Lawmakers want to keep 100-year-old Georgia residents from paying income tax
Are you 100 years old or older? If you are, some state lawmakers want to stop you from paying income taxes.
Woodstock Rep. Jordan Ridley filed a bill to exempt Georgia centenarians from paying income taxes while living in the state.
House Bill 264 says that while income taxes are imposed on every resident of the state of Georgia, beginning retroactively on Jan. 1, 'no such tax is imposed on any resident of this state who has reached the age of 100 or older prior to January 1 of such taxable year.'
That means if the bill passes and gets signed into law, any Georgian who has already turned 100 this year, or did before Jan. 1, would not have to pay their income taxes.
The bill is still in the early stages of the process and is still going through the House Ways and Means Committee.
It has not yet been assigned to a Senate committee for review.
[DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks]
RELATED STORIES:
Will Georgians get another special tax refund in 2025?
Georgia lawmakers renew push for sales tax holiday on firearms, ammunition
Tax credit for gun safes introduced in Georgia Legislature
Lawmaker files bill to keep Georgians from paying tax on inherited vehicles
[SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Mass. needs competitive pay for defense lawyers
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Legislators ought to listen to the committee. Ensuring that there are enough lawyers to uphold the constitutional right to representation enshrined in the Sixth Amendment should be a legislative priority. Whether in the state budget or in some other legislative vehicle, such as a supplemental budget, lawmakers should find a way to boost compensation rates across all categories of indigent defense, which span criminal, mental health, family law, and juvenile cases. Doing so would cost the state about $29 million annually. Advertisement Massachusetts' minimum bar advocate rate of $65 per hour is an outlier in New England. Maine's minimum rate is $150, New Hampshire's is $125 to $150, and Rhode Island's is $112 for most cases. Current rates in Massachusetts don't reflect the complexity of modern court cases, the overhead costs private attorneys pay out of pocket, or the state's sky-high cost of living. Advertisement The Senate's version of the budget does boost rates — but only for mental health appointments and Superior Court cases. The work stoppage is underscoring the critical work bar advocates produce. Since the stoppage began on May 27, the committee and its in-house counsel have struggled to provide attorneys for all clients that need them. Now, a slew of people accused of crimes are waiting, either in jails or out on bail — more than 150 people in Boston as of June 9, according to the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. These numbers are estimates, and bar advocate participation in the work stoppage varies between counties. But leaders agree that the number of unrepresented clients across Massachusetts is already in the hundreds and will continue to grow. Without representation, defendants are forced to stay in jail for days without arraignment, a violation of their constitutional rights. As early as next week, the Supreme Judicial Court may have to consider implementing the A shortage of bar advocates has put courts under pressure before. In 2019, Hampden County couldn't represent all of its clients, and a court instituted a day rate of $424 to incentivize additional private lawyers to handle arraignments. It was effective — and proved that low compensation really is a dissuasive factor for most private attorneys. Advertisement The legislature shouldn't wait for the crisis to deepen to provide a pay raise for bar advocates. Waiting to act will force more defendants to languish without representation, risking case mismanagement or pouring money into finding other private attorneys willing to do the work. This doesn't have to happen. The best way to solve this issue is to pay bar advocates fairly in the upcoming budget, allowing them to uphold the constitutional rights of their clients and ensuring due process across the Commonwealth. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senate GOP unveil long-awaited SNAP proposals for Trump bill
Senate Republicans on Wednesday rolled out a suite of proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as a key component of President Trump's 'big beautiful bill' – but it dials back some of the proposals sought by the House that drew intraparty concerns. The new legislative text from the Senate would require states to cover some of the cost of SNAP benefits, which are currently completely funded by the federal government, if they have a payment error rate above 6 percent beginning in fiscal 2028, while allowing states with rates below that level to continue paying zero percent. It also proposes states with higher payment error rates cover a greater share of benefit costs. If the error rate is 6 percent or higher, states would be subject to a sliding scale that could see its share of allotments rise to a range of between 5 percent to 15 percent. The House, by contrast, called for all states to cover 5 percent of the cost of allotments in its agricultural proposal passed as part of a broader plan to advance Trump's tax agenda last month, with states that had higher payment error rates having to pay anywhere between 15 to 25 percent. The softened proposal comes as Senate Republicans expressed concerns about how the House pitch would have impacted states. 'This bill takes a commonsense approach to reforming SNAP-cutting waste, increasing state accountability, and helping recipients transition to self-sufficiency through work and training,' Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman (R-Ariz.) said in a statement on Wednesday. 'It's about being good stewards of taxpayer dollars while giving folks the tools to succeed.' 'At the same time, our farmers and ranchers are facing real challenges,' he said. 'This legislation delivers the risk management tools and updated farm bill safety net they need to keep producing the safest, most abundant and affordable food, fuel, and fiber in the world. It's an investment in rural America and the future of agriculture.' Like the House bill, the Senate bill would also decrease the administrative cost the federal government is required to pay to help cover program operations in the states by 25 percent, but beginning in fiscal year 2027. The proposals in both chambers also seek to limit the federal government's ability to increase monthly benefits in the future and beef up work requirements, as well as farm provisions that GOP leaders have argued will make it easier to craft a bipartisan farm bill in the months ahead – although Democrats have said otherwise. Republicans on the Senate Agriculture Committee estimated the recent legislation would generate $144 billion in net savings in the years ahead as the party looks to ramp up cost-cutting measures in Trump's plan amid concerns about the overall deficit impact of his tax priorities. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Democrat Congresswoman draws boos over 'shameful' sexism remark in committee hearing with Treasury Secretary
A House Ways and Means Committee hearing took an unexpected turn Wednesday when Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) accused Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent of interrupting her because of her gender—prompting audible groans from the room. The exchange occurred during a tense five-minute questioning session, where Sanchez challenged Bessent on the impact of tariffs enacted under President Trump's administration. "Prices are rising on many everyday goods," Sanchez said, citing increases in clothing, shoes, canned food, toys, and household tools. She added, "On average, Trump's tariffs are estimated to cost households $3,000 more for the same goods than they would have last year," though she did not cite the source of the figure when pressed. Trump Says 'Total Reset Negotiated' With China During Tariff Talks In Geneva When Bessent attempted to interject, Sanchez quickly cut him off: "Please don't interrupt me… I know I'm a woman, but please try to limit yourself to answering my questions." That remark prompted groans from the hearing room, with one attendee audibly reacting, "Oh, come on." Sanchez responded: "No, I'm sorry, but we get talked over all the time, and I don't want that to happen at this hearing." Read On The Fox News App Bessent, who is openly gay, did not address the accusation and instead focused on defending the administration's trade policies. When Sanchez challenged him on pricing impacts and China's trade behavior, Bessent responded, "That's incorrect," and said, "They met their agreements under President Trump in 2020, and President Biden did not enforce them." Wh Slams Dems' 'Partisan Games' After Trump-foe Schiff Calls For Insider Trading Investigation Over Tariffs Sanchez repeatedly claimed that American consumers are paying more due to tariffs and described recent negotiations with China as rushed and lacking transparency. "A poorly negotiated trade deal with China is probably not worth the paper that it is written on," she said. "I was alarmed to hear this morning that Trump said the U.S.–China deal was done after just two days of talks in London." Bessent defended the agreement as an initial step. "The deal struck was for a specific goal, and it will be a much longer process," he said, adding, "China has proven an unreliable partner." The clash between Sanchez and Bessent was repeatedly moderated by Chairman Adrian Smith (R-NE), who reminded members of time limits and decorum throughout the article source: Democrat Congresswoman draws boos over 'shameful' sexism remark in committee hearing with Treasury Secretary
