Tax Credit for Volunteer Firefighters/EMS [Archive] - Firehouse Forums

WillGriffin1

11-20-2005, 01:54 AM

Hello All,

I'm attempting to do something that will literally take an act of congress.

I'm lobbying for a $1,000 federal income tax credit for active volunteer firefighters, a $1,000 tax credit for employers who let their active volunteer firefighter employees leave work to answer alarms/emergencies, and a $2,500 grant/scholarship for active volunteer firefighters.

As we all know first hand, which has been reported by studies and by the newspapers (USA Today 11/7/05) there is a critical shortage of volunteer firefighters and our numbers our dwindling rapidly. I believe these tax credits will help to recruit and to retain active volunteer firefighters.

I'm going to need firefighters posting here and to the forums at VFD-Funding.com to support these tax credit initiatives.

For more information and to see what you can do to help me get this done, which should have been done a long time ago, please visit http://VFD-Funding.com

Please give your support and your input for this, because if congress and the public see that the firefighters want/need this, we've got an excellent chance of getting this done.

THANX,
Will Griffin

DaSharkie

11-20-2005, 06:59 AM

WillGriffin1

11-22-2005, 03:21 AM

This has been brought up before on the forums with mixed reviews.

Why on volunteer firefighters? Why not EMS? Why not PD?

Personally I do not see a tax credit getting any more applicants into the POC or volunteer deparments. There are numerous issues regarding the decrease in applicants including increased time demands, increasing call volumes, increasing training requirements, apathy, lack of community spirit, lack of support.

If anything, this is a better option for a local benefit not at the national level.

Actually if EMS are volunteers, they should qualify for the income tax credit. Same is true for volunteer fire police, which are very necessary in many communities and situations. IF FF/EMS/PD are paid, full-time or part-time, they shouldn't qualify.

If an EMS is paid or a PD is paid, then they shouldn't qualify, because the next thing you know you'll have all municipal employees wanting it, including the sanitation engineers . . . and this could lead back to qualifying the politicians themselves...perhaps this is how to get such a bill enacted?

And recruitment/retention of volunteers is a national problem for the VFD/EMS services. Thus, it probably now requires a national response, rather than a local response. This may not address all of the factors of the declining numbers of voluteer FF/EMS, but it does address a bunch of them, certainly those you have listed.

Something on the local level might be the municipalities providing health insurance coverage under their muni-employees plan for FF/EMS, who meet eligibility criteria, such as response percentages, training/drills, certifications, etc.

DennisTheMenace

11-22-2005, 11:27 AM

WillGriffin1

11-23-2005, 01:03 AM

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.385:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109br07n9::

Bills have been intruduced, just call your Senators and Representatives offices, ask for the Legislative Assistant that deal with fire department issues, and insist that their boss, your representative, co-sponsor the bill.
The Capitol Switchboard number is 202-224-3121

Thanx for posting that Dennis. As you know, nothing has been done since this was first proposed. It got shipped to committee, has sat there buried and nothing has compelled congress (Committee Chairman) to put it on the calendar for discussion. This is why I'm really getting active with it and getting behind it in a major way, with many changes and expansions.

What it is going to take is this expansion and a lot of lobbying. I've asked folks to visit http://VFD-Funding.com to see what they can do to help promote/lobby this as hard as we can.

Remember, next year is an election year and if firefighters/EMS don't unite and rally around this, then there is no incentive for congress to act. I'm personally spending a small fortune (more that the $1,000 tax credit) in just hiring lawyers/lobbyist to try to make this happen. I don't expect anybody to put up the money I have available, but I can use all of the support and confirmations of interest from the FF/EMS community we can get and show with forum postings here and at http://VFD-Funding.com/phpBB. I've identified many things that folks in the FF/EMS community can do to help get this done.

The switchboard at congress is a start, but we need to approach these members of congress and the senate individually, with emphasis to members of each house's Ways & Means Committee...Homeland Security Committees as well.

Drop by VFD-Funding.com and see what I'm suggesting. I'm open to all ideas and I'll gladly accept help from anybody and everybody.

Will Griffin
http://VFD-Funding.com

Bones42

11-23-2005, 09:22 AM

Explain what "volunteer" is. If you get compensated in anyway (LOSAP, clothing/uniform allowance, etc), do you still qualify as volunteer? And as I said in another thread...does anyone really think this will bring a member in or help keep one? They still need to work their full-time job(s) so is this credit worth any possible damage it may do to us?

jasper45

11-23-2005, 05:26 PM

IF FF/EMS/PD are paid, full-time or part-time, they shouldn't qualify.

If an EMS is paid or a PD is paid, then they shouldn't qualify, because the next thing you know you'll have all municipal employees wanting it, including the sanitation engineers .

I really had to laugh when I read this. Does anyone beside myself see any ‘double standard’ here? I can’t tell you how many times I have read, and been told on these very forums that there is no difference between a volunteer or career firefighter.
How many times have fingers been pointed at myself, along with all other IAFF members because we are supposedly ‘anti-volly’.
I’m not looking to start a debate on this issue, I happen to think the tax-credit isn’t a bad idea. What irritates me is the language I quoted here.
Why shouldn’t a career firefighter be entitled to the same tax credit? I know many of my career brothers/sisters would benefit greatly from this kind of tax break, especially in the tax hell I live in here. I don’t know many volunteer firefighters, but the few I do know out earn me significantly. In fact, they wouldn’t be caught dead doing my job because of my salary, and how low it is in their opinion.

If your going to argue that volunteers are no different than career, you need to be consistent. If you want to be looked at as equal, with no difference, then there is no difference. There should be one tax break then, for firefighters, or the other option is there should be no tax break for firefighters.

CaptainGonzo

11-24-2005, 08:39 AM

I really had to laugh when I read this. Does anyone beside myself see any ‘double standard’ here? I can’t tell you how many times I have read, and been told on these very forums that there is no difference between a volunteer or career firefighter.
How many times have fingers been pointed at myself, along with all other IAFF members because we are supposedly ‘anti-volly’.
I’m not looking to start a debate on this issue, I happen to think the tax-credit isn’t a bad idea. What irritates me is the language I quoted here.
Why shouldn’t a career firefighter be entitled to the same tax credit? I know many of my career brothers/sisters would benefit greatly from this kind of tax break, especially in the tax hell I live in here. I don’t know many volunteer firefighters, but the few I do know out earn me significantly. In fact, they wouldn’t be caught dead doing my job because of my salary, and how low it is in their opinion.

If your going to argue that volunteers are no different than career, you need to be consistent. If you want to be looked at as equal, with no difference, then there is no difference. There should be one tax break then, for firefighters, or the other option is there should be no tax break for firefighters.

Jasper45....

Amen, Bro.

How about those firefighters who are required to live within the city/town limits? First of all... residency requirements suck. When someone is hanging out the window on the second floor of a house on fire at 03:00, do you think they would rather be rescued by a firefighter who is a resident of the town as opposed to a firefighter who lives elsewhere? I don't think so!

They are, in effect, paying a part of their own salaries.

Our residency requirement is 15 statute air miles from border to border, but in our last contract we were able to get it waived, as the cost of housing here is expensive (rents average $1200 a month, existing construction from $250 to $400K, new construction is $600K to 1.5 million!) It can be reinsitituted if the Fire Chief feels the need due to the lack of response for callbacks, but it would only affect new hires.

WillGriffin1

What criteria would you use to determine the eligibilty for the tax credit?

Will they have to complete firefighter 1-2?
Will they have to attend a preset number of drills?
Will they have to respond to a preset percentage of calls?

I see people joining just to save a grand and have no intention whatsoever of doing anything except reap the status of being a volunteer and treating the VFD as another social club.

Dalmatian190

11-24-2005, 09:22 PM

It's a local issue.

Let the local government grant a $1,000 credit against local property taxes.

While that may not do much for the 20 y/o who only owns a pickup, it will help those who own houses.

Each County / State can decide if they have a role dependent on the local situation.

This shouldn't a federal issue.

We shouldn't have the Federal COPS, the Federal SAFER, or this.

I also have a problem with rampant tax-code manipulation going on now. This is cylical -- in about 4 or 5 years, you'll see another round of "simplification" in which these numerous credits and deductions are pared down.

If you're going to do this, strategically wait until after the next round of simplification is done, then you'll get a good 20 year run of having it around.

matt

WillGriffin1

11-25-2005, 01:52 PM

Jasper45....

Amen, Bro.

How about those firefighters who are required to live within the city/town limits? First of all... residency requirements suck. When someone is hanging out the window on the second floor of a house on fire at 03:00, do you think they would rather be rescued by a firefighter who is a resident of the town as opposed to a firefighter who lives elsewhere? I don't think so!

They are, in effect, paying a part of their own salaries.

Our residency requirement is 15 statute air miles from border to border, but in our last contract we were able to get it waived, as the cost of housing here is expensive (rents average $1200 a month, existing construction from $250 to $400K, new construction is $600K to 1.5 million!) It can be reinsitituted if the Fire Chief feels the need due to the lack of response for callbacks, but it would only affect new hires.

WillGriffin1

What criteria would you use to determine the eligibilty for the tax credit?

Will they have to complete firefighter 1-2?
Will they have to attend a preset number of drills?
Will they have to respond to a preset percentage of calls?

I see people joining just to save a grand and have no intention whatsoever of doing anything except reap the status of being a volunteer and treating the VFD as another social club.

I have this information at http://VFD-Funding.com as to what I am proposing. If you had gone to the site, you would see that I've already well addressed this. What I have is for discussion purposes and I'm looking for input and questions such as these issues from FF/EMS everywhere in the USA.

What I don't want to see happen is some join a social club to save $1K. I've made it pretty specific, with high standards, per training, response percentages, drill percentages, etc. Some have said I've set the standards too high! Again, this is all for discussion purposes, so that we can show grassroots input and involvement. This is how this will get done and you'll move that mountain known as congress.

And per paid FF/EMS, this type of tax incentives needs done with volunteer FF/EMS first, because attention is now on their dwindling numbers. It will therefore be a far easier sale to congress and far easier to get this done now and with just volunteers. Underpaid FF/EMS (under a certain annual income) may qualify later, as the act would then get amended to include them. First things first though. If we could include underpaid FF/EMS in the initial bill that would be great and fine with me. It won't happen for them, or volunteers either, unless the FF/EMS industry gets behind something like this and we wear out congress with a lobbying effort. Uninformed criticisms and blowing smoke just to be heard won't help anybody, won't get anything done, and will leave everybody then griping how bad things are and that nobody is trying to do anything.

Given the dwindling numbers of active volunteer FF/EMS is a national problem, this then needs to be a national issue. State and local governments may follow with something similar for volunteer, combined, and paid FF/EMS, once you have some kind of prototype or precedence established. This could be local tax credits, or in the case of volunteers health insurance through the municipalities employees program.

I'm very open to input, discussion and criticism on this initiative. However it needs to be informed (see what is being proposed) and constructive. This is done by finding out what the deal is at http://www.vfd-funding.com/tax_code_amendment_initiative. htm and what you can do to help get this done. Otherwise, things will remain as they are and if nothing gets done, then who is to blame?

Will Griffin
http://VFD-Funding.com

CaptainGonzo

11-26-2005, 12:14 AM

If we could include underpaid FF/EMS in the initial bill that would be great and fine with me.

Well all righty then... career firefighters and EMS personel should be included forthwith!

DaSharkie

11-26-2005, 05:55 PM

Well all righty then... career firefighters and EMS personel should be included forthwith!

How right you are Sir. My point all along.

I guess POC members are not allowed under this legislation either since they are compensated. Although their ranks are dwindling just as much.

WillGriffin1

11-27-2005, 05:14 AM

How right you are Sir. My point all along.

I guess POC members are not allowed under this legislation either since they are compensated. Although their ranks are dwindling just as much.

All of this is going to depend on what we can get congress to do and agree to doing. This is why folks need to get active and support this and to reasonably discuss this in an informed manner and look beyond their own selfish interest to what needs to be done, what it is reasonably likely we can get done, what is in the best interest of the firefighting community generally, and what is in the best interest of the public.

Someone said we should have it local only and give property tax credit, even if this excludes the younger members. However, this is a bit short-sighted and impotent, in that if there is any group that needs to be recruited it is the young firefighters. This fact should be res ipso loquitor (The thing speaks for itself)

If there are those who want to see this go a certain way and have certain criteria, they need to get behind this, get informed, and voice their opinion in a constructive way and then get behind it to get it done. Talk is one thing, but talk without action is futile...and they need to look far beyond their own selfish interests.

We have even had some, who didn't even bother to look at the requirements and the proposal, just blindly jump on it, asking questions/issues that were already addressed and making condemnations of the proposal, without a clue as to what they were talking about. Read, research and then write is thus a far better formula.

Then again, these are probably the same impulsive guys, who appear to be the type that jump off the rig fully charged (even when the hose line isn't), and make a mad dash into the structure; while those who are older, wiser, better trained, and more experienced calmly evaluate the scene and read the smoke, as they put on their mask and SCBA gear, to then grab the 2.5", to go in there and drag their inexperienced and impulsive coughing, choking, and puking soot-covered fannies out of there.

Will Griffin
http://VFD-Funding.com

DaSharkie

11-27-2005, 09:05 AM

You are right, I have not read it. I will not read it. I do not support it.

I do not support sucking off of the tit of the federal government to solve a local issue.

Here is my proposal, if this passes there must also be an addendum that if nationwide volunteer firefighter ranks do not increase, then this law is revoked to show that it was tried and it did not work.

DennisTheMenace

11-28-2005, 12:55 PM

How right you are Sir. My point all along.

I guess POC members are not allowed under this legislation either since they are compensated. Although their ranks are dwindling just as much.A few of the bills that have been introduced over the years have provided the tax credit pro-rated against the earnings as poc. Earn $900 as POC for the year, you get $100 of the $1000 credit.

EFD840

11-28-2005, 03:35 PM

the next thing you know you'll have all municipal employees wanting it

If you limit it to just volunteers, don't you think that Red Cross, Salvation Army, Public Library, etc. volunteers will want to be included? Volunteer recruitment and retention isn't just a problem for the fire service. Why limit it to those organizations? Is what we do important? Sure - but so is the work of the Red Cross volunteer working on the Gulf Coast.

It won't work, but it will create a great opportunity to cheat on your taxes AND create more ill-will for the volunteer fire service. This is one volunteer that won't be supporting the bill.

DennisTheMenace

11-28-2005, 03:41 PM

If you limit it to just volunteers, don't you think that Red Cross, Salvation Army, Public Library, etc. volunteers will want to be included? Volunteer recruitment and retention isn't just a problem for the fire service. Why limit it to those organizations? Is what we do important? Sure - but so is the work of the Red Cross volunteer working on the Gulf Coast.

It won't work, but it will create a great opportunity to cheat on your taxes AND create more ill-will for the volunteer fire service. This is one volunteer that won't be supporting the bill.Those folks actually do have an easier time writing off their volunteer expences. Might it bring up a tad bit of ill-will? Maybe, but most other folks won't even notice. The folks I have talked to on the Hill see it as more of a thank you, than as a recruitment tool.

WillGriffin1

11-29-2005, 03:53 PM

Those folks actually do have an easier time writing off their volunteer expences. Might it bring up a tad bit of ill-will? Maybe, but most other folks won't even notice. The folks I have talked to on the Hill see it as more of a thank you, than as a recruitment tool.

This is why I have talked to Schumer and others about adding the $2,500 grant/scholarship to recruit younger members and the $1,000 tax credit for employers who let their employees respond to actual emergencies during work hours, therefore it will then help as a recruitment/retention tool, rather than just a thank you. Part of the lobbying process, to expand their thinking.

And you're right there things that one can deduct, as a S.A. and R.C. volunteer. I worked for S.A. years ago (Director of Educational and Social Welfare Programs) and as I put in extra hours, I recall that I was able to claim a lot of things that I did extra and spent on my own time.

Will Griffin
http://VFD-Funding.com

scfire86

11-29-2005, 04:11 PM

Every tax deduction is a de facto subsidy of the issue to which it pertains.

There are enough exemptions. So I am opposed. The cities that have volunteers need to come to the harsh realities that people do not have the time to volunteer and act accordingly to protect their communities.

Plain and simple.

DaSharkie

11-29-2005, 05:30 PM

This is why I have talked to Schumer and others about adding the $2,500 grant/scholarship to recruit younger members and the $1,000 tax credit for employers who let their employees respond to actual emergencies during work hours, therefore it will then help as a recruitment/retention tool, rather than just a thank you. Part of the lobbying process, to expand their thinking.

So what about those states that have laws protecting employees from being fired from their job if they are a call/volunteer firefighter? Jobs are already protected in many places.

scfire86, I agree (as stated before.) A tax benefit is not going to cause an increase in the rosters of departments. And communities need to realize that they need to provide appropriately in these changing times. Sadly, twit politicians will sponsor a bill such as this just to cyrry favor, then bitch about not having money to pay for this or that.

Gotta love politics.

doughesson

11-30-2005, 05:10 PM

Well,I always thought the paid guys went to fires to get away from the stereotype of firefighters being people that hung around a fire station all the time.We know that isn't so,that when you see a couple guys sitting on a bench outside a station,they could have just finished up training and are discussing whose turn it was at cooking that night and who it was that burned the chops last night.
Volunteers who are able to leave their regular jobs to go fight a fire or deal with a heart attack deserve some tax break as there are some bosses that won't let their employees even claim it as their lunch hour,still gig them for the lunch time and then let them go for taking company vehicles to"unauthorized destinations".
In Kentucky,an employeer doesn't have to let you leave to go to a fire,unless there is a general recall.They can NOT,however do more than dock your pay for the time you are late because of a fire or EMS call,hough.

I really had to laugh when I read this. Does anyone beside myself see any ‘double standard’ here? I can’t tell you how many times I have read, and been told on these very forums that there is no difference between a volunteer or career firefighter.
If your going to argue that volunteers are no different than career, you need to be consistent. If you want to be looked at as equal, with no difference, then there is no difference. There should be one tax break then, for firefighters, or the other option is there should be no tax break for firefighters.

DaSharkie

12-02-2005, 02:25 PM

But listen. This is a way of saying we appreciate all the hard work you do. It is a way of giving the volunteer someone compensation for the many hours they must put in. On the flip side, you can know add requirements. A side from the mandatory OSHA training, you can also add that members need to make a certain number of calls, drills, and training. It is just another way for the wealthy communities to help the less fortunate.

That is not how or why this bill is being lobbied for. This is "increase recruitment." So which one is it?

Either way, the numbers of firefighters on the books is not going to increase. Not being cynical, just realistic.

RadRob

12-02-2005, 02:47 PM

That is not how or why this bill is being lobbied for. This is "increase recruitment." So which one is it?

Either way, the numbers of firefighters on the books is not going to increase. Not being cynical, just realistic.

I think it can be portrayed as both an effort to increase recruitment and as a thank you for a job performed. When people see that they will be appreciated and given consideration, it will help in recruitment.

If there are requirements to be met, that will stop "Bubba" from joining just to get a tax break.

Sounds to me that those who are opposed have nothing to gain(except efd840).

It won't work, but it will create a great opportunity to cheat on your taxes AND create more ill-will for the volunteer fire service. This is one volunteer that won't be supporting the bill.

How exactly will this enable someone to cheat taxes, and why do you care who cheats on their taxes? And it only creates ill will with those who already dislike each other. I don't see a person who gets along with vollies now becoming pissed all of the sudden because of a tax benefit.

DaSharkie

12-02-2005, 03:37 PM

Sounds to me that those who are opposed have nothing to gain(except efd840).

I have nothing to gain now, only because I am inschool. However when I am done school and living where I choose to, I plan on being involved again.

I will not claim it on my taxes because I believe it is flawed and fundamentally wrong.

It kills me that the originator of this thread wants it solely to increase recruitment - a laudable thing. Now, we have people who say that it is a way for towns to say thanks and for the feds to say thanks.

You want to say thanks then tell me "Thank you" or make it a local tax incentive on my property taxes, don't have it affect the federal taxes. Like any federal program, why should someone in Boston, MA say "thank you" by giving back $1,000 to someone in Three Forks, MT?

DennisTheMenace

12-02-2005, 03:47 PM

Like any federal program, why should someone in Boston, MA say "thank you" by giving back $1,000 to someone in Three Forks, MT?Why shopuld some one in Three Forks, MT be helping with paying for the Big Dig?

RadRob

12-02-2005, 03:48 PM

You want to say thanks then tell me "Thank you" or make it a local tax incentive on my property taxes, don't have it affect the federal taxes. Like any federal program, why should someone in Boston, MA say "thank you" by giving back $1,000 to someone in Three Forks, MT?

By that arguement, do you think it is right for someone who has no children to give back money for those who claim a child tax credit? That's $1000 per child. If you don't want to pay for people out of state, you have a lot of lobbying to do to clean it all up. There are thousands of federal tax credits that people take. As a matter of fact, you probably claim a student deduction. Why is this different? Why should we have to pay for that? BECAUSE THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We are supposed to help each other out.

There are child care credits, credits for the elderly(like 'ole George), retirement contribution credits, education credits, etc... Hmm... a lot of clean-up for you there Shark!

Bones42

12-02-2005, 03:59 PM

RadRob

12-02-2005, 04:24 PM

IF you want money for being a volunteer, then become a paid department, because that is what you are trying to do (get compensated for your work) but just a ridiculously low wage.

I asked before and I'll ask again, is there anyone who can actually say they became a FF or are staying a FF due to Length of Service Awards?

Bones - You're right. I am not here for any awards, and will continue to do this regardless. I am open to LISTEN to whatever ideas are out there, though. I like to play devil's advocate. Personally, this tax credit doesn't mean squat to me, but for others, it may be important. If people are going to argue over something, they need to be questioned and they need to have well thought out responses. I can argue against it just as well. I just happened to choose the pro-side this time.

DaSharkie

12-03-2005, 08:18 AM

Why shopuld some one in Three Forks, MT be helping with paying for the Big Dig?

Oh Dennis, I agree 100%. There was a reason Ronald Reagan vetoed it the first time it came around.

It is a highway project that benefits only the people in and immediately around Boston. However, only after the project went overbudget 5-fold (from $2,000,000,000 to now $15,000,000,000) did the Feds realize that it shouldn't be financed by them anymore and now the people in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have to pay for the rest of it.

Get ready though, I hear Seattle is trying to do the same thing to their waterfront. Guess who is going to pay for that?

DaSharkie

12-03-2005, 08:33 AM

By that arguement, do you think it is right for someone who has no children to give back money for those who claim a child tax credit?

No I do not. What did people do before they had tax credits? They raised their kids without the friggin' Feds in their lives. Go figure. How about we just reduce the Federal Tax Burden. It won't happen, but this is just another way the people become beholden to their government - Socialism is a failure, we should have learned that by now.

That's $1000 per child. If you don't want to pay for people out of state, you have a lot of lobbying to do to clean it all up.

It won't get cleaned up, people want to feel like they get something from their twit politicians and the government. I say we just do a flat tax, no deductions. Regardless. You want a child tax credit? Don't have kids.

However, a child tax credit is available to anyone who wants to have children, not just a select few in a "special interest group" and directed at currying favor by a politician who, when they run next time around, can say "I support firefighters."

As a matter of fact, you probably claim a student deduction. Why is this different? Why should we have to pay for that?

I do. It is different because I spend between $6,000 and $30,000 (not an error) of my own money every year for education. This is a significant portion of my personal financial income.

The educational tax credits are available to every single taxpayer in this country regardless of race, sex, creed, orientation, or age. Not just to a select few folks who are on a fire department.

Also, in the long run, the Federal government will make much more off of me in taxes in 2 years when school is done than those tax deductions ever cost anyone - Besides, I never get back more than I paid in taxes.

Also recall, that your tax return is just that, it is the amount of money you OVERPAID in taxes the previous year. I am just getting the money that the twits in congress do not use. Pretty sad.

BECAUSE THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We are supposed to help each other out.

I will help out through my local taxes, my personal financial support through fundraisers, and through recruitment drives. Not by financing through a tax credit that only a select few are qualified to take.

I prefer not support Socialism, but unfortunately I do through my Federal government.

There are child care credits, credits for the elderly(like 'ole George), retirement contribution credits, education credits, etc... Hmm... a lot of clean-up for you there Shark!

Lots of clean up that won't happen, but I will fight them one at a time. I will also fight to reduce more of them from being added.

Especially when everyone cries, pisses, moans, and whines about not having enough federal tax dollars to pay for everything they want to have as they suck off of the tit of government.

Remember, we have to pay for "education", the "FIRE Act", Katrina, the boondoggle we know as "Social Security", and every other government run program out there.

If you want a tax credit like this to be added, don't complain next year when SAFER or FIRE Act funding is cut.

EFD840

12-03-2005, 01:04 PM

How exactly will this enable someone to cheat taxes

I don't know how it works in your department, but not all departments have strict policies that define what is an 'active' volunteer. Here's a local example: In order to get a firefighter auto tag in Alabama, you have to appear on a statewide list of active firefighters. In my county, the tag office religiously checks the list and yet I regularly see people driving around with FF tags that I KNOW aren't active anywhere. It happens because a department isn't being diligent and updating their tag roster. There's no real tangible benefit to having that FF tag, it costs the same as a plain old tag yet they still want it because of little perks like getting a little professional courtesy extended if you're caught going a little too fast.

A tax credit has real, quantifible benefits so you had better believe folks will be claiming it, whether they deserve it or not.

and why do you care who cheats on their taxes?

Do you really have to ask this? I care because I am an honest, taxpaying citizen. Someone cheating is costing ME - either in the form of an increased tax burden on me or reduced services provided by my federal, state, and local government. Cheating on your taxes is a CRIME, not an annual rite of passage. I care, and you should too.

And it only creates ill will with those who already dislike each other. I don't see a person who gets along with vollies now becoming pissed all of the sudden because of a tax benefit.

Anytime one group gets a special benefit over other members of society, there is a backlash. Just read this tread and see the reaction of posters like Gonzo, who usually represent a voice of reason. There will be a negative reaction and it will happen around the table of your local cafe, bar, etc. Maybe you won't see it but you better believe folks will notice.

I'll give you one more. Some volunteer departments make thousands of calls a year, I'll respond to probably 120 calls this year - 60% or so of my department's responses and there are volunteers in my county will approach 100% participation and that will be less than 50 runs. Don't tell me that the volunteer making several hundred calls a year won't be acutely aware that the guy on a department that catches a call a month is getting the same benefit.

DaSharkie

12-04-2005, 09:23 AM

As for paying for the big dig I ask this question; Why should I pay for anything that is not in my local jurisdiction?

Exactly my point. Yet I am to give a tax credit for this?

I am all in favor of a benefit for these folks, just don't want it to be at the federal level. It makes no freaking sense to me all.

As for your issue about all of these folks showing up, if you are not an EMT, then get the heck off of the scene. I say the chief needs to revise the responses and say that if you are not able to provide care, then do not respond to any EMS call.

DaSharkie

12-05-2005, 09:34 AM

I guess you missed my point. The whole system of taxation and aid is setup to take from the rich to help the poor. Your tax dollars go for all kinds of things including highways in all 50 states.

I hate Socialism. Take from the rich to give to the poor with no accountability or responsibility.

The "rich" pay a lot of money every year - yet are able to work in numerous tax shelters and benefits to save as much money as possible.

I have no problem with highways being funded federally (except for the Big Dig as previously mentioned) as they are necessary for international and interstate commerce to be efficiently conducted. I have a problem with paying for a firedepartment in Oklahoma while I live in North Carolina. I have a problem giving money for a tropical rain forest in Iowa. I have a problem with financing education at the federal level. I have a problem with the federal government doing things that it has no Constitutional obligation or authority to do.

My favorite is the Federal subsization of corn farming. We subsidize it so it is cheap (the major beneficiary of this are large conglomerates who now do much of the farming) and then it gets put into sodas and juices as a high calorie cheap alternative to regular sugar. No subsidies that go to companies. Especially when members of Congress are recipients of numerous subsidies. Criminal. Absolutely criminal.

I guess what you are arguing for is the elimination of all tax credits.

Yes. A flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income regardless of level. No deductions, no tax credits. Flat rate. Deal with it. That is truly a "fair tax." Gets rid of the vast majority of the beaurocracy at the IRS too and allows that money to better utilized - gets rid of 60,000 pages of tax code that even the Feds can't understand. :rolleyes:

DennisTheMenace

12-05-2005, 10:13 AM

I guess you missed my point. The whole system of taxation and aid is setup to take from the rich to help the poor. Your tax dollars go for all kinds of things including highways in all 50 states. I guess what you are arguing for is the elimination of all tax credits.SO the rich don't benefit from a transportation infrastracture? From Fire Protection? From police keeping the poor from taking their property? From an education system that provides them with quality workers? That statement is at best overly simplifing things, and mostly just totally wrong.

Our system of taxation in this country is set up to minimize the negative effects of it on everyone. The poor traditionally have paid the lowest rates because they can leaswt afford taxes, the rich have pais the highest because they can best afford them. It is part of being in a society, even the most conservative libertarian scholars understand and accept that.

Bones42

12-05-2005, 10:17 AM

A lot of areas cannot afford to pay the guys. It isn't that simple. Besides, if you go to a paid per call system you will have guys coming out of the woodwork everytime the siren goes off. We already get 10 to 20 guys on routine EMS calls, and 1 or 2 are EMTs. :rolleyes: We actually had one recently where I was the EMT in charge, I was inside by myself. A second EMT pulled up and saw are large group of guiys milling around outside. She assumed there was plenty of help and just stood around outside. Eventually she asked who was inside and found out I was alone, that is when I got my help. Sounds to me like you need to get rid of that paid per call system as it's not doing what it is supposed to do.

RadRob

12-05-2005, 11:50 AM

ROFLMAO Hysterically!!! In New York we don't have a "paid per call" system. From what I have heard just recently (from a friend), we are the only state that is like that. We are 100% volunteer, no paycheck or reimbursement of anykind. :eek:

Umm... TJ, you should do some homework before you quote a friend, because he is wrong. We don't have a pay per call system here either. In my opinion, that invites corruption. Meaning, idiots that start fires, or something similar, to get a call, to get more money. We also, do it free. I have friends in other states as well, that do not, and would not, have a system like that.

RadRob

12-05-2005, 11:53 AM

I didn't say that the rich don't benefit fom these things. What I do say is that the rich pay more in taxes. All of the tax money goes into a big pool, and then it gets split up. A larger percentage will go to poor areas than those areas paid in. On the flip side, if your area pays in a lot it will not see all of that money back. After all, in NY we have a lot of people to pay for the roads and the interstate system. South Dakota and Montana don't have the same luxury. They will see far more than they put in just to maintain the infrastructure.

And let's face it, many paid departments get assistance from non-paid departments. Come to think of it, so does law enforcement. How many times do they call out fire police to provide traffic control? All because the officer is to busy. It's his job and he is getting paid to do it.

All I am saying here is that the government puts a bunch of requirements on me to be a FF. They should at least provide some compensation or tax relief for that effort.

TJ - Simple question... Did your department pay for your training?

DaSharkie

12-05-2005, 02:47 PM

All I am saying here is that the government puts a bunch of requirements on me to be a FF. They should at least provide some compensation or tax relief for that effort.

Agreed, but that "compensation" (whatever it may be) should be at the municipal/county/state level. It should never have to reach the Feds. Ever.

The other 3 jurisdictions directly benefit from your services. They are the ones you ough to seek a deferment, stipend, tax return, tax exemption, or gold watch from. That is all that I am saying. This crap has no place at the federal tax system level.

WillGriffin1

12-05-2005, 03:13 PM

Agreed, but that "compensation" (whatever it may be) should be at the municipal/county/state level. It should never have to reach the Feds. Ever.

The other 3 jurisdictions directly benefit from your services. They are the ones you ough to seek a deferment, stipend, tax return, tax exemption, or gold watch from. That is all that I am saying. This crap has no place at the federal tax system level.

The problem is that the local, county, state levels don't have quite the money that the feds do. In some states, you can't get a state income tax credit, because they don't have a state income tax, they have a sales tax. And property tax breaks won't work, because generally this would disqualify the younger members (who don't own their own homes yet), who EVERY department needs and who are the most important to recruit.

And whether it is feds, states or insurance companies, the requirements of firefighters has increased, is increasing, and will continue to increase. I've been a volunteer since 1972, guess what changes I've seen occur?

So, if the objection to the feds being involved is a concern regarding increased requirements, guess who all else is increasing the requirements and have done so far more than the feds have? And I personally don't have any objections to requirements of better training, more drilling and more accountability . . . and I don't think anybody who has been in the FF/EMS service for any amount a time past probie/rookie does either.

Will Griffin
http://VFD-Funding.com

RadRob

12-05-2005, 03:26 PM

That is why I threw that out there, I wanted some confirmation. Thanks

And yes, my department paid for my training. They didn't pay for the time or transportation to get to the classes.

First, let me explain something. A $1000 tax credit doesn't mean you don' thave to pay $1000 in taxes. It means you deduct $1000 from your earnings and you save the taxes on $1000. With that said...

A tax credit of $1000 means you don't pay taxes on that $1000, and you will save $350 if you are in a 35% tax bracket (I figured a little high to prove my point and for simplicity). Training will probably cost more than $350. Here, training isn't cheap. There's your payback.

DaSharkie

12-05-2005, 07:36 PM

But isn't it the Feds who place the requirements for the mandatory training? OSHA has around 160 hours of mandatory training that people in the fire service are supposed to take. Seems to me that if they are going to make the requirements then they should at least compensate the individual for his time. 160 hours at $6 per hour comes to $960. At least give me that much credit.

Actually, a variety of organizations place a training requirement on firefighters. ISO, NFPA, and OSHA. So you only want the feds to pay for it? Your training requirements are a minimum standard for skill competencies. Nothing more. You are required to meet them regardless of pay status. By your thinking, every career or POC member should get the same amount of money from the feds - or at least their municipality should to reimburse the requirements that OSHA says are necessary for you to remain basically competent in your profession.

The problem is that the local, county, state levels don't have quite the money that the feds do. In some states, you can't get a state income tax credit, because they don't have a state income tax, they have a sales tax. And property tax breaks won't work, because generally this would disqualify the younger members (who don't own their own homes yet), who EVERY department needs and who are the most important to recruit.

It doesn't matter who has the money. It is not a federal responsibility to pay you for your time. It is a local responsibility since they are the ones benefiting from your time.

If you don't have an income tax, then oh well. Let's go up to the good ol' government tit and start sucking. Like I said, don't complain when SAFER or FIRE Act is cut next year.

Younger members don't get the benefit, well not everyone gets every tax benefit for crying out loud. I don't have kids, but I am in the age bracket that has children - I should get the tax credit then too.

What is also forgotten is that time, mileage, and other costs related to training and education for the firefighting profession are deductable under unreimbursed expenses.

Lobby your local town hall or county government for other incentives then, not the feds. Just going after the one with the deepest pockets isn't the way. I'll fight you on it as the bill progresses too. I just think that it is wrong.

This tax break will not increase the rosters, and that is the sole intent that it has been pitched forth here to do.

DaSharkie

12-06-2005, 06:01 PM

I understand that OSHA is the only regulatory agency that can fine you. I never said that they weren't. I only stated that they all placed training requirements on a department. It is up to the fire department to maintain that requirement. You aren't fined unless you are investigated.

But ISO counts it in your insurance rating. And try telling a lawyer in a deposition that while you adopt 1 aspect of the NFPA standards, you choose not to follow the other because they are not applicable. Won't fly at all. This is why we all try to meet the minimum requirement of FF I/ FF II, because it is a minimum standard of basic training that is nationally recognized and which you will be held to in a court of law most likely - and which OSHA will investigate and cite you for not meeting if they investigate.

So should we get reimbursed for that cost too? But oh yeah, this isn't about money, it is about "thanks" and increasing recruitment.

RadRob

12-07-2005, 09:07 AM

So should we get reimbursed for that cost too? But oh yeah, this isn't about money, it is about "thanks" and increasing recruitment.

Oh it's about money. Whether they admit it or not, they want a "thanks" and want to increase recruitment by getting a tax break. That equals money. Always someone wanting something for free. Guess what, nothing in life is free. And the thanks, for me, is the 4 year old little girl giving me a hug because we just "saved" her mommy after they were in a car wreck, or the family who shakes our hand for saving their house from burning to the ground.

Dalmatian190

12-24-2005, 04:02 PM

But isn't it the Feds who place the requirements for the mandatory training? OSHA has around 160 hours of mandatory training that people in the fire service are supposed to take.

No, the Feds don't do it.

The STATE you lived in CHOSE to adopt a State OSHA program. The Federal Law says if you adopt State OSHA, it must cover state & municipal workers.

If you lived in a FedOSHA state, OSHA wouldn't apply to your fire department.

On the second point of "160 hours" -- that is not an OSHA requirement in any way, shape, or form unless it's a particular State's requirement.

FedOSHA, which is the minimum standards a State has to adopt if it has a state program, call for:

1910.156(c)(2) - Training (Frequency)
1. At least quarterly for interior
2. Annual for others
The following subjects: (Examples or Key Elements)
1. Safety and Protective Equipment
2. Chemistry of Fire and Fire Behavior
3. Self Contained Breathing Apparatus
4. Fire Streams
5. Hose
6. Pumping Fire Apparatus
7. Ladders
8. Rescue
9. Forcible Entry
10. Ventilation

What may cause confusion is that classes meeting the NFPA Firefighter I (NFPA 1001?) standards are considered to *meet & excede* the OSHA requirement.

Your department, even if it in an OSHA state, is free to create it's own training program. If you believe you can adequately train on the 10 points above in say, 40 hours, fine. Unless it's a State mandate, you do not need NFPA Firefighter I to be an interior firefighter.

Most departments chose not to take on the additional responsibility of creating their own training program and risking having to prove to StateOSHA or others the adequacy of it and simply chose to go with a standard class meeting NFPA standards.

But that's a choice, not a mandate.

SeavilleFire

12-25-2005, 08:42 AM

If anything, this is a better option for a local benefit not at the national level.

I agree, start small and see where it goes from there. Don't jump in with both feet.

DaSharkie

12-25-2005, 11:29 AM

And the SAFER grants will end up being the same as the COPS grants - no net increase in staffing in the grand scheme of things. Just look at the town in Wisconsin that returned the money. I'll bet that they will not be the only town to do so.

Like pissing in the wind.

DaSharkie

12-26-2005, 06:23 PM

Wel the problem in Wisconsin was that somebody wrote the grant and didn't get the proper approvals. Chiefs and FD Administrators have to know the budgetary process and need to know when to let the people in charge of the purse strings know what is going on.

This is part of the problem too. This has happened numerous times that I can recall with FIRE Act grants too. Like it is that difficult to pick up a phone and talk to the mayor or a town selectmen/alderman/whatever ya wanna call 'em.

It makes me truly wonder about some people.

CaptainGonzo

12-26-2005, 06:53 PM

This is part of the problem too. This has happened numerous times that I can recall with FIRE Act grants too. Like it is that difficult to pick up a phone and talk to the mayor or a town selectmen/alderman/whatever ya wanna call 'em.

It makes me truly wonder about some people.

Actually, it happens the other way too...

Fire Chiefs are encouraged to write grant applications to save the taxpayers some money, and the mayors, councilors, city and town managers know that theere must be a percentage of funds put up in order to get the grant. The Chiefs bust their humps to get all the ducks in a row, then the mutts pull the rug out from under them to save a few bucks and make sure they look good for re-election.