Tax Credit for Volunteer Firefighters/EMS

[doughesson]

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]

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]

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 ****ed all of the sudden because of a tax benefit.

[DaSharkie]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[RadRob]

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]

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]

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, ****es, 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]

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 ****ed 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]

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]

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.

[DennisTheMenace]

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]

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. 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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.