Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Military Retirement Hb60 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates urge Ways and Means to expand military retirement income subtraction to retain veterans; some county officials warn of local revenue impacts
Summary
Supporters representing veteran, National Guard and retiree organizations pressed for House Bill 60, which would expand Maryland's income‑tax subtraction for military retirement pay, saying it would help retain retirees and their economic contributions. County representatives asked for an unfavorable report or amendments, citing potential
Delegate Mike Rogers and veteran advocates urged the Ways and Means Committee to support House Bill 60 on Jan. 23, a phased expansion of Maryland’s income‑tax subtraction for military retirement income dubbed the Keep Our Heroes Home Act.
Rogers said expanding the subtraction will “keep more of our heroes here in Maryland” and help counter domestic migration to states that exempt military retirement pay. John May of the Maryland Military Coalition and other veteran and retiree organizations described the proposal as a necessary step to retain workforce and human capital, noting that 38 states have no age restriction on military retirement exemptions.
Testimony from the National Active and Retired Federal Employees, the National Guard Association of Maryland and the Maryland Military Coalition supported the bill, which would phase in increased subtraction amounts ($25,000 in 2025, $40,000 in 2026 and beyond, per testimony) to reduce the tax burden on retired service members.
Paul Ellington of Worcester County and a local official testified unfavorably, and county representatives warned that the subtraction modification would reduce state revenue and could shift costs to counties as more responsibilities and programs are funded locally. Ellington asked the committee to consider amendments or to table the proposal for further fiscal analysis.
Committee members asked about fiscal notes and county impacts; supporters acknowledged the state's fiscal constraints while arguing the long‑term economic benefit of retaining retirees through their spending, volunteerism and tax contributions. The committee took no immediate action.
Ending: The committee heard contrasting views: organized veterans and retiree groups seeking tax competitiveness to retain military retirees, and county officials warning of potential fiscal pressures at the local level. The bill awaits further committee review.
