount of taxpayer income above that $600k across all taxpayers lucky enough to be making that much will not nearly make up for the total effective decreases for everyone else.

Such a tax cut without first identifying the financial needs of county programs leads to the higgeldy-piggeldy approach to cuts we've seen. Much better would have been to agree on funding needs and then set the tax rates to support that. Whether that, in this case, meant an increase to property tax rates, a less aggressive progressive cutting of income taxes or something else, the broader MoCo community would have benefitted from greater certainty about services, if not better services, themselves.

The elimination of the $692 ITOC, while it may be progressive in concept (ITOC beneficiaries, for the much greater part, are relatively well off, both in being homeowners and in being financially well versed enough to have applied for it), shifts the relative tax burden from owners who do not reside in the properties they own, including those who live outside the county entirely to owner-occupants (MoCo residents by definition). The measure of its elimination also did not provide relative cushion to those receiving ITOC who might not be well off, acting as more of a cudgel than a scalpel.

The way these, both the overall budgetary approach that saw the aggressive tax bracketing relative to status quo and the ITOC elimination, played out, it seems that interests not well aligned with the needs and will of the community exert great influence across the County Council. While one can point to certain Councilmembers as having offered alternatives and others as more clearly leading the charge, it only takes looking at their records in all kinds of issues over the past two years (or more) with structural budget impacts to get the picture that the whole lot basically are so beholden.

Those offered alternatives? Window dressing for campaign positioning, either present or future, offered for show and knowing they would not carry. None of the leg work that would have been needed to get to real compromise (from the citizenry's perspective) was done...and they knew that going in. Very similar to past votes where one or a few might peel off, but never enough to stop passage of a measure or to keep from a veto override.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The income tax increase effectively begins at around $600k of taxpayer income because the 0.1% increase at the top bracket first has to erode the much larger decreases getting up to that $150k. Pretty basic math. Because of this, there will be a decrease in income tax collection overall -- the extra 0.1% times the amount of taxpayer income above that $600k across all taxpayers lucky enough to be making that much will not nearly make up for the total effective decreases for everyone else.

Such a tax cut without first identifying the financial needs of county programs leads to the higgeldy-piggeldy approach to cuts we've seen. Much better would have been to agree on funding needs and then set the tax rates to support that. Whether that, in this case, meant an increase to property tax rates, a less aggressive progressive cutting of income taxes or something else, the broader MoCo community would have benefitted from greater certainty about services, if not better services, themselves.

The elimination of the $692 ITOC, while it may be progressive in concept (ITOC beneficiaries, for the much greater part, are relatively well off, both in being homeowners and in being financially well versed enough to have applied for it), shifts the relative tax burden from owners who do not reside in the properties they own, including those who live outside the county entirely to owner-occupants (MoCo residents by definition). The measure of its elimination also did not provide relative cushion to those receiving ITOC who might not be well off, acting as more of a cudgel than a scalpel.

The way these, both the overall budgetary approach that saw the aggressive tax bracketing relative to status quo and the ITOC elimination, played out, it seems that interests not well aligned with the needs and will of the community exert great influence across the County Council. While one can point to certain Councilmembers as having offered alternatives and others as more clearly leading the charge, it only takes looking at their records in all kinds of issues over the past two years (or more) with structural budget impacts to get the picture that the whole lot basically are so beholden.

Those offered alternatives? Window dressing for campaign positioning, either present or future, offered for show and knowing they would not carry. None of the leg work that would have been needed to get to real compromise (from the citizenry's perspective) was done...and they knew that going in. Very similar to past votes where one or a few might peel off, but never enough to stop passage of a measure or to keep from a veto override.

Well said for the most part. It almost seems like Stewart, Fani-Gonzalez, and Balcombe went out of their way to create the worst tax structure possible to incite a tax revolt. One executive candidate has been more strident than the others on taxes, so maybe the thinking is he would benefit. But that same candidate has never offered a plan to cut spending and has himself voted to fund MCPS, salary increases, and programs at levels that require tax increases. Decrying tax increases while voting for spending isn’t leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will continue until people start either voting differently at the ballot box or voting with their feet and moving to a different county.

I do not expect either of those to happen.

You are correct. Very unlikely we escape this spiral.

Yes. Expect a savings plan this winter that cuts ride on routes, library hours, rec center hours, transfer station hours, possibly fire services. Perhaps when people see the actual service impacts, they will begin to care. Maybe?

Budget cuts are necessary when there is not enough revenue.

They should have slowed compensation increases.

+1 this

[Anonymous]

Did they eliminate the 692 tax credit? I need every savings I can get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did they eliminate the 692 tax credit? I need every savings I can get.

Yes, they eliminated it. If you are getting a break on income taxes, that won’t kick in until next year, and it won’t offset the extra money that you will be paying in property taxes.

[Anonymous]

Just wanna add that Taylor doesn't have to cut jobs but he's choosing to. And the unions won't try hard to save jobs like they tried so hard to get compensation increases. Unions suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will continue until people start either voting differently at the ballot box or voting with their feet and moving to a different county.

I do not expect either of those to happen.

You are correct. Very unlikely we escape this spiral.

Yes. Expect a savings plan this winter that cuts ride on routes, library hours, rec center hours, transfer station hours, possibly fire services. Perhaps when people see the actual service impacts, they will begin to care. Maybe?

They care about virtual signaling stuff. "We deserve fewer library hours and quality of life services!!!"

oh good lord. Why do we need that.