Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Delegates push tax breaks for volunteer public-safety members, public-safety retirees and military retirees
Summary
The committee heard several related income-tax subtraction bills: HB815 would increase the public-safety volunteer subtraction to $10,000; HB792 would raise the retirement-income subtraction for public-safety employees 55+ to $20,000; HB800 would remove the 55-year age limit for military retirement income subtraction. Sponsors framed the measures
Delegates presented a set of related income-tax subtraction bills aimed at providing modest tax relief to public-safety volunteers, public-safety retirees and military retirees.
Delegate Dana Stein testified in support of House Bill 815, which would raise the public-safety volunteer subtraction modification from $7,000 to $10,000 for tax years 2025 and beyond. Stein said volunteers deliver substantial in-kind value — he cited an estimated $65 million to $70 million in volunteer contributions statewide each year — and that the modest increase would aid recruitment amid aging volunteer ranks.
Delegate Elliot “Mike” Griffith proposed HB 792 to increase the maximum income-tax subtraction for public-safety employee retirement income for people aged 55 and over from $15,000 to $20,000, aligning the benefit with prior military retirement adjustments. Griffith said the change would help retain public-safety employees and argued the fiscal tradeoff could produce broader economic returns as retirees remain in-state and continue to work or spend locally.
Griffith also introduced HB 800, which would extend the $20,000 military retirement subtraction to retirement recipients under age 55. He and other witnesses argued many service members retire well before age 55 and could be incentivized to remain in Maryland by removing the age barrier; the sponsor noted the fiscal note estimated approximately $3 million in potential revenue cost in the first year but argued retention effects could offset the cost.
Committee members asked technical questions about fiscal notes and timing, and about comparisons with earlier legislation that adjusted military retirement exemptions. No votes were taken; sponsors said they would coordinate with fiscal staff and stakeholders to refine fiscal and implementation language.
