Governor Josh Shapiro has announced that Pennsylvania will begin distributing $266 million in property tax and rent rebates, beginning July 1. The expansion of the existing rebate program represents a major targeted tax cut for seniors, aiming to provide significant relief to thousands of residents.

Shapiro made the announcement at the Upper Darby Senior Center, highlighting the critical support this program will offer to older and financially challenged residents of the state. He noted that starting Monday, hundreds of thousands of checks would begin being sent to seniors across Pennsylvania.

The program is funded through the Pennsylvania Lottery and gaming revenue and has existed in some form since 1971.

Who is eligible?

Eligible residents include those aged 65 and older, widows and widowers aged 50 and older, and disabled individuals.

Rebates can be as much as $1,000, depending on factors including the applicant’s income and property taxes paid. Residents have until the end of the year to apply for rebate checks, which can be done through the Department of Revenue District Offices or through state legislators.

How much is the rebate worth?

The rebate offers rebate amounts based on the income of the applicant. Homeowners and renters who are eligible can receive rebates up to a maximum of $1,000. Those with an income between $0 and $8,000 can receive the full $1,000. Applicants in the next income tier, up to $15,000, can receive $770. Those between $15,001 and $18,000 are eligible for $460, and those between $18,001 and $45,000 receive $380.

The tiered structure aims to provide relief to those in greatest need—the current income cap is set at $45,000, but will grow with inflation moving forward.

Tax Implications of Property Tax Rebates

According to IRS Publication 530, homeowners can generally deduct state and local real estate taxes on their federal income returns. However, any received property tax rebates such as those provided under the Pennsylvania Property Tax/Rent Rebate Program, require a reduction in the amount of the deduction taken by the amount of the rebate.

In other words, while the rebate provides immediate financial relief, it may also reduce the deduction on your federal taxes for the year in which the rebate is received.

With the rollout of these rebates, Pennsylvania is taking a significant step towards supporting senior residents and those in need, but the policy may not be without financial ramifications later in the tax year.

Much smaller shares of Democratic-leaning suburban women pointed to other concerns, like the conflict between the Israelis and Hamas, the economy or his performance as president.

Suburban women voters were generally much likelier to say that Biden respects women, compared to Trump. About 7 in 10 suburban women voters said Biden respects women a lot or some, compared to only about 3 in 10 suburban women who said that about Trump. Nearly 7 in 10 suburban women said Trump doesn’t respect women much, or at all.

But when asked about the most important issue for their 2024 vote, suburban women were most likely to point to inflation.

Terry Sykes, the owner of the boutique and spa along Newtown’s quaint State Street, says the local economy matters most to her.

It thrived, she said, during Trump’s administration, “like turning on a light switch.”

“To be clear, all of Trump’s policy positions support how I live my life,” the 61-year-old Sykes said. “I mean, he is who he is. And women need to get over it. Because it’s all about the policy and the health of our economy.”

Anusha Bela, working from a laptop in a coffee shop in Doylestown’s bustling downtown, had been a more fervent Biden supporter early on, but became disappointed with what she viewed as his slow response to Israel’s violence in Gaza.

“And would I prefer someone younger? Yes. Would I prefer someone who seems to have newer ideas? Yes,” the 40-year-old sports business consultant in a Philadelphia Phillies cap said.

“But Trump is a danger to democracy,” she said.

___

Associated Press writer Amelia Thomson DeVeaux in Washington contributed to this report.

What questions do you have about the 2024 elections? What major issues do you want candidates to address? Let us know.

A federal lawsuit aimed at Pennsylvania’s voting system threatens to undermine the 2024 election long before a ballot has been cast.

The Missouri-based United Sovereign Americans, alongside a trio of Chester County and Delaware County voters, alleges Pennsylvania failed to meet federal elections standards in 2022 and that those mistakes could be repeated in the upcoming cycle.

Bruce Castor Jr., attorney for the petitioners, said Pennsylvania is surpassing the “error rates” allowed under federal law.

“The whole idea here is to ask the federal court to order the various people who are responsible for enforcing election laws to see that the 2024 and subsequent federal elections are followed out within congressionally mandated guidelines,” Castor said.

The petitioners in the lawsuit, which was first reported by LancasterOnline, used their own calculation to determine their conclusions — a calculation that legal experts have deemed unreliable.

“It relies on their own data analysis, which has been shown — the analysis of these particular plaintiffs — to be completely faulty and discredited,” said Marian Schneider, senior policy counsel for voting rights with the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

She said the complaint demonstrates a “complete lack of understanding” of the federal statute and that “it’s attempting to undermine the 2024 election before it happens.”

“People are setting up this characterization of Pennsylvania election administration that they can point to after they don’t get the result they want in November, and that really upends the tradition of democracy in our country,” Schneider said.

The Pennsylvania Department of State is one of nine defendants listed in the legal complaint. Matt Heckel, spokesperson for the Department of State, categorized the lawsuit as unmerited.

“A review shows it to be a frivolous action alleging, without any supporting facts or viable legal theories, a panoply of conspiracy claims advanced by litigants who have repeatedly filed baseless actions rejected by the courts,” Heckel said. “Undeterred, these litigants and their counsel continue to waste taxpayer money.”