I know some people are going to read this — or read the title and nothing more — and jump to the conclusion that I’m just a liberal bashing the troops. Nothing could be further from the truth. My dad served in World War II and came home with undiagnosed PTSD that derailed his life for several years. One of my uncles lied about his age, enlisted in the Navy at 15, and died on board a submarine in WWII. My grandfather-in-law died leading his unit through a French farm field in World War I without ever getting to see or hold his infant son (who eventually became my father-in-law). I respect the people who serve in the armed forces.

But this tax exemption for military pensions that just became law in Vermont has nothing to do with the troops. It’s the officer class who will reap most of the benefits, and most of them are quite comfortable already. I don’t recall anyone bringing this up during the years-long debate over the exemption, which has been strongly pushed by Gov. Phil Scott.

Hell, I wouldn’t know about this if not for political cartoonist and Vietnam vet Jeff Danziger, who emailed me about the military pension system — in particular, who qualifies and who doesn’t.

In order to earn a military pension, you have to serve 20 years in the military. This includes most officers and some NCOs. It excludes the grunts, the people who do the fighting and shoulder most of the risk. It would not have included my dad or my grandfather-in-law’s surviving widow and son — or former Lt. Danziger, who “only” served four years in the Big Muddy. (His Vietnam memoir, Lieutenant Dangerous, is highly recommended.)

In other words, the military pension exemption is largely a giveaway to the affluent.

Take, for example, Gerald Malloy, d/b/a Scary Eagle Man. The twice-very-unsuccessful Republican candidate for U.S. Senate served his country for 20 years, retired, and went to work for Raytheon, the mega-defense contractor. (The same Raytheon that paid nearly a billion dollars in 2024 to resolve civil and criminal charges of bribery and fraud.) I don’t knnow how much he gets paid by Raytheon, but it’s safe to say he ain’t begging for spare change. From now on, he won’t have to pay state taxes on his military pension. Did he really need the tax break?

All military officers time out at early enough ages to build successful civilian careers as corporate executives, lobbyists, consultants, government officials, and other highly secure lines of work. Do those people really need the tax break?

We didn’t hear anything about this during the debate over the exemption. Instead, we heard inaccurate drivel about honoring the troops and their sacrifices. Again, the people who sacrificed the most aren’t in the military pension system and won’t enjoy the tax break.

Speaking of drivel, we also heard plenty about our tax policy scaring away veterans who might have moved to Vermont or forcing vets who live here to move away. As has been proven many, many times before, there is no evidence that tax policy is a measurable factor in decisions about where to live. The most extreme and relevant example: We live next door to New Hampshire, which has no state income tax at all. And yet there’s no evidence of any significant migration across the Connecticut River.

I do not claim that nobody leaves Vermont for tax reasons, but I do say that hardly anybody makes that decision. It shouldn’t be a factor in state tax policy.

Also speaking of drivel, I’ve read assertions that the military pension exemption will help solve Vermont’s very real and very daunting demographic challenges, and will help draw families with children to Vermont. One writer asserted that military pensioners are “often in their late 30s and 40s.” Well, 40s I’ll buy, especially late 40s. But 30s? How many military pensioners began their careers at age 18 or 19? Some NCOs, I’m sure, but not many in the officer class. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, the average age of a military officer at retirement is 46.5 years.

In other words, most military retirees are in their 50s or beyond. They aren’t raising families. They won’t lower Vermont’s median age much at all.

They are, as a class, highly professional people with highly marketable skills, and we do have a workforce shortage. But does that mean we have to bribe them? Do we have to forego tax revenue from an entire segment of affluent workers in order to attract an unknown number of new taxpayers?

A number that’s unknown but, see above, is likely to be very small. Too small to move the economic needle.

In this regard, the military pension exemption is exactly like Gov. Scott’s much-vaunted Remote Worker Grant Program, which pays a bonus to affluent people to move here. It’s a giveaway to the comfortable, which seems awfully tone-deaf at a moment when we’re kicking hundreds out of the motel voucher program because Governor Nice Guy claims we can’t afford it. (Alex Karambelas of the ACLU of Vermont, quoted by Keith Whitcomb Jr. of the Barre Montpelier Times Argus Rutland Herald about last week’s mass unsheltering: “What I saw was unimaginable. The people being removed right now have severe medical vulnerabilities. I talked to people who are bedridden, people in active cancer treatment, people on oxygen machines.”)

Now if you want to argue that retired military personnel deserve a tax break because of their service to their country, that’s fine. Even admirals and generals make sacrifices and should be respected for their service. But it will do nothing for the vast majority of military veterans, especially those who took the greatest risks. And, as Sen. Ann Cummings has argued, where do you draw the line? Do you also exempt others who did dangerous things for our protection? Retired police officers and firefighters? EMS personnel? Nurses? Corrections officers?

In the end, I don’t have a big problem with the exemption. It’s not a great deal of money, and the vast majority of states don’t tax military pensions. But let’s not lie about it. Let’s see it for what it really is: A giveaway to those who don’t need it, that won’t meaningfully increase our workforce or make a material difference in improving our demographics. If you still see it as a worthwhile expenditure of state resources, well, congratulations. You got your wish.