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

[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.

You seem to want to stick it to rich people but if you really wanted to stick it to rich people you’d keep the ITOC and raise tax rates. Getting rid of the ITOC is a 20 percent tax increase for a lot of condo owners. But it amounts to much less than the Elrich tax increase for the top third of homeowners.

[Anonymous]

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.

It's too bad the Republicans have become crazed lunatics, or I would become one, with all the MD Democrats bleeding us dry. Guess this is a failed two-party system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You seem to want to stick it to rich people but if you really wanted to stick it to rich people you’d keep the ITOC and raise tax rates. Getting rid of the ITOC is a 20 percent tax increase for a lot of condo owners. But it amounts to much less than the Elrich tax increase for the top third of homeowners.

You minimize the impact on the rich, but it costs the county $140 million most of which goes to households with incomes well above the median for the county because homeowners in Montgomery County have much higher incomes than renters.

It is absurd to defend this credit as "progressive" when it leaves out the 1/3 of residents that are renters. The cost is astronomical and most of it is not even helping people with even slightly low incomes. I'm so glad Fani Gonzalez recommended this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's nonsensical. If the housing is attracting people, they can "actually afford to live here." You just don't want them to live here, but have convinced yourself you actually want them to live elsewhere for their own benefit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You seem to want to stick it to rich people but if you really wanted to stick it to rich people you’d keep the ITOC and raise tax rates. Getting rid of the ITOC is a 20 percent tax increase for a lot of condo owners. But it amounts to much less than the Elrich tax increase for the top third of homeowners.

You minimize the impact on the rich, but it costs the county $140 million most of which goes to households with incomes well above the median for the county because homeowners in Montgomery County have much higher incomes than renters.

It is absurd to defend this credit as "progressive" when it leaves out the 1/3 of residents that are renters. The cost is astronomical and most of it is not even helping people with even slightly low incomes. I'm so glad Fani Gonzalez recommended this.

Landlords can afford this tax increase to a much greater extent than homeowners. The ITOC reduces double taxation. Businesses don’t pay county income tax at all. That’s why they don’t get it.

Also, why is the ITOC the only tax break that has a budget impact calculated for it every year? What about the tax credits for developers? With the ITOC gone, they’ll be the biggest property tax credits the county has, and they’re poised to grow exponentially with the office conversion tax abatement.

Most jurisdictions (outside Maryland) charge higher property tax rates for commercial property. Montgomery County will be one of a few to charge a lower effective property tax for commercial property. Seems backwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's nonsensical. If the housing is attracting people, they can "actually afford to live here." You just don't want them to live here, but have convinced yourself you actually want them to live elsewhere for their own benefit

Yes, the tax breaks for developers are nonsensical. They don’t lower housing prices. They just inflate land value and create windfalls for people who are cashing out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You seem to want to stick it to rich people but if you really wanted to stick it to rich people you’d keep the ITOC and raise tax rates. Getting rid of the ITOC is a 20 percent tax increase for a lot of condo owners. But it amounts to much less than the Elrich tax increase for the top third of homeowners.

You minimize the impact on the rich, but it costs the county $140 million most of which goes to households with incomes well above the median for the county because homeowners in Montgomery County have much higher incomes than renters.

It is absurd to defend this credit as "progressive" when it leaves out the 1/3 of residents that are renters. The cost is astronomical and most of it is not even helping people with even slightly low incomes. I'm so glad Fani Gonzalez recommended this.

Landlords can afford this tax increase to a much greater extent than homeowners. The ITOC reduces double taxation. Businesses don’t pay county income tax at all. That’s why they don’t get it.

Also, why is the ITOC the only tax break that has a budget impact calculated for it every year? What about the tax credits for developers? With the ITOC gone, they’ll be the biggest property tax credits the county has, and they’re poised to grow exponentially with the office conversion tax abatement.

Most jurisdictions (outside Maryland) charge higher property tax rates for commercial property. Montgomery County will be one of a few to charge a lower effective property tax for commercial property. Seems backwards.

Ok, now you are just blatantly lying

Landlords pass property taxes on to renters. They are not just absorbing the costs. Landlord costs absolutely impact market rents. There are mountains of research on this.

You are implying that the local county income tax excluded rental income. Many landlords in MoCo pay the county income tax on their rental income. The ITOC is designed simply to benefit homeowners and is not intended to make the property tax "fair" between corporations and households.

The Finance Department publishes a tax expenditure report that describes the cost of every tax credit, not just to ITOC. Google is your friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is a dumb policy, but it's literally only a 0.1% increase. That is only $1,000 more income taxes if you make around 1.15M per year. This is a negligible amount of taxes and most people won't care.

Yes and it is a progressive tax. The tax rate is decreasing for others with lower income. This 0.1 % increase will apply to me and I am fine with it if others get a bit more of a break.

Then why not do more and give those in need an even better break? Maybe a 0.5% increase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is a dumb policy, but it's literally only a 0.1% increase. That is only $1,000 more income taxes if you make around 1.15M per year. This is a negligible amount of taxes and most people won't care.

Yes and it is a progressive tax. The tax rate is decreasing for others with lower income. This 0.1 % increase will apply to me and I am fine with it if others get a bit more of a break.

Then why not do more and give those in need an even better break? Maybe a 0.5% increase.

DP. State cap was 3.2% for local income tax. They changed it to 3.3% ans allowed for progressive bracketing. 0.1% increase was the max.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You seem to want to stick it to rich people but if you really wanted to stick it to rich people you’d keep the ITOC and raise tax rates. Getting rid of the ITOC is a 20 percent tax increase for a lot of condo owners. But it amounts to much less than the Elrich tax increase for the top third of homeowners.

You minimize the impact on the rich, but it costs the county $140 million most of which goes to households with incomes well above the median for the county because homeowners in Montgomery County have much higher incomes than renters.

It is absurd to defend this credit as "progressive" when it leaves out the 1/3 of residents that are renters. The cost is astronomical and most of it is not even helping people with even slightly low incomes. I'm so glad Fani Gonzalez recommended this.

Landlords can afford this tax increase to a much greater extent than homeowners. The ITOC reduces double taxation. Businesses don’t pay county income tax at all. That’s why they don’t get it.

Also, why is the ITOC the only tax break that has a budget impact calculated for it every year? What about the tax credits for developers? With the ITOC gone, they’ll be the biggest property tax credits the county has, and they’re poised to grow exponentially with the office conversion tax abatement.

Most jurisdictions (outside Maryland) charge higher property tax rates for commercial property. Montgomery County will be one of a few to charge a lower effective property tax for commercial property. Seems backwards.

Ok, now you are just blatantly lying

Landlords pass property taxes on to renters. They are not just absorbing the costs. Landlord costs absolutely impact market rents. There are mountains of research on this.

You are implying that the local county income tax excluded rental income. Many landlords in MoCo pay the county income tax on their rental income. The ITOC is designed simply to benefit homeowners and is not intended to make the property tax "fair" between corporations and households.

The Finance Department publishes a tax expenditure report that describes the cost of every tax credit, not just to ITOC. Google is your friend

DP.

Maybe if commercial/rental was assessed, effectively, on the same basis as residential owner-occupied, we could get closer to "fair" between corporations and households. The difference in taxes paid for identical structures based on that existing dichotomy is striking.

Also, rental demand is not perfectly inelastic. Basic economics says that only a portion of a shock such as a tax increase/decrease will be passed on. Landlords capture a portion of a decrease just as they shoulder a portion of an increase. Not all MoCo landlords are MoCo residents, and the Fani-Gonzàlez proposal, then, will see more of the differential benefit accruing to outside interests than would Elrich's.

[Anonymous]

Why are we always working under the assumption that there isn't enough housing? Is the county even growing any more?

You know why home prices go up while condo prices stagnate? Because everyone wants to own detached homes. Most people do not want to live in cramped apartments. Owning a home is one of the only things the middle class has left to maintain stability and obtainin wealth. Progressive liberal democrats, in their infinite wisdom, love to attack and destroy all remaining ability for the middle class to own homes. They are ruining vast swaths of neighborhoods and increasing costs. Why are democrats so awful? People want to own homes, no live as permanent renters enslaved to landlords. "There isn't enough housing!" is the biggest myth and scam running the county's politics for the last 30 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You seem to want to stick it to rich people but if you really wanted to stick it to rich people you’d keep the ITOC and raise tax rates. Getting rid of the ITOC is a 20 percent tax increase for a lot of condo owners. But it amounts to much less than the Elrich tax increase for the top third of homeowners.

You minimize the impact on the rich, but it costs the county $140 million most of which goes to households with incomes well above the median for the county because homeowners in Montgomery County have much higher incomes than renters.

It is absurd to defend this credit as "progressive" when it leaves out the 1/3 of residents that are renters. The cost is astronomical and most of it is not even helping people with even slightly low incomes. I'm so glad Fani Gonzalez recommended this.

Landlords can afford this tax increase to a much greater extent than homeowners. The ITOC reduces double taxation. Businesses don’t pay county income tax at all. That’s why they don’t get it.

Also, why is the ITOC the only tax break that has a budget impact calculated for it every year? What about the tax credits for developers? With the ITOC gone, they’ll be the biggest property tax credits the county has, and they’re poised to grow exponentially with the office conversion tax abatement.

Most jurisdictions (outside Maryland) charge higher property tax rates for commercial property. Montgomery County will be one of a few to charge a lower effective property tax for commercial property. Seems backwards.

Ok, now you are just blatantly lying

Landlords pass property taxes on to renters. They are not just absorbing the costs. Landlord costs absolutely impact market rents. There are mountains of research on this.

You are implying that the local county income tax excluded rental income. Many landlords in MoCo pay the county income tax on their rental income. The ITOC is designed simply to benefit homeowners and is not intended to make the property tax "fair" between corporations and households.

The Finance Department publishes a tax expenditure report that describes the cost of every tax credit, not just to ITOC. Google is your friend

I’ve seen the finance department’s tax expenditure report. Why aren’t those other tax expenditures line items in the budget with renewal votes?

You don’t seem to understand how rents are set. Rents are set based on what the market will bear. They’re not set based on input costs plus a reasonable profit. Landlords can only pass on what the market will bear, and if the market could bear higher prices, Landlords would be charging them already.

Ironically, the people who get the income tax break will be able to pay higher rents, so expect the rents to go up once that takes effect. All other things equal, landlords are going to take most of the income tax reduction through rent increases. Renters should hope Jawando wins because Friedson and Glass have been clear that they’re going to gut renter protections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's nonsensical. If the housing is attracting people, they can "actually afford to live here." You just don't want them to live here, but have convinced yourself you actually want them to live elsewhere for their own benefit

Yes, the tax breaks for developers are nonsensical. They don’t lower housing prices. They just inflate land value and create windfalls for people who are cashing out.

The land they are are approving housing on is awful as well. All along I-270. Why would you want to live along a highway of bad air outside your door every day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You seem to want to stick it to rich people but if you really wanted to stick it to rich people you’d keep the ITOC and raise tax rates. Getting rid of the ITOC is a 20 percent tax increase for a lot of condo owners. But it amounts to much less than the Elrich tax increase for the top third of homeowners.

You minimize the impact on the rich, but it costs the county $140 million most of which goes to households with incomes well above the median for the county because homeowners in Montgomery County have much higher incomes than renters.

It is absurd to defend this credit as "progressive" when it leaves out the 1/3 of residents that are renters. The cost is astronomical and most of it is not even helping people with even slightly low incomes. I'm so glad Fani Gonzalez recommended this.

Landlords can afford this tax increase to a much greater extent than homeowners. The ITOC reduces double taxation. Businesses don’t pay county income tax at all. That’s why they don’t get it.

Also, why is the ITOC the only tax break that has a budget impact calculated for it every year? What about the tax credits for developers? With the ITOC gone, they’ll be the biggest property tax credits the county has, and they’re poised to grow exponentially with the office conversion tax abatement.

Most jurisdictions (outside Maryland) charge higher property tax rates for commercial property. Montgomery County will be one of a few to charge a lower effective property tax for commercial property. Seems backwards.

Ok, now you are just blatantly lying

Landlords pass property taxes on to renters. They are not just absorbing the costs. Landlord costs absolutely impact market rents. There are mountains of research on this.

You are implying that the local county income tax excluded rental income. Many landlords in MoCo pay the county income tax on their rental income. The ITOC is designed simply to benefit homeowners and is not intended to make the property tax "fair" between corporations and households.

The Finance Department publishes a tax expenditure report that describes the cost of every tax credit, not just to ITOC. Google is your friend

I’ve seen the finance department’s tax expenditure report. Why aren’t those other tax expenditures line items in the budget with renewal votes?

You don’t seem to understand how rents are set. Rents are set based on what the market will bear. They’re not set based on input costs plus a reasonable profit. Landlords can only pass on what the market will bear, and if the market could bear higher prices, Landlords would be charging them already.

Ironically, the people who get the income tax break will be able to pay higher rents, so expect the rents to go up once that takes effect. All other things equal, landlords are going to take most of the income tax reduction through rent increases. Renters should hope Jawando wins because Friedson and Glass have been clear that they’re going to gut renter protections.

Are you under the impression that supply costs don't affect markets? I guess I paid an arm and a leg for plane tickets yesterday because the market can suddenly bear much higher airfares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is a dumb policy, but it's literally only a 0.1% increase. That is only $1,000 more income taxes if you make around 1.15M per year. This is a negligible amount of taxes and most people won't care.

Yes and it is a progressive tax. The tax rate is decreasing for others with lower income. This 0.1 % increase will apply to me and I am fine with it if others get a bit more of a break.

+1 to both of these comments. We make 180k and are feeling the pinch of COL going up and I do not care about this tax increase. It will hit us "gently" and if it helps the county balance the budget, I'm all for it.

Taxes in MoCo are high because the county does a lot for its residents. That's a major reason most of us moved here. Well, just like all my bills are higher now than they were 5 years ago, the same is true for the county. If we want to maintain a high level of services and amenities for residents, we will have to pay for it. I'm not rich but I'm not poor either and I'm fine pitching in.

If you don't like it, go move to one of those counties that don't do s**t for their residents and see how that goes. Enjoy schools that aren't even open five days a week, no public transit, etc. I've lived in a place like that and it sucks, but the county taxes are low.