Public Safety Tax Cut Act ( IMPORTANT!)

Public Safety Tax Cut Act

Please Support the "Public Safety Tax Cut Act"

Submitted by David Moore, Houston, Tx


On June 8th, 2005, US Representative Ron Paul introduced an important piece of proposed legislation before the U.S. House of Representatives. HR 2822, titled the "Public Safety Tax Cut Act" This legislation, if passed and signed into law by the President, will provide long-overdue federal income tax relief to all full-time police and fire professionals in this country. The bill will allow police officers and firefighters to take a $1000 credit on their individual income tax returns. As Representative Paul put it in an email:

"Relieving public safety officers of the enormous tax burden they bear should be a top priority of every congressman and senator. There is absolutely no justification, practical or constitutional, for imposing heavy taxes on those who risk the most for the safety of Americans."

In his introductory remarks before the House when he introduced these bills on June 8th Paul said
"These professional public safety officers put their lives on the line each and every day, and I think we all agree that there is no way to properly compensate them for the fabulous services they provide. In America we have a tradition of local law enforcement and public safety provision. So, while it is not the role of our federal government to increase the salaries of these, it certainly is within our authority to increase their take-home pay by reducing the amount of money that we take from their pockets via federal taxation, and that is something this bill specifically does as well." "…Shouldn't Congress also show its appreciation to police officers and firefighters by reducing their taxes? …I am proud to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. I request that my fellow Members join in support of this key legislation." (source US Congressional Record )

Paul introduced identical legislation in 1999 and 2002 but the bill did not garner the support it needed for passage. Undeterred he has now re-introduced the bill. The lack of Congressional for this legislation has been mystifying in light of public statements of gratitude by many members of Congress for the sacrifices made by police officers in firefighters. Hopefully though Congress and the President, will finally realize and reward the hard-working public safety workers in this Country by fully supporting the Public Safety Tax Cut Act.
Please get the word out to others in your dept and anyone else who would benefit from this, contact your members of Congress to encorage them to back this bill. Don't let this bill die like it did in 1999 and 2002.



This bill was introduced by Representative Ron Paul of Texas on June 8th
Public Safety Tax Cut Act (Introduced in House)
HR 2822 IH


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2822
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for police officers and professional firefighters, and to exclude from income certain benefits received by public safety volunteers.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 8, 2005
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for police officers and professional firefighters, and to exclude from income certain benefits received by public safety volunteers.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Public Safety Tax Cut Act' .

SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR POLICE OFFICERS AND PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS.

(a) In General- Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after section 25B the following new section:

`SEC. 25C. POLICE OFFICERS AND PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS.

`(a) Allowance of Credit- In the case of an eligible individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for a taxable year an amount equal to $1,000.
`(b) Eligible Individual- For purposes of subsection (a), the term `eligible individual' means an individual who--

`(1) is a police officer or firefighter in a police department or fire department which is organized and operated by a State or political subdivision to provide police protection, firefighting services, or emergency medical services for any area within the jurisdiction of such State or political subdivision, and

`(2) is employed on a full-time basis during the taxable year as a police officer or firefighter.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 25B the following new item:

`Sec. 25C. Police officers and professional firefighters.'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005.

SEC. 3. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF CERTAIN BENEFITS RECEIVED BY PUBLIC SAFETY VOLUNTEERS.

(a) In General- Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by inserting after section 139A the following new section:

`SEC. 139B. BENEFITS RECEIVED BY PUBLIC SAFETY VOLUNTEERS.

`(a) In General- Gross income does not include the value of any public services benefits received by a public safety volunteer.

`(b) Definitions- For purposes of this section--

`(1) The term `public services benefits' means services such as water, sewer, trash pickup, or other similar services provided by a State or local government agency as a benefit to its public safety volunteers.

`(2) The term `public safety volunteer' means a volunteer firefighter or volunteer auxiliary police officer.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 139A the following:

`Sec. 139B. Benefits received by public safety volunteers.'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendment made by this section shall apply to amounts received in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005.

David Moore compiled this and sent out this email while off-duty and at home


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like nothing but a political power play to me. Why should police and fire get it and no one else?

Once again, it appears that EMS is left out of it. How nice!

Why aren't physicians, nurses, Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, X-ray technicians, phlebotomists, or other health care providers available for the tax benefit? They risk much providing care to many people with communicable diseases on a daily basis. Why not extend it to them.

Oh yeah, electrical and phone workers too, they risk life and limb to repair phone and power line to keep the country moving. Why aren't they covered by a bill such as this?

Why is public safety more special than any other hard working person out there trying to scrape by day to day?

Flat tax is the way to go. No special interests, no breaks for these people or those people. You pay X percent and that is it.

Not a popular view, but I don't like being popular or just following the crowd.

And what about the Volley fire/rescue/ems people?
I guess we dont get SQUAT as usual!
KILL DA BILL!

God bless and pull the ceiling as you go.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CAPPYY
And what about the Volley fire/rescue/ems people?
I guess we dont get SQUAT as usual!
KILL DA BILL!

God bless and pull the ceiling as you go.

---

There was a bill that was propsed not too long ago proposed that was just for volunteer fire/rescue/ems people.

Quote:

---

The lack of Congressional for this legislation has been mystifying

---

Not really. Congress isnt very good at putting its money were its mouth is.

Dont get your hopes up.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CAPPYY
And what about the Volley fire/rescue/ems people?
I guess we dont get SQUAT as usual!
KILL DA BILL!

God bless and pull the ceiling as you go.

---

Thanks for your support. No wonder we still have problems between paid & volunteer.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave1983


Thanks for your support. No wonder we still have problems between paid & volunteer.:rolleyes:

---

Umm, not quite smart ***. Your looking at it like that is what causes the "problems". He's not saying that paid firefighters don't deserve it. The point is: What makes a paid firefighter so eligiable for this that a volunteer doesn't have/do? We both do the same thing. Yet this ******* only wants to give it to paid FF's. Screw him. That would be just as bad as saying volunteer FF's can't have SCBA because they aren't paid. You want us to support this bill when as far as I'm concerned, it is incomplete. We aren't saying it's a bad idea, we are saying it's a good idea but needs more work before it's worth pushing through.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nmfire


Umm, not quite smart ***. Your looking at it like that is what causes the "problems". He's not saying that paid firefighters don't deserve it. The point is: What makes a paid firefighter so eligiable for this that a volunteer doesn't have/do? We both do the same thing. Yet this ******* only wants to give it to paid FF's. Screw him. That would be just as bad as saying volunteer FF's can't have SCBA because they aren't paid. You want us to support this bill when as far as I'm concerned, it is incomplete. We aren't saying it's a bad idea, we are saying it's a good idea but needs more work before it's worth pushing through.

---

"Smart ***"? Wow, that was proffesional.:rolleyes:

And thanks, I know what he said (I can read). He said "kill the bill". PERIOD.

For what its worth, if a bill came out for volunteers only, I would support it thinking maybe if that passed we could then work on one for thoese of us who are paid. I wouldnt just rant about "its not for us so kill the bill" like our friend did.

Sorry, but comments like that just fans the fires between us. :mad:

So rather than pushing for a bill that complete and proper, you'd rather shove this half-assed one through? Half-assed is better than nothing after all, right? No. "Here's a garden hose. I know its only a good thought and it won't do anything for the vast majority of the fire, but it's better than nothing for this high-rise fire!"

Me calling you a smartass is just as professional as you insinuating that someone unhappy about this half-assed bill is why there is a rift between paid and volunteer FF's. It's BS. The fire doesn't give a rats *** if we get a paycheck from it or not, neither does the water we put on it or the truck we roll up in. So you sit there and give me one good reason why this bill should be passed that only covers paid FF's and leave volunteers out to dry rather than pushing for it to go all the way and cover everyone. Until you can actually put your money where your mouth is and give me that reason, you are the one contributing to the problem rather than hoping for a way to fix it.

For what it's worth, a bill that was just for volunteers would be just as incomplete. If they want to do something nice for us, do something nice for all of us or don't waste our time. Anything else is just to make themselves look good politically.

This problem isn't going away quick is it?

As far as this bill is concerned, I think it's a nice idea, but not very well thought out. The " look good " theory may be at work here, or not, who knows. The big picture is that there are a lot of other proffessions that deserve it too, and volly fire/ems are on that list, but can the federal budget handle this big of a hit? If my math is right, a thousand dollar credit would equal 3 hundred million dollars just for the vollies alone. I have no idea how many f/t fire and police there are, but the total off the top of the budget would go way into the billions. With all the bs we waste budget money on, how can the government cover this? and yes, if we cut some bs, we could cover it, but don't hold your breath for that.

I'd enjoy some sort of reward/compensation for my trouble, we all would. Maybe someday it will be worked out, and with out breaking the budget.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nmfire
So rather than pushing for a bill that complete and proper, you'd rather shove this half-assed one through? Half-assed is better than nothing after all, right? No. "Here's a garden hose. I know its only a good thought and it won't do anything for the vast majority of the fire, but it's better than nothing for this high-rise fire!"

Me calling you a smartass is just as professional as you insinuating that someone unhappy about this half-assed bill is why there is a rift between paid and volunteer FF's. It's BS. The fire doesn't give a rats *** if we get a paycheck from it or not, neither does the water we put on it or the truck we roll up in. So you sit there and give me one good reason why this bill should be passed that only covers paid FF's and leave volunteers out to dry rather than pushing for it to go all the way and cover everyone. Until you can actually put your money where your mouth is and give me that reason, you are the one contributing to the problem rather than hoping for a way to fix it.

For what it's worth, a bill that was just for volunteers would be just as incomplete. If they want to do something nice for us, do something nice for all of us or don't waste our time. Anything else is just to make themselves look good politically.

---

So this bill is "half-assed" so lets just forget the whole idea. Wonderfull piece of logic my friend.

And I guess you mistake me for someone who has a hard on for volunteers. Not quite Skippy. I started as volunteer, was a volunteer for 5 years (including 2 as president). I support volunteers far more then most union Brothers you will find ANYWHERE.

However, Ill stick by what I said. Comments like his are what cause problems between paid and volunteers. It was "knee jerk", not well thought out and Im sure it frosted more then one paid Brothers a**.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave1983
So this bill is "half-assed" so lets just forget the whole idea. Wonderfull piece of logic my friend.

---

No. Thats not what I said at all and I think I said multiple times that it was INCOMPLETE and should be IMPROVED. Not "forget the whole idea".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave1983
And I guess you mistake me for someone who has a hard on for volunteers. Not quite Skippy. I started as volunteer, was a volunteer for 5 years (including 2 as president). I support volunteers far more then most union Brothers you will find ANYWHERE.

---

Good. We need more of that on both sides. The whole paid vs volly thing is total non-sense.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave1983
[BHowever, Ill stick by what I said. Comments like his are what cause problems between paid and volunteers. It was "knee jerk", not well thought out and Im sure it frosted more then one paid Brothers a**. [/B]

---

I'm sure the individual wasn't insinuating that the thought was a bad idea. However, like myself, I'm sure he is just as somewhat perplexed that the bill to save you money is only being directed at those getting paid to do what thousands of us do for free all day long. What would you think if someone handed me a $1,000 tax abatement for doing the same thing you do and you didn't get it. You wouldn't be too thrilled either.

Yeah, just curious if anyone knows what happened to the SERVE Act for volunteers?

I guess I agree with the thought that we're no different from anyone else who does a job that could be considered "hazardous" (everyone from doctors to construction workers), and therefore we shouldn't get differential treatment..

But...... on the other hand, if the government wants to give us a little break every year which will add a few extra bucks to help pay the bills, then it should be the same thing for all police officers (F/T or Reserve), all firefighters (Career, PPC, or volunteer) and all EMS providers (again, F/T, P/T, or volunteer).

Of course politicians, in their ultimate quest to make everyone happy, will inevitably **** someone off in the process and make them feel like they're being treating unfairly, so really we cant win.

Man, that sounds depressing. :(

IF YOU CAN"T BEHAVE, GO PLAY OUTSIDE. Look folks, the argument is a bit silly, or if I may, a bit 3rd gradeish. Go back and read the first post. Volunteers ARE included. I also question not including Career and Volunteer Rescue/EMS folks as well. As a Volunteer who receives a small retirement stipend each month, this bill would benefit me. So why don't we all, except for Sharkie whose undergarments must be a bit too tight, join together and go after our Legislators and get this thing passed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hwoods
IF YOU CAN"T BEHAVE, GO PLAY OUTSIDE. Look folks, the argument is a bit silly, or if I may, a bit 3rd gradeish. Go back and read the first post. Volunteers ARE included. I also question not including Career and Volunteer Rescue/EMS folks as well. As a Volunteer who receives a small retirement stipend each month, this bill would benefit me. So why don't we all, except for Sharkie whose undergarments must be a bit too tight, join together and go after our Legislators and get this thing passed.

---

Sorry Chief:( :( :(

Ill go polish the wheels on the quint now.;)

My undergarments are no too tight.

I just don't see why one group of the population should get it. Teachers got it for a few years and I did not agree with that either.

I don't want a tax break. I get enough through itemizing and this is simply a ploy by a politician to get votes and nothing less.

If you want to give a tax break, then everyone gets it. Just because you choose to do a job you get a tax break? Give me break.

If that is this twit politician's answer to things, where is the companion bill for other health are providers?

Where is the companion bill for memebers of the Armed Forces?

I just hate the crud that politicians sling out there for "special interests" and how easily people lap it up. Especially at a time when there are many in congress screaming over the deficit and how we are spending too much money on this and that.