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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the average property price is close to $1m this targets the wrong people and is overly broad. One day rhe Democrats will realize this.

The average property price is not close to $1m

Data are funny. Andrew Friedson, Artie Harris and Jason Sartori all loudly proclaimed that the average MoCo detached SFH was over $1M when promoting the AHS initiative. Thing was, that was a mean, with heavy influence from multi-million-dollar sales, when they all knew that a median would be a more appropriate measure of affordabity. And it didn't consider available attached/multi-family dwellings, because those weren't what they said people needed (though the housing they were suggesting be allowed to fill in the detached SFH neighborhoods would be so). But putting that fuller picture out there wouldn't make a selling narrative for them, now, would it?

Of course average prices for all MoCo properties, including attached & multi-family are not (yet) close to $1M, especially as a median. I think the prior PP was remembering the above rhetoric, though.

I’m still not clear on how more rental apartments help people buy homes. Friedson’s argument seemed to be “we know you want cheaper houses to buy, so here are some rentals, and here are some property tax breaks for people who build rentals.” It makes no sense. The overwhelming majority of renters would rather purchase, so why do they keep pushing rentals?

I agree they don't support homeownership enough, but there isn't enough land to build a ton more SFH. Condos are problematic from this standpoint and also not that desirable for people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a tax liberals never like?

It is always a taxation problem, never a spending problem. $150,000 isn’t even a lot of money in 2026. They are raising taxes on the middle class. Taxes keep going up, but incomes don't. Maybe the county govt needs to learn to live within its means like all of its residents. Cut jobs, freeze pay increases for the next 5 years, cut pensions, cut benefits and force employees to pay more for their own healthcare. You know, the same crap 99% of Americans face who have jobs outside of the county govt.

Elrich as county executive has been robbing Peter to pay Paul in his budgets for years. There are so many structural defects now, that as the council tries to cut line item by line item, it's discovering that it's not so easy to find cuts in inadequately funded budgets. Go look at all the supplemental appropriations needed to pay for known services that he didn't pay for up front. Go look at the year end transfers as he switched funding among all the departments, again, because many were budgeted inaccurately.

Council is at fault too because they never bother to correct things. The easiest and most prudent thing would have been to hold COLAS at 2%. Employees will still get a huge raise. Just not quite as huge. It would have slowed spending and made the fiscal cliff the county faces in FY28 more manageable. But council is a bunch of cowards. They are doing whatever feels publicly expedient to make constituents happy. The "feel good" votes instead of the "good government" votes. They are cowards and disgusting to watch

There are too many structural deficits now. This bill makes the structural deficit worse. Next year will be another property tax rate increase or they'll compress the income tax brackets again so they're not progressive.

The council -- every member -- voted to approve the labor agreements. They need to honor those agreements now, as much as I agree that they were irresponsible in the first place.

There aren't great options for county executive. Friedson is a hard no because he keeps exempting his donors from paying property taxes. That leaves Glass and Jawando. Glass has followed along with Friedson and doesn't seem to engage on the budget much. His two big issues in seven years were no right on red and leaf blowers. Jawando is too far left but he did good work on the budget this year and has been the driving force on slowing spending growth this year, much more so than the other members.

Jawando has done no work on the budget. He is all performative

You’re either not paying attention or you’re a political hack. Even Montgomery Perspective spoke well of the Jawando budget and they almost never write anything positive about what he does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the average property price is close to $1m this targets the wrong people and is overly broad. One day rhe Democrats will realize this.

The average property price is not close to $1m

Data are funny. Andrew Friedson, Artie Harris and Jason Sartori all loudly proclaimed that the average MoCo detached SFH was over $1M when promoting the AHS initiative. Thing was, that was a mean, with heavy influence from multi-million-dollar sales, when they all knew that a median would be a more appropriate measure of affordabity. And it didn't consider available attached/multi-family dwellings, because those weren't what they said people needed (though the housing they were suggesting be allowed to fill in the detached SFH neighborhoods would be so). But putting that fuller picture out there wouldn't make a selling narrative for them, now, would it?

Of course average prices for all MoCo properties, including attached & multi-family are not (yet) close to $1M, especially as a median. I think the prior PP was remembering the above rhetoric, though.

I’m still not clear on how more rental apartments help people buy homes. Friedson’s argument seemed to be “we know you want cheaper houses to buy, so here are some rentals, and here are some property tax breaks for people who build rentals.” It makes no sense. The overwhelming majority of renters would rather purchase, so why do they keep pushing rentals?

I agree they don't support homeownership enough, but there isn't enough land to build a ton more SFH. Condos are problematic from this standpoint and also not that desirable for people.

“We’re out of land” is a bad take. Developers are adding townhouses now and plenty more townhouses could replace some of the empty office parks in mid-county. People want to settle here. It’s a desirable market for putting down roots. Other markets are more desirable for renters, and we know this because rents are higher in those markets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

You and Bethesda Magazine don't understand tax brackets.

Filers reporting $150,001 to $900,000 in taxable income will pay less income taxes in Tax
Year 2027 when compared to the flat 3.2% tax rate in Tax Year 2026.

The tax break will
be reduced to $0 at $900,000 of taxable income



https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/news/montgomery-update-homeowners-could-pay-higher-taxes-under-new-council-plan-eliminate-tax-credit-fewer-families-experiencing-homelessness-public-safety-progress-silver-spring

I opened that link and searched for those key words, and I didn't see anything that stated the bolded. Can you point me to the section and key words?

Also, that link is from Elrich from May 1. The Bethesda article is the County Council's proposal from May 8. They are not the same.

Sorry it is
https://montgomerycountymd.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=169&event_id=16855&meta_id=221471

Politicians are publishing propaganda on the blog

From you sheet:

Maryland Taxable Income
New County Income Tax Rate
$0 to $50,000 2.5%
$50,001 to $150,000 2.8%
Greater than $150,001 3.3%

Not seeing how "the tax break will be reduced to $0 at $900,000 of taxable income".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

You and Bethesda Magazine don't understand tax brackets.

Filers reporting $150,001 to $900,000 in taxable income will pay less income taxes in Tax
Year 2027 when compared to the flat 3.2% tax rate in Tax Year 2026.

The tax break will
be reduced to $0 at $900,000 of taxable income



https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/news/montgomery-update-homeowners-could-pay-higher-taxes-under-new-council-plan-eliminate-tax-credit-fewer-families-experiencing-homelessness-public-safety-progress-silver-spring

I opened that link and searched for those key words, and I didn't see anything that stated the bolded. Can you point me to the section and key words?

Also, that link is from Elrich from May 1. The Bethesda article is the County Council's proposal from May 8. They are not the same.

Sorry it is
https://montgomerycountymd.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=169&event_id=16855&meta_id=221471

Politicians are publishing propaganda on the blog

From you sheet:

Maryland Taxable Income
New County Income Tax Rate
$0 to $50,000 2.5%
$50,001 to $150,000 2.8%
Greater than $150,001 3.3%

Not seeing how "the tax break will be reduced to $0 at $900,000 of taxable income".

DP. It’s just math. At $900,000, the tax increase about $150,000 negates the lower marginal rates below $150,000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will not be voting for, and or I will be voting against anybody who voted to eliminate this:

Voting in favor were Fani-González, Balcombe, Evans, Katz, Luedtke and Stewart.

Voting no were Friedson, Glass, Jawando, Mink and Sayles.

But I conveniently noticed that the people who are voting against are people who are running for county executives. I’m sure if they weren’t running they would be voting for.

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. I think Glass is probably the only one who would have voted for it. Jawando proposed an alternative budget that kept the ITOC in place. Friedson always votes against taxes (but for spending, so I’m not sure how that will work if he is county executive).

I can’t help but notice that the tax increase fell disproportionately on people who own the county’s most affordable homes. The areas that were just upzoned in the Friedson/Fani-Gonzalez upzoning plan have heavy concentrations of these homes. I guess this is one way to get people to sell so that they can get the apartment developers in there.

The notion that Friedson "always votes against taxes" is a joke. Friedson aggressively votes for tax reductions for developers...which makes tax increases for the rest to balance the books inevitable. He does little in committee to stop the tax increases or to ensure that workable/staff-reviewed alternatives are placed in front of the full council for a vote.

[Anonymous]

I love how staff did a table workup of the difference in income taxes only when comparing the Executive's proposal to the County Council President's proposal:

Table 4: Comparing Estimated Average Changes to Tax Bill
Maryland Taxable
Income || Executive’s Proposal || Council President’s
Proposal
Less than $50,000 || + $22 || - $153
$50,000 to $149,999 || + $76 || - $454
$150,000 to $299,999 || + $193 || - $750
$300,000 to $499,999 || + $353 || - $697
More than $500,000 || + $1,253 || + $203

That's only for those who aren't owner-occupants. When adding back the increased tax paid with elimination of the $695 ITOC, we get to:

Maryland Taxable
Income || Executive’s Proposal || Council President’s
Proposal
Less than $50,000 || + $22 || + $542
$50,000 to $149,999 || + $76 || + $241
$150,000 to $299,999 || + $193 || - $55
$300,000 to $499,999 || + $353 || - $2
More than $500,000 || + $1,253 || + $898

Great for those earning above $300k and netting $355 to their favor from Natali Fani Gonzalez & Co. when comparing the two plans. Quite a different picture, especially for older/fixed-income owners and those struggling to make ends meet with the dream of homeownership in east county/upper central county/mildly clustered far west county.

Completely special-interest-owned ass-hats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will not be voting for, and or I will be voting against anybody who voted to eliminate this:

Voting in favor were Fani-González, Balcombe, Evans, Katz, Luedtke and Stewart.

Voting no were Friedson, Glass, Jawando, Mink and Sayles.

But I conveniently noticed that the people who are voting against are people who are running for county executives. I’m sure if they weren’t running they would be voting for.

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. I think Glass is probably the only one who would have voted for it. Jawando proposed an alternative budget that kept the ITOC in place. Friedson always votes against taxes (but for spending, so I’m not sure how that will work if he is county executive).

I can’t help but notice that the tax increase fell disproportionately on people who own the county’s most affordable homes. The areas that were just upzoned in the Friedson/Fani-Gonzalez upzoning plan have heavy concentrations of these homes. I guess this is one way to get people to sell so that they can get the apartment developers in there.

The notion that Friedson "always votes against taxes" is a joke. Friedson aggressively votes for tax reductions for developers...which makes tax increases for the rest to balance the books inevitable. He does little in committee to stop the tax increases or to ensure that workable/staff-reviewed alternatives are placed in front of the full council for a vote.

I support this clarification. Friedson is extra zealous in reducing taxes for the people who donate money to him. In his own committees, he only increased spending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since you can't really afford to buy a decent house in MoCo is you make under 250 or so now, this is ridiculous.

150k is barely making it here if you actually own property and don't have roommates.

Sure, MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Property taxes are paid from rental income, idiot

+1 what kind of imbecile thinks landlords just eat the cost of taxes instead of passing it on to tenants

What kind of imbecile thinks renters should get a homeowner tax credit when they don't own the home?

What kind of imbecile thinks you can only give homeowners tax credits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the average property price is close to $1m this targets the wrong people and is overly broad. One day rhe Democrats will realize this.

The average property price is not close to $1m

Data are funny. Andrew Friedson, Artie Harris and Jason Sartori all loudly proclaimed that the average MoCo detached SFH was over $1M when promoting the AHS initiative. Thing was, that was a mean, with heavy influence from multi-million-dollar sales, when they all knew that a median would be a more appropriate measure of affordabity. And it didn't consider available attached/multi-family dwellings, because those weren't what they said people needed (though the housing they were suggesting be allowed to fill in the detached SFH neighborhoods would be so). But putting that fuller picture out there wouldn't make a selling narrative for them, now, would it?

Of course average prices for all MoCo properties, including attached & multi-family are not (yet) close to $1M, especially as a median. I think the prior PP was remembering the above rhetoric, though.

I’m still not clear on how more rental apartments help people buy homes. Friedson’s argument seemed to be “we know you want cheaper houses to buy, so here are some rentals, and here are some property tax breaks for people who build rentals.” It makes no sense. The overwhelming majority of renters would rather purchase, so why do they keep pushing rentals?

I agree they don't support homeownership enough, but there isn't enough land to build a ton more SFH. Condos are problematic from this standpoint and also not that desirable for people.

“We’re out of land” is a bad take. Developers are adding townhouses now and plenty more townhouses could replace some of the empty office parks in mid-county. People want to settle here. It’s a desirable market for putting down roots. Other markets are more desirable for renters, and we know this because rents are higher in those markets.

Yes, they are building townhouses. Is your argument that they are building tons of townhouses but are being stopped from building enough? Or just that they shouldn't build rental apartments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how staff did a table workup of the difference in income taxes only when comparing the Executive's proposal to the County Council President's proposal:

Table 4: Comparing Estimated Average Changes to Tax Bill
Maryland Taxable
Income || Executive’s Proposal || Council President’s
Proposal
Less than $50,000 || + $22 || - $153
$50,000 to $149,999 || + $76 || - $454
$150,000 to $299,999 || + $193 || - $750
$300,000 to $499,999 || + $353 || - $697
More than $500,000 || + $1,253 || + $203

That's only for those who aren't owner-occupants. When adding back the increased tax paid with elimination of the $695 ITOC, we get to:

Maryland Taxable
Income || Executive’s Proposal || Council President’s
Proposal
Less than $50,000 || + $22 || + $542
$50,000 to $149,999 || + $76 || + $241
$150,000 to $299,999 || + $193 || - $55
$300,000 to $499,999 || + $353 || - $2
More than $500,000 || + $1,253 || + $898

Great for those earning above $300k and netting $355 to their favor from Natali Fani Gonzalez & Co. when comparing the two plans. Quite a different picture, especially for older/fixed-income owners and those struggling to make ends meet with the dream of homeownership in east county/upper central county/mildly clustered far west county.

Completely special-interest-owned ass-hats.

The median HHI for homeowners is $177k. There are other tax credits for homeowners with low incomes and who are elderly. I certainly support expanding them. I do not support the county continuing to spend $140 million per year to subsidize homeownership for the wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a tax liberals never like?

It is always a taxation problem, never a spending problem. $150,000 isn’t even a lot of money in 2026. They are raising taxes on the middle class. Taxes keep going up, but incomes don't. Maybe the county govt needs to learn to live within its means like all of its residents. Cut jobs, freeze pay increases for the next 5 years, cut pensions, cut benefits and force employees to pay more for their own healthcare. You know, the same crap 99% of Americans face who have jobs outside of the county govt.

Elrich as county executive has been robbing Peter to pay Paul in his budgets for years. There are so many structural defects now, that as the council tries to cut line item by line item, it's discovering that it's not so easy to find cuts in inadequately funded budgets. Go look at all the supplemental appropriations needed to pay for known services that he didn't pay for up front. Go look at the year end transfers as he switched funding among all the departments, again, because many were budgeted inaccurately.

Council is at fault too because they never bother to correct things. The easiest and most prudent thing would have been to hold COLAS at 2%. Employees will still get a huge raise. Just not quite as huge. It would have slowed spending and made the fiscal cliff the county faces in FY28 more manageable. But council is a bunch of cowards. They are doing whatever feels publicly expedient to make constituents happy. The "feel good" votes instead of the "good government" votes. They are cowards and disgusting to watch

There are too many structural deficits now. This bill makes the structural deficit worse. Next year will be another property tax rate increase or they'll compress the income tax brackets again so they're not progressive.

The council -- every member -- voted to approve the labor agreements. They need to honor those agreements now, as much as I agree that they were irresponsible in the first place.

There aren't great options for county executive. Friedson is a hard no because he keeps exempting his donors from paying property taxes. That leaves Glass and Jawando. Glass has followed along with Friedson and doesn't seem to engage on the budget much. His two big issues in seven years were no right on red and leaf blowers. Jawando is too far left but he did good work on the budget this year and has been the driving force on slowing spending growth this year, much more so than the other members.

+1

And let’s also acknowledge the repeated tax breaks for developers in the county thanks to Friedson, Glass, and Fani-Gonzalez and their “attainable housing” absurdity that allowed for-profit developers to build pricey homes / condos in the county but not to have to pay impact taxes that cover the downstream expenses for the county like school expansion and improvements and infrastructure updates, for example.

So now the average citizen has to pay to cover tax breaks for corporations. No thank you.

This is exactly what is happening in Arlington, too. Tax breaks for developers so they can attract more people who actually can’t afford to live here, all sponsored by the average citizens in the middle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the average property price is close to $1m this targets the wrong people and is overly broad. One day rhe Democrats will realize this.

The average property price is not close to $1m

Data are funny. Andrew Friedson, Artie Harris and Jason Sartori all loudly proclaimed that the average MoCo detached SFH was over $1M when promoting the AHS initiative. Thing was, that was a mean, with heavy influence from multi-million-dollar sales, when they all knew that a median would be a more appropriate measure of affordabity. And it didn't consider available attached/multi-family dwellings, because those weren't what they said people needed (though the housing they were suggesting be allowed to fill in the detached SFH neighborhoods would be so). But putting that fuller picture out there wouldn't make a selling narrative for them, now, would it?

Of course average prices for all MoCo properties, including attached & multi-family are not (yet) close to $1M, especially as a median. I think the prior PP was remembering the above rhetoric, though.

I’m still not clear on how more rental apartments help people buy homes. Friedson’s argument seemed to be “we know you want cheaper houses to buy, so here are some rentals, and here are some property tax breaks for people who build rentals.” It makes no sense. The overwhelming majority of renters would rather purchase, so why do they keep pushing rentals?

I agree they don't support homeownership enough, but there isn't enough land to build a ton more SFH. Condos are problematic from this standpoint and also not that desirable for people.

“We’re out of land” is a bad take. Developers are adding townhouses now and plenty more townhouses could replace some of the empty office parks in mid-county. People want to settle here. It’s a desirable market for putting down roots. Other markets are more desirable for renters, and we know this because rents are higher in those markets.

Yes, they are building townhouses. Is your argument that they are building tons of townhouses but are being stopped from building enough? Or just that they shouldn't build rental apartments?

Townhouses pay higher impact fees than any other type of housing. Using the same logic that apartment developers used to get their fees cut and property taxes forgiven, they’d be able to build more townhouses if they weren’t tax and fee burdened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how staff did a table workup of the difference in income taxes only when comparing the Executive's proposal to the County Council President's proposal:

Table 4: Comparing Estimated Average Changes to Tax Bill
Maryland Taxable
Income || Executive’s Proposal || Council President’s
Proposal
Less than $50,000 || + $22 || - $153
$50,000 to $149,999 || + $76 || - $454
$150,000 to $299,999 || + $193 || - $750
$300,000 to $499,999 || + $353 || - $697
More than $500,000 || + $1,253 || + $203

That's only for those who aren't owner-occupants. When adding back the increased tax paid with elimination of the $695 ITOC, we get to:

Maryland Taxable
Income || Executive’s Proposal || Council President’s
Proposal
Less than $50,000 || + $22 || + $542
$50,000 to $149,999 || + $76 || + $241
$150,000 to $299,999 || + $193 || - $55
$300,000 to $499,999 || + $353 || - $2
More than $500,000 || + $1,253 || + $898

Great for those earning above $300k and netting $355 to their favor from Natali Fani Gonzalez & Co. when comparing the two plans. Quite a different picture, especially for older/fixed-income owners and those struggling to make ends meet with the dream of homeownership in east county/upper central county/mildly clustered far west county.

Completely special-interest-owned ass-hats.

The median HHI for homeowners is $177k. There are other tax credits for homeowners with low incomes and who are elderly. I certainly support expanding them. I do not support the county continuing to spend $140 million per year to subsidize homeownership for the wealthy.

What until you find out about the 10-figure subsidies Andrew Friedson did for penthouses that aren’t affordable unless you make $400k a year.