|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
$13.5 million in state income tax savings recommended
By Guy Page
Vermont’s forests will – for the first time – be an official part of the solution to meeting Vermont’s carbon reduction mandates, if Gov. Phil Scott gets his way.
Thursday at the State House, Gov. Phil Scott and Agency of Natural Resources Secretary Julie Moore provided a broad overview of their alternative plan to the Clean Heat Standard, which they say was rejected by voters in November.
Part of the plan is to factor in the carbon sequestration of Vermont trees in order to meet the Global Warming Solution Act’s emissions reduction requirements.
Moore said the administration favors an established ‘net accounting standard’ that would allow the State to “take credit for farms and forest and the important carbon sequestration work that they perform.” More specifics will be forthcoming.
Trees and other plants consume the C02 produced by people, animals and fossil-fuel combustion and emit oxygen – the opposite of people and animals. Vermont is 75% forest (4.46 million acres.) In fact, trees consume half of Vermont’s total C02 emissions, the report said.
At present, the Vermont Family Forest Program allows owners of privately-owned forestland to access a private ‘carbon credit’ market.
Two other aspects of the governor’s alternative to the Clean Heat Standard:
- Repeal the right of private action (right to sue) for failure to meet carbon reduction mandates. Vermont already faces one such suit, which consumes state time and money better spent on actual climate reduction programs, Moore said.
- Take the rule-making authority from the Vermont Climate Council and restore it to the administration.
ICE more active in Vermont? – Gov. Scott said he hasn’t heard of any increased federal enforcement of illegal immigration in Vermont since the Trump administration took office.
Income tax breaks proposed
Speaking at the press conference on the theme of affordability, Tax Commissioner Craig Bolio announced tax reform proposals that, together, would save taxpayers $13.5 million if enacted by the Legislature:
Raise the [child tax credit] Age – expand the state $1000/child tax credit to cover low and middle income families with children up to age six. At present the maximum age is five.
Match earned Income tax credit with feds – Expand Vermont’s earned income tax credit (for low/middle-income people without young children) to 100% of the federal earned income credit. The present rate is 38%.
Increase income tax exemption on social security benefits – The new threshold would be $65,000 for single filers, $85,000 filed jointly.
Exempt military pension – 35 states now exempt military pension from state income tax. Many military retirees retire between the ages of 35-50 and then go back to work. Vermont can affirm its support for military retirees and attract skilled, hard-working employees and community members.
What’s good for Travis? A VDC reader asked us to ask the governor how his $9 billion, no tax-and-fee increase proposed budget would benefit Travis, the hard-working middle income Vermonter whom Scott made a cause celebre during affordability talks last year.
So we asked the governor. He answered:
“Travis might benefit from the 13.5 million in tax relief. He might also benefit from [funding for] the housing we desperately need…. to have more taxpayers, not more taxes, which In time will alleviate the tax burden on Travis.”
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: State House Spotlight
Income tax exemptions. The Vermont government needs to attract more retired people so they can launder military and social security retirement money into the Vermont economy with those federal funds.
Yes!yes! Yes!
Governor Scott,
Please have the courage to withdraw Vermont’s Membership from the US Climate Alliance.
When you signed Vermont up in 2017, you laid the foundation for ALL of the fear-mongering, unreasonable, and exorbitantly expensive Vermont Climate Policies.
Critical thinkers know that human caused climate change is an unproven, unscientific theory being used to control people and money.
You took an Oath to uphold the Individual Rights, Freedoms and Privileges laid out for Vermont Citizens in the Vermont and United States Constitutions.
The requirements and goals for members in the US Climate Alliance are in opposition to our Vermont State and United States Constitutions.
Many Vermonters are Hoping you will see this mistake you made in 2017 and make a correction.
Good on you, Governor Scott. As I told you this summer at the ice cream stand, you will always have my vote. This is what I’ve been saying all along. No one lives up here (compared to where I came from in Massachusetts), it’s mostly trees, and we can never have enough trees (or too few solar fields). I’m proud that I’m letting almost all my lawn revert to meadow and have let other land revert to forest. And I just wanted to add that when I first moved up here 21 years ago, I slept all the time, probably because of the pure air filtered by all those trees.
Regarding our environment: the EPA lists 14 superfund priority sites in Vermont. Contaminated and polluted sites that are not rectified, monitored, but not completed. We also have a PFAS problem in drinking water. We also have the chem trails that the Administration denies, but the proof is in the Federal documentation and our eyes do not deceive us. Yet, we are to believe the climate is a threat? Those who are saying so are the wealthiest of all and their carbon foot print is not to be considered – how dare we? They have to three or four houses, limos and jets to shuffle them to and fro – c’mon man! Considering these overlords are willfully poisoning our food, water, and air, it should be clear the fraud being played out here. Yet, grifters gotta grift and they are too far into the scam to turn back now. Agenda 2030 – depopulation, wealth transfer, reset.
I couldn’t have said it better myself, Melissa. You are spot on and I agree with you 100%.
Funny I had never heard anyone mention this obvious truth that our forests and vegetation consume half of our CO2 emissions. Maybe I have not been listening. Maybe our scientific community can research which vegetation consumes more carbon, encourage its growth, modify some to use more carbon and still be animal friendly.
All a show, all a show. If Gov. Scott really wanted to change direction to follow The People’s mandate which they voted for on November 5th, he would:
1. Remove himself from being a member of the mis-named “U.S.” Climate Alliance
2. Repeal the GWSA
3. Repeal Act 250
4. Promote a pro-business state, not a government state, which will bring in high wage private company jobs, which in-turn promotes single family housing by people being able to build their own home on the land of their choice. Government housing is what is being promoted, what does that tell you?
5. Repeal 30% by 2030 50% by 2050
6. End all climate scam programs and refund Vermonters their money for being used and abused by this terrible scam.
7. Adhere to and promote law and order, end recreational cannabis, close down all injection sites which enable crime – instead assist those with mental disabilities, addicts, by promoting rehab and/or work in exchange for assistance, so they can help the economy and not be a drain to it. Clean up Vermont. This is just common sense, which is really lacking.
That’s what I said: What about our trees? Don’t they count as ‘green creditc’? Seemed pretty obvious to me. We are afterall the green mountain state… what makes those mountains green? Do we need to state the obvious?: WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM… if there really is a problem, and there ain’t. If we actually succeeded in getting rid of so called greenhous gases, we would die… but our trees would (and are) start to die first… better check what those chemicals and particulates are (carcinogens and possibly aerosolized vaccines [see Del Bigtrees HIGHWIRE on geoengineering and vaccine connection] for starters)…
poison has entered our previoulsy homeostatic system… and having sown the wind, we will reap the whirlwind literally and figureatively…
I know I certainly wasn’t the first, or the only person asking why the Legislature was so happy to penalize us for CO2 we may produce, but not credit us for our forest and fields. Well, I know the reason, but to anyone with any kind of logical thinking it was just another thing that didn’t make any sense. Seems to me, anyone living in an apartment in Burlington (or cities) should be penalized, anyone with some acreage should be credited. See how fair that is? Kinda like all this EV car nonsense that makes more sense in large cites but not so much out in the country, yet I have been penalized for NEEDING to drive a gas powered truck.
I agree completely that he needs to take this several steps further, ie,
Remove himself from being a member of the mis-named “U.S.” Climate Alliance
Repeal the GWSA
Repeal Act 250
The other proposals would go a long way in making VT more affordable…and KEEP people here. I’m still on the fence. REALLY unhappy about the childcare tax, as well as a few other things. I knew that tax would open the door to them being comfortable hitting us again, and they’d like to via S1. I am hoping S1 will die a fast death. I am NOT hopeful this would solve Vermont’s problems (and would push me off the “leave Vermont” side of the fence) and its passage would cause EVEN MORE issues. I have YET to see one thing the VT LEG does that is actually *really* helpful. They are just meddling (like that nosy neighbor) in stuff to keep themselves busy and make themselves look important. And while I’m on this tangent, that reminds me that they give themselves raises and benefits, at our expense. Their “job” was never meant to be a full time gig, NOR should it be. So, my last recommendation is for the LEG to go back to meeting every other year for 6 weeks. Deal with the MAJOR ISSUES and go home. Done.
💯 agree!
Perhaps if we started planting more trees in place of the fields full of solar panels . . . or removing trees from our ridge-lines to tilt at windmills . . .
No thanks, it’s just a bait and switch for problem that doesn’t exist. Will I need a permit to cut a tree to burn? Wasted breath on a conversation that doesn’t need to be had.
NO Social Security benefits should be taxed. Even California NJ NY or Mass don’t tax SS benefits! Socialists will take every cent you have.
If it moves or stands still these progressive, nannies will try to tax it. It appears that the Gov is a Johnny come lately. The other thing I want to know is can the VT Supreme court read and understand our Vermont constitution or are they just rubber stamp appointments for the great progressive movement.
The legislature has the legislative counsel of lawyers to advise them on the constitutionality of the bills they propose to pass into law. Of course they never listen even though they all took an oath to defend and not harm the Vermont constitution under the pains and penalties of perjury. Who is supposed to charge them with perjury? Everyone in control of the government is on their team.
Do we really expect that politicians are going to correct all the destructive policies they’ve brought onto us or do the people have to do it again at the ballot box? This is just like another clickbait article with no substance. A real governor would use his or her executive power and now that our governor has veto authority back he could put a stop to most of this crap. When will that governor show up? I think that even well meaning democrats are sick of what’s going on. The comment above have many answers to the real problems caused by the same people we are waiting to fix them.
The logic escapes when the self-anointed “green” experts think burning wood for heating/cooking is OK but everything else “carbon” is bad. The same trees they want to keep and count for CO2 absorption reasons are the natural carbon sinks they think are fine to burn?
No matter, CO2 and all things carbon are the givers of life on this planet. The incredibly small CO2 greenhouse effect cannot warm the ocean which holds 50 times more “carbon” than the atmosphere. CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t have the energy required to warm the oceans.
More carbon – more life!