Idaho's grocery tax credit would increase to $155 under new bill
Idaho House Majority Leader Jason Monks, R-Meridian, (center) answers a question from a reporter at a press conference on Jan. 6, 2025, at the Statehouse in Boise. Also pictured are House Speaker Mike Moyle, R-Star, (left) and House Assistant Majority Leader Josh Tanner, R-Eagle. (Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun)
The tax credit Idahoans receive for buying groceries would increase from $120 a year to $155 a year under a new bill introduced Monday in the Idaho Legislature.
House Majority Leader Jason Monks, R-Meridian, sponsored the new bill, House Bill 61, saying the state has not increased the tax credit for two years.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
'We've seen a lot of inflation taking place lately on the groceries,' Monks said. 'It's important that individuals have the ability to purchase food without having to pay additional taxes on that, and so this particular legislation would increase that credit from $120 to $155.'
Before this bill, the Idaho Legislature last increased the grocery tax credit from $100 to $120 in 2023.
If Monks' bill is passed into law, the credit would cover about $10,033 in groceries for a family of four every year with a $620 grocery credit, Monks said. That corresponds to covering $861 worth of groceries each month.
As is the case currently, the taxpayer filing the tax return, their spouse and each dependent would be eligible to receive the credit, which is why the credit would be $620 for a family of four.
However, in lieu of the new $155 per credit, Monks' bill also allows Idaho taxpayers to save all of their grocery receipts for the whole year and submit their receipts to the Idaho State Tax Commission to receive a credit of up to $250 a year – in case they buy more groceries than the standard $155 credit would offset.
Under the new bill, the $155 grocery tax credit would apply uniformly to all Idahoans who do not submit itemized receipts. Currently, senior citizens receive a larger credit than the general public.
Rep. John Gannon, D-Boise, expressed concern for seniors, many of whom may be retired or on a fixed income.
'It looks to me like seniors are only going to get $15 more on their grocery tax credit,' Gannon said.
CONTACT US
Monks told Gannon the choice to make the $155 credit uniform was deliberate. Monks said he always thought the increased credit for seniors was off because he said in his experience teenagers eat more than seniors.
While Monks' bill would increase the tax credit Idaho taxpayers receive each year, it would leave the sales tax in place on groceries so that the state can collect sales tax revenue on groceries that out-of-state visitors buy.
'Being that tourism is one of our largest industries in the state, we get a lot of money that comes in from that, and that wouldn't change under this scenario,' Monks said.
A fiscal note attached to the new bill estimates that it would reduce sales tax revenue to the state by about $50 million.
Following a short debate, the House Revenue and Taxation Committee voted to introduce the new bill Monday, which clears the way for the bill to return to the committee for a full public hearing.
House Revenue and Taxation Committee Chairman David Cannon, R-Blackfoot, said his committee is not accepting remote virtual testimony on bills this year. However, Cannon said he will allow Idahoans to submit written email testimony by 4 p.m. the day before a hearing.
To submit written testimony, people should send an email to hrev@house.idaho.gov with the subject line clearly marked for legislative testimony. Cannon said everyone submitting email testimony must include their name, legislative district and any organization or group they represent, followed by the bill number they wish to testify on and whether they are for or against the bill. Cannon encouraged email writers to keep their testimony short so that it would last two minutes or less if read aloud.
Cannon said the committee secretary would read some email testimony, giving preference to writers who live farther from the Idaho State Capitol in Boise.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports With the settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences having received final approval from a federal district judge on June 6, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have moved into action with new legislative proposals regarding national rules for college sports. On Wednesday, June 10, Reps. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., and Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., introduced a bill that comes shortly after Reps. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., and Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., circulated a discussion draft of a bill that would largely put into federal law the terms and new rules-making structure of the settlement. The discussion draft is set to be the centerpiece of a hearing June 11 by a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Bilirakis, who has been involved in previous college-sports bill efforts, chairs the subcommittee. Guthrie chairs the full committee. The bill – in addition to being a bi-partisan presentation – continues recent work related to college sports from McClain, who is the current House Republican Conference chair. That makes her the GOP's No. 4-ranking member in the House. In April, McClain introduced a bill that would prevent college athletes from being employees of their schools, conferences or an athletic association. The discussion draft – as posted on Congress' general resource site, - includes language that specifically would allow the NCAA, and potentially the new Collegiate Sports Commission, to make rules in areas that have come into legal dispute in recent years and in areas that the NCAA wants to shield from legal dispute. The discussion draft, first reported on by The Washington Post, also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of federal law. In addition, the discussion draft includes a 'placeholder' section for language that likely would be connected to providing antitrust or other legal protection for various provisions. According the discussion draft, an 'interstate collegiate athletic association' would be able to 'establish and enforce rules relating to … the manner in which … student athletes may be recruited' to play sports; 'the transfer of a student athlete between institutions'; and 'the number of seasons or length of time for which a student athlete is eligible to compete, academic standards, and code of conduct'. The NCAA's rules regarding when recruits can be offered money in exchange for the use of their name, image and likeness; athletes' ability to freely transfer; and the number of seasons in which they are eligible to compete all of have been – or currently are being – addressed in federal and state courts across the country. That has raised concerns for NCAA officials about the future of rules such as those concerning academic eligibility requirements The discussion draft also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of law. These include medical coverage for athletically related injuries for at least two years after the conclusion of an athlete's career; guaranteed financial aid that would allow an athlete to complete an undergraduate degree; and 'an administrative structure that provides independent medical care and affirms the unchallengeable autonomous authority of primary athletics health care providers (team physicians and athletic trainers) to determine medical management and return-to-play decisions related to student athletes.'
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill could make it harder to claim this low-income tax credit
As Senate Republicans debate President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill", a lesser-known provision from the House-approved package could make it harder to claim a low-income tax credit. If enacted as written, the House measure in the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would require precertification of each qualifying child for filers claiming the so-called earned income tax credit, or EITC, starting in 2028. Under current law, taxpayers claim the EITC on their tax return — including Schedule EIC for qualifying children. The provision aims to "avoid duplicative and other erroneous claims," according to the bill's text. But policy experts say the new rules would burden eligible filers, who may forgo the EITC as a result. The measure could also delay tax refunds for those filers, particularly amid IRS cutbacks, experts say. More from Personal Finance:Job market is 'trash' right now, career coach says — here's whyWhat a 'revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investorsWhat Trump's plan to slash Pell Grant to lowest level in a decade means for you "You're going to flood the IRS with all these [EITC] documents," said Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "It's just not clear how they're going to process all this information." Holtzblatt, who has pushed to simplify the EITC for decades, wrote a critique of the proposed precertification last week. "This is not a new idea, but was previously considered, studied and rejected for very good reasons," Greg Leiserson, a senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University Law, wrote about the proposal in late May. Studies during the George W. Bush administration found an EITC precertification process reduced EITC claims for eligible filers, Leiserson wrote. During the study, precertification also yielded a lower return on investment compared to existing EITC enforcement, such as audits, he wrote. One of the key benefits of the EITC is the tax break is "refundable," meaning you can still claim the credit and get a refund with zero taxes owed. That's valuable for lower earners who don't have a tax bill, experts say. To qualify, you need "earned income," or wages from work. The income phase-outs depend on your "qualifying children," based on four IRS tests. "Eligibility is complicated," and residency requirements for qualifying children often cause errors, said Holtzblatt with the Tax Policy Center. For 2025, the tax break is worth up to $8,046 for eligible families. You can claim the maximum EITC with adjusted gross income up to $61,555 for single filers and $68,675 for married couples filing jointly. These phase-outs apply to families with three or more children. As of December 2024, about 23 million workers received the EITC for tax year 2022, according to the IRS. But 1 in 5 eligible taxpayers don't claim the tax break, the agency estimates. Nine Democratic Senators last week voiced concerns about the House-approved EITC changes in a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. If enacted, the updates would "further complicate the EITC's existing challenges and make it more difficult to claim," the lawmakers wrote. Higher earners are more likely to face an audit, but EITC claimants have a 5.5 times higher audit rate than the rest of U.S. filers, partly due to improper payments, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. The proposed EITC change, among other House provisions, still need Senate approval, and it's unclear how the measure could change. However, under the reconciliation process, Senate Republicans only need a simple majority to advance the bill.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
'One Big Beautiful Bill' harms more than it helps, says Miami archbishop
The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed in the U.S. House and is now in the Senate. Senators have a critical opportunity to reshape or amend some of the bill's provisions before moving it forward. Doing so is imperative, as the bill passed by the House contains real and substantial threats to the promotion of the common good and the protection of human life and dignity. Many across the political spectrum object to the bill's enormous spending, arguing it will add to the already unsustainable national debt. One of the most problematic areas is its doubling down on an enforcement-only approach to immigration, which needlessly adds to this debt. This sweeping legislation allocates $24 billion for immigration enforcement and $45 billion for detention — including the detention of families — a 400% increase from current funding levels, according to Dominican Life USA, which has broken down the immigration costs. It also proposes $100 million to expedite the removal of unaccompanied children. Additionally, the bill would impose prohibitive fees on immigrant families: $8,500 for family reunification with an unaccompanied child, $1,000 to request asylum, which does not exist now, and $550 for a work permit that must be renewed every six months. These draconian measures undermine both financial logic and moral responsibility. The administration has already effectively regained control of the border and is aggressively removing and deporting 'bad actors' — those who commit serious felonies after entering the country. However, as employers in agriculture, healthcare and service industries can attest, the majority of immigrants are honest, hardworking individuals who are simply seeking a better future for their families. Most undocumented immigrants are not criminals. Many have temporary protections, such as TPS (Temporary Protected Status), parole, or pending asylum applications. Some — including Haitians, Cubans, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans — entered under special humanitarian visas. Others arrived legally on student or visitor visas and later fell out of status by overstaying their visas. DREAMers, brought to the U.S. as children, have only been granted 'deferred departure' and still have no pathway to legal permanent residence. Rather than spend billions on mass deportation efforts targeting people who are already contributing positively to our nation, it would be both more financially prudent and morally just to halt enforcement-only policies and expand legal pathways to permanent status for non-criminal immigrants. The U.S. is currently facing labor shortages in many industries, including healthcare, services and agriculture. Removing immigrant workers will only worsen these shortages. While the administration enforces the laws, Congress makes the laws — and has the power to change them. Congress could revise the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to be less expensive, more economically advantageous and better aligned with our values by eliminating wasteful spending on enforcement and including a stay on deportations of non-criminal immigrants. Otherwise, this legislation will fund a mass deportation campaign that could tear apart families, disrupt industrie, and undermine communities. Long-term residents with U.S.-citizen children — people who work, pay taxes and enrich our culture — will be forced out. That does not serve the long-term interests or moral foundations of our country. Thomas Wenski is the archbishop of Miami.
