Veterans pension tax giveaway unfair to other Maryland retirees

Gov. Wes Moore’s proposal to exempt additional amounts of retirement income for veterans is a feel-good proposal that, upon analysis, has real problems (“Should Maryland give a $50M bonus to military retirees?” Feb 17). The theory underlying the proposal is that Maryland should want to keep its veterans here rather than have them leave the state for tax friendlier places.

First, the amount of savings for each military retiree would be relatively trivial. It would hardly be enough savings to motivate someone to stay in Maryland.

Second, the aggregate of this giveaway will cost state and local governments more than $50 million annually in future years. This means that other taxpayers have to make up the difference.

Third, the proposal is not means tested. That is, a military retiree who gets a pension from the military but has a great deal of other income will still get the tax benefit.

Finally, the proposal is not egalitarian. Yes, we should try to keep military retirees here. But, should we not also want to keep retired barbers, carpenters, electricians, chefs, cab drivers, plumbers and other retirees here as well? Many of these persons have no pension at all. It is unfair to treat some retirees more favorably than others.

— Irwin E. Weiss, Lutherville

Military pension bill deserves further study

Maryland is full of university-educated economists. I suspect any of them who read The Baltimore Sun’s recent editorial regarding the Keep Our Heroes Home Act cringed at your logic (“Should Maryland give a $50M bonus to military retirees?” Feb. 17).

Here is the outline of the correct analysis:

First, provide an estimate of the number of military who would remain in Maryland because of this proposed tax change. Next, calculate the average income of this group. Then, evaluate whether the economic impact of this group staying in Maryland exceeds the cost of the lost taxes. This group will still be paying sales tax, property tax, gas, local, and other taxes. The group will be spending money in the local area, supporting Maryland businesses.

There are formulas that economists use to derive the total value of the economic impact. They can also calculate the value of the taxes that will be generated as a result of this spending. If the cost exceeds the benefit, then we should not give this tax break. I suspect the analysis will show that there is a cost to the state income tax that exceeds the benefit. However, when you add in all the other taxes paid directly or indirectly, I suspect the state comes out far ahead.

There is another element that should be done: a sensitivity analysis. With that, you vary the proposal to see at what level the maximum benefit is achieved. For this case, you might want to see the impact of a $15,000 break, a $25,000 break, a $35,000 and a $50,000 break. Some polling would be needed to see how this would influence a retiree’s choice to stay in Maryland.

If you want to argue that we should do this analysis before we start changing tax law, I will agree. But to claim that this will hurt Maryland before doing any analysis is just hand-waving. Let’s make use of some of these economic departments.

— William Hettchen, Ellicott City

Mayor’s conduit deal already proving costly

Thank you, Mayor Brandon Scott, for adding about 5% annually to our electric bills for the next few years — at least in part — because you wanted Baltimore Gas and Electric to take control of the Baltimore conduit system, an added cost for the utility (“Proposed new BGE rate would increase average customer monthly bills by $31 after three years,” Feb. 17).

Who did you think was going to pay for it, BGE? No such luck. It’s all going to be paid for by BGE customers. I think the mayor owes BGE customers an explanation of why he went against the voters’ wishes and essentially gave the control of the conduit system to BGE anyway — and in an underhanded way at that.

This act alone is probably going to make Scott a one-term mayor — on top of the continued gun crime and violence and homelessness he said he was going to get under the control.

— Jeff Rew, Columbia

No more Super Bowl Roman numerals, please

Now that Super Bowl LVII is behind us, will the National Football League revisit the idea of using Roman numerals to denote these events (“Way-too-early NFL power rankings: 2023 Ravens enter important offseason with plenty of work to do,” Feb. 13)?

I’ll bet that XXXVII to XLVIII percent of fans have difficulty reading those numerals. The NFL made deciphering them even trickier when they inserted the Lombardi Trophy in the midst of the logo, making it look like a Roman “I.”

If the NFL wants to simplify a thing or II for Super Bowl LVIII in MMXXIV, I’m sure that at least XCVIII percent of their fans would appreciate the change.

— Al Cunniff, Catonsville