Montgomery County Council masks a tax hike as a credit adjustment | The Locally Times
The Council's decision to end the Income Tax Offset Credit effectively raises taxes on 201,000 households by $692 per year.
The Montgomery County Council finalized its FY2027 budget with a maneuver that avoids a direct vote on tax rates while ensuring residents pay more. By eliminating the Income Tax Offset Credit, the Council has effectively imposed a $692 flat tax increase on 201,000 households. This change arrives not through a transparent adjustment to the property tax rate, but through the quiet removal of a long-standing credit, a tactic that obscures the true cost of local government from the very people who finance it. ## The cost of opacity Public money belongs to the residents, not the government. When a local body seeks to close a $155 million structural deficit, the democratic process demands a public reckoning with the tax rate. Instead, the Council opted for a back-door increase. By stripping away a credit that has historically offset the burden on homeowners, the Council has effectively raised the tax bill without the political accountability that comes with a formal rate hike. This is a failure of transparency. When institutions mask the cost of their operations, they treat public authority as an entitlement rather than a trust. Legitimacy flows upward from citizens, and citizens have a right to know exactly what they are paying for and why. ## The argument for fiscal discipline Proponents of the budget argue that eliminating the credit is a necessary, revenue-neutral measure to maintain essential services. They contend that broad-based tax rate hikes would be more damaging and that this adjustment is the most efficient way to bridge the $155 million structural gap. This is the strongest version of their case: that the government must provide services, and that in a constrained fiscal environment, the least disruptive path is to remove a credit rather than alter the headline tax rate. However, this argument ignores the fundamental requirement of fiscal responsibility. If a government cannot balance its books without resorting to accounting tricks, it has not solved its structural deficit; it has merely hidden it. A government that relies on obscuring the cost of its services is a government that has ceased to compete for the trust of its residents. The focus should not be on how to extract more revenue through administrative adjustments, but on how to deliver maximum value for every dollar already collected. The Council should have prioritized rigorous, independent audits and aggressive spending discipline to address the deficit at its source. ## A path toward accountability American local government in the 21st century is too often characterized by waste and a lack of accountability. Residents should not tolerate fiscal mismanagement or the use of complex credit structures to bypass public scrutiny. Transparency is the precondition of democratic legitimacy. When a council closes the door on public debate regarding the true cost of government, it undermines the trust required for a healthy community. The burden of justification rests entirely on the Council. They have failed to justify this increase through open, honest debate. To restore confidence, the Council must reverse the elimination of the Income Tax Offset Credit. They should instead undertake a transparent review of the budget, identifying and cutting inefficient spending to close the structural deficit. If the government requires more revenue to provide essential services, it must be willing to propose a transparent, public tax rate increase and defend it before the voters. Anything less is an abdication of the responsibility that comes with public office. This editorial represents the institutional view of The Locally Times. Our reporting is separate and follows document-based standards. We welcome disagreement — write to us at editorial@locallytimes.com.