A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ENACTING THE "AGING WITH DIGNITY ACT" BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-3830 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR A TAXPAYER WHO IS CARING FOR A SENIOR FAMILY MEMBER.
Summary
H3337, titled the "Aging with Dignity Act," would create a new South Carolina income tax credit for taxpayers who care for a senior family member living in their home. The credit is set at $1,000 and is intended to help offset the costs of providing in-home care for an older relative.
To qualify, the taxpayer must obtain written certification from a licensed physician stating that the senior is unable to perform at least three activities of daily living without substantial assistance for at least six months. The bill also authorizes the Department of Revenue to adopt regulations needed to administer the credit, and it would take effect upon gubernatorial approval.
Impact
The bill would amend Title 12 of the South Carolina Code by adding a new income tax credit provision, section 12-6-3830. It would reduce state income tax liability for eligible caregivers and create a new administrative role for the Department of Revenue to implement and regulate the credit. The measure would primarily affect taxpayers caring for elderly or disabled family members in their homes, especially those providing long-term personal care.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the limited available context, the measure appears to be framed positively and supportively, with a focus on helping family caregivers and allowing seniors to remain in home-based care. There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal opposition or support can be measured from the legislative record here. The bill’s title and structure suggest a compassionate, caregiver-supportive policy approach.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are likely to involve fiscal cost, eligibility limits, and verification requirements. The $1,000 tax credit could raise concerns about reduced state revenue, while the physician certification and the requirement that the senior be unable to perform at least three activities of daily living may be viewed as necessary safeguards by supporters but as administratively burdensome or too restrictive by critics. Because no transcripts or votes are provided, specific lawmakers or stakeholder positions are not identified.