E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSDespite all the talk in Washington about the need to eliminate tax preferences, credits and deductions, the Senate voted just last week to create a new one, and the House is expected to follow suit this week.
Everyone from President Obama's fiscal commission to Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, wants to get rid of them, or at least limit them.
As Perry said in his flat tax plan, the law is “too riddled with loopholes and special interest tax breaks that increase compliance costs and impede economic growth.”
But despite all the talk, Congress is creating another tax break: last week the Senate voted, 94 to 1, to give a tax credit to employers who hire military veterans; it was a small victory, too, for the White House, which had pushed for the new deduction as part of its jobs package. The House is expected to follow suit this week.
The veterans tax credit is just one reminder of how often Congress uses the tax code -– instead of, or in addition to, direct spending -– to help specific groups of Americans.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), would give a tax credit of up to $5,600 for employers who hire a veteran who has been looking for a job for at least six months, and up to $2,400 for those unemployed more than four weeks.
Not only is it hard to argue against helping veterans, but the estimated cost of the new credit, $95 million over 10 years, seems minuscule at a time when members of the deficit reduction “supercommittee” are wrangling over making $1.2 trillion or more in cuts over 10 years. But the supercommittee, in a search for new revenue, may recommend the elimination of some of those long-entrenched breaks in order to meet its deficit-reduction goal.
The conventional wisdom is that once Congress creates one of these tax breaks. They never go away, and year after year, the tax code becomes encrusted with them, while the revenues that would have been collected dribble away.
But we’re approaching the demise of one venerable tax break: the 45 cent-per-gallon credit for blending ethanol into gasoline.
That tax break has been around in one form or another since the late 1970s, and the ethanol industry isn’t pushing Congress to extend it beyond its Dec. 31 expiration date, according to Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association.
Why not? Because ethanol, mostly made from corn, has now gained a ten percent share of the vehicle fuel market –- thanks to the tax credit and the Renewable Fuel Standard, enacted in 2005 and expanded in 2007, which essentially mandates the use of ethanol in the U.S. fuel supply.
Even with the demise of the blender’s credit, another ethanol tax break remains on the books at least until the end of 2012: the $1.01-per-gallon producers’ tax credit for cellulosic ethanol, which is made not from corn kernels but from switchgrass, corn stalks, and other agricultural waste. Production of cellulosic ethanol is less than three million gallons a year, compared to about 14 billion of corn-based ethanol.
You can see all the energy-related tax breaks here at the Joint Tax Committee web site.
Leave a Comment:
Good for them!
About damn time Congress does something on behalf of those who have served their country with honor!
Morally and economically this make sense. Am all for it.
I know a lot of employers in my area prefer vets. This is really great news.
Feisty doesn't have a clue. How many carrots is Congress going to dangle and have any of them ever really worked? Business's don't hire people for a tax break, they hire them because they need them, they have the skill or the experience needed in the business. As a business owner, I can tell you this is more about politics than getting veterans employed.
"Business's don't hire people for a tax break, they hire them because they need them..."
THANK YOU! About time someone acknowledged that business don't hire people because of tax breaks. I mean, after the biggest 'tax break' around has been in place for what- 10 years now? All we hear is the need to cut taxes so the 'job creators' can create jobs.
Thanks, lukewarm.
This is priceless!
Two of the GOP's 'golden eggs' - tax cuts & the military yet the right wing nuts are STILL bitching! LMAO!
Three years ago was about damn time Obama put together an economic plan that would allow for a healthy growing recovery, where unemployment would drop for ALL, where he and Congress weren't reduced to offering gimmicks like this in an election year.
The troops and America deserve better.
No it doesn't.
What person would not give preference to our military in the first place?
Aside from the patriotic sentiment which is important, why would they ignore the training, the self discipline, the ingrained team work, the dedication and fortitude, etc. ..... well except for many liberals and unions that require them to become to be second rate journey men?
Economically?
How? Do you really think a company will hire an employee they don't need for a little tax credit down the road? How does it grow the economy if they need an employee anyway and chose a veteran which results in less revenue to the government (again - economically)?
What about someone who fires an employee to cash in on the tax benefit by hiring a veteran - that fair?
How does all the government social engineering work so far?
I'm all for supporting our veterans, but the reality is this is just another political gimmick for the emotional feel gooders that deflects from the real issue of creating real jobs for all Americans.
Vets deserve everything we can do for them. They certainly deserve it more than the welfare and medicaid frauds out there.
drive-by,
Still don't understand that the economy is not a 2 piece puzzle?
You don't understand that a tax break is worthless with new costs due to needless regulations, rising energy prices, rising prices for everything due to Obama's devaluing the dollar, cost of money with new bank regulations, etc?
BTW - those 2003 tax cuts (which weren't offset by Obamacare and the previous above Obama crap - when the government actually did budgets)), did produce over 8 million new jobs before the crash and generated revenue in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 than Clinton's best year with a higher rate.
Fiesty:
As a former soldier in the 10th Mountain Division, I'd say that the Congress has already done alot "on behalf of those who have served their country".
1. We got paid money twice a month
2. 30 days vacation each month, and sort of unlimited "sick leave" called "quarters" as required.
3. Free meals and housing
4. Free dental and medical coverage.
5. Substantial recreation and moral programs (FMWR) and discounts for products at the PX and Commissary.
6. Renlistment bonuses that can be very substantial for those who wish to reenlist.
7. GI Bill for schooling for those who don't want to remain in the military.
8. VA Home Loan program that requires no money down and no PMI payments.
9. Veteran's preference in hiring in the Federal and many State Governments also.
10. Life time disability coverage for service connected ailments
11. Retire at 20 years with 50% of your pay. 75% after 30 years.
While service in the military is challenging, especially during times of combat, to say "it's a damn time Congress does something" is a bit disingenuous. Nobody was drafted into the Military. Everyone volunteered to go into harms way.
RLTW!
.
Removal of the tax credit means we're going to be paying a whole lot more for gas in the coming years. Don't be surprised if gas sellers piggy back $.50-1 on top of the loss of tax credit, thus increasing their profits and our costs even more. $5/gal is looking very realistic. I'm pretty sure the companies we all work for arent going to give us even COL raises to keep up.
Dude - were you asleep during Viet Nam?
It would seem so.
From 1948 until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted to fill vacancies in the armed forces which could not be filled through voluntary means.
What a dumbass post, last one wins the prize though.
When have I ever said that?
feisty, weak response to Johns other points, ouch;o)
have a great night!
bob 180
I've asked before. I'll ask again. What regulations are keeping employers from hiring?
Sorry folks (including fellow progressives), this tax break will do little to help vets, because as pointed out above, it's all about supply and demand.
Your first clue that this will do little to help unemployment is the fact that this is the only part of the Jobs Act that Teapublicans have been shamed into supporting -- They know it will not help the economy and therefore will not help the president, and of course does not violate their pledge to Norquist.
I'd much rather see ways to increase demand per other parts of the Jobs Act (infrastructure) that would help not only vets but all of the unemployed and economy at large. In fact, if there could be such a thing as incentives to hire, tax breaks for training would go much farther -- Companies must prove how much they invest in training new hires, especially vets and older workers.
I know no one will vote for this post, but I must voice my true belief.
@TruePatriot, The only problem I see with what you just said is it doesn't account for the fact that without money to spend consumers cant create demand. Wage cuts, outsourcing jobs overseas, and etc. have killed the ability of Americans to create the demand for jobs.
Beyond that, I hit the up vote on what you said. I have no problems with tax breaks, but companies should have to earn them.
To my post above, I would add training for young people entering the workforce as well -- Why do you think they are a large part of OWS? The bottom line is companies are no longer investing in their workforce over-all, in large part because they can off-shore operations where labor has even less power. This must stop immediately.
John-2006106 -- I agree with your post for the most part. I would add that those benefits are largely due to Democrats, not Republicans so I'll never understand why the majority in the military vote Republican. My other caveat is that to end the wars means a sudden a large influx of vets into the civilian workforce, and possible addition to that if cuts are made to the US Postal Service.
But vets are by no means the only ones at a disadvantage. The reason filing for SS disability has increased by I believe 50% is because older workers are being locked-out permanently, and they still have 10-15 years before they will be eligible for Social Security, assuming the age isn't increased for SS again. We as a society need to stop shifting costs from Peter to Paul whether it's from the Feds to States or one program to another. We need to fix problems at the root. We need to stimulate demand and create jobs!
edandbunny -- The infrastructure investment of the Jobs Act not only needs to be done anyway, and what better time than when interest rates are low, not to mention it is much cheaper to repair than replace... Construction is an important part of recovery from all recessions. Write your Teapublican representatives and demand that they start working in good faith on the economy and jobs.
TrueLiberal-445959....."I'd much rather see ways to increase demand per other parts of the Jobs Act (infrastructure) that would help not only vets but all of the unemployed and economy at large."
Wrong, but spoken like a true Liberal~Oppressive~Progressive.
Infrastructure "spending" would be directed at Union construction companies (just ask Mr. Obama and his administration), and would NOT BE DIRECTED at main street unemployed. And I question if infrastructure "spending" would do anything to help our vets unless the vet was directly involved in Construction in the military (and those folks would be few and far in between). It sure wouldn't help those vets from the deck plates all the way up to command and control on the bridge.
Yep, you are right: This vet is not "VOTING" for your post.
"well except for many liberals and unions that require them to become to be second rate journey men?"
What a bunch of BEEP! I am a liberal and perfectly happy with the FACT that a Military LVN has enough experience to challenge the State Board RN Test and if they pass, they instantly up their licenced nursing title without the additional schooling usually required to be an RN in many states.
Every Nurses UNION, for example, honors Military schooling and it has been that way (at least) since the 1990s. There are many other examples in many other fields of same. If a person comes out of the military in other specialized fields, they may have to take additional courses or licensing requirements but that has to do with the field and/or the state which you work/live, not with "LIBERALS OR UNIONS" which you badmouth because you're obviously poisoned against people you probably don't know. Perhaps it's your lack of experience as a civilian or lack of certified knowledge of local compliance regulations that requires you start as a journeyman? Or maybe the fact that you see a 'journeyman' as a "second rate" thing rather than an honorable place from which to advance is a clue of other things? There are many different requirements per each state and if you don't feel like meeting them maybe you need some time off to figure out why. One thing for sure, it ain't the 'Libs or Unions'.....it's aaaaaaaall you. If you come out of the Military today you have resources, many of which Liberals like me helped create and support with our "Liberal Activism" and continue to support not so that our warriors can move "past" their service, but move forward with their lives.
Why would someone hire contractors to be engineers in Iraq rather than training/working our men and women to do those jobs? Same reason everyone does these things: somone was there before you and has a CONTRACT which must be honored. Union people argue against that outsourcing, and all other outsourcing. There's no difference between the validity of a "Xe Services" (Blackwater) contract with the Us and the validity of a workers union contract with it's industry's agency in the US and it's worker, they both are valid and damn well should be under "equal protection of the law". Just think of unions as the Military of Workers; they recruit civilians, train, hire, advocate for and lobby, trade influence just like the departments of the military services. It that wrong? No. It's AMERICAN. It's life.
Just a note--The military draft for Vietnam ended something like 40 years ago (or thereabouts). I don't think that there might be a handful of military veterans who were drafted who are still in the service. And if they are still in, they are at the top of the ranks. I believe John-2006106 may have been referring to this when he said no one was drafted into the (current) military.
This all being said, we, the American public, should honor our veterans in any way we can. They voluntarily put themselves in harms way to support and defend our country. They are people just like everyone else. We can find good and bad in any group; but by-in-large, in a time of peril, I would trust my life with anyone of them, let alone give them a job. I can think of no group of people who deserve it more; I would put the veterans first on my list of job applicants.
AND:
it's one of the best opportunities in America to go from "unskilled" to "professional" with real-world experience along the way. Just thought I'd add that.
I don't understand this legislation well. I have a little bit of Human Resource education. There was already something similar in place, but I don't think employers were allowed to base their hiring decision on the special category of the applicant. Just like companies who are trying to do their part in hiring minorities, most of them won't give a preference to applicants just based on a special category. What they will do however, is try to encourage more people from that special group to apply. So this may drive recruiters to actively seek more veteran applicants, but it doesn't give the veterans any real preference over non-veterans. I'm curious now, I suppose I'll have to go find the bill to see what's in it. ;)
ldo -- You would never vote for any of my posts no matter what I post because you are not intellectually honest, but rather an entrenched ideologue like the rest of the far-Right.
Unions are almost non-existent now--about 22% of what once existed. And most of what remains is in the public sector, and in the private sector it is in manufacturing (what's left of it) and the services industry (hospitality, restaurant, etc.). Construction not so much, and not in the many right-to-work states.
It is a well known fact that construction is a major part of all recession recoveries to date. Since Republicans decimated the housing industry, construction can only be done now in regard to schools, roads and bridges, etc. This construction has a ripple effect to many industries from engineering, to equipment, and all the companies that service companies like engineering companies or Caterpillar, from information technology to accountants to attorneys, even banks.
In the meantime, I have three members of my family currently serving in the military who matter a lot more to me than you and your ignorant opinions.
Dave-2550157 -- Good point.
About time we take care of our Vets instead of the special interest Pigs, big corporations and big banks!
It's the only sensible thing congress has done this year!
Man, I can not wait for the next elections so I can send my congressman packin with a shovel up his ass
David Walker--good luck with getting that answer, friend. I hear about the regulations, the taxes--blah, blah. It's bull@!$%#. Taxes haven't been this low since Truman was President, 60 years! The right has effectively said "screw you" to all regulation--so effectively, that they almost took the country down the toilet.
Have a good evening.
Instead of giving the employers of vets the tax breaks, why not just give a break to the vets themselves?
...Most currently serving & some who have served 20 & retired, do not remember 40 years ago, old lady...
U.S. Armed Forces have been 'all-volunteer' since 1973.
Well its about time these MORONS can agree upon something ........
So you disregard the facts from the past entirely, because it doesn't fit your point? Just because you don't remember?
Well, I suggest you use that newfangled thing they call the INTERNET (pronounced In-ter-net), and look up Viet Nam (pronounced Vee-et Nah-em). It was a small fight. Lots of rice fields. Plenty of death and dismay. Still don't remember? Keep researching! You'll get it!
Poor move, ComradeChaos. You make yourself look more silly.
Remind me what your point again is CC?
Was there not a DRAFT for 30 some years?
That's because we did not SPEND on an expensive standing all-volunteer military. Teapublicans gripe about spending and government employees -- Guess wha? The cost of a large standing military, PLUS contractors to do things the military used to do for far less, and all those benefits for a large standing military are causing deficits, NOT Social Security.
Also, we would be far less trigger happy if we had a draft, and had to fund wars with War Bonds like we did in the past.
Ten Years After, Tax the rich feed the poor, till they are no rich no more.
John-2006106
Fiesty:
As a former soldier in the 10th Mountain Division, I'd say that the Congress has already done alot "on behalf of those who have served their country".
1. We got paid money twice a month
2. 30 days vacation each month, and sort of unlimited "sick leave" called "quarters" as required.
3. Free meals and housing
4. Free dental and medical coverage.
5. Substantial recreation and moral programs (FMWR) and discounts for products at the PX and Commissary.
6. Renlistment bonuses that can be very substantial for those who wish to reenlist.
7. GI Bill for schooling for those who don't want to remain in the military.
8. VA Home Loan program that requires no money down and no PMI payments.
9. Veteran's preference in hiring in the Federal and many State Governments also.
10. Life time disability coverage for service connected ailments
11. Retire at 20 years with 50% of your pay. 75% after 30 years.
Let me address each one of those individually.
1. Almost all jobs pay at least 2 times a month big deal
2. I actually get 6 weeks a year in my civilian job and that was only after 2 years
3. Nothing is ever free.. ever
4. I cannot argue with this other then military health care while in active service was subpar at best. I always went to a civilian dentist as I got better care with them.
5. Not sure what you call substantial but it was a small savings
6. I was never offered a reenlistment bonus and neither were any of the 40 people that reenlisted with me. Only specific jobs in the military offered those bonuses. Not sure if that has changed since I was in the service.
7. Sure the GI Bill right now is awesome. However when I left service in 2001 the GI Bill only gave me 400.00 a month towards tuition. My monthly tuition was 1200.00 so that left me 800.00 to come up on my own for my education. To this day I am still trying to pay off my school loans. The GI Bill prior to the latest iteration was a complete joke.
8. VA Home Loan is also a joke. You have to have sparkling clean credit otherwise you're turned down just like a normal loan.
9. You could argue either way. I applied for several federal positions over the last 15 years and non veterans got the job over me even though I had just as much experience as they did.
10. I was separated from the service at 50% disability and was medically retired. One year later all my benefits and retirement were revoked. I lost my disability/retirement pay and all medical benefits of going to the VA. Recently I tried to get back into the VA to be told sorry you do not qualify to come to the VA.
11. This one is true but not many people make it that far.
I have been burned over and over by the Military/Veterans Administration as you can probably tell from my post. As far as I am concerned our Country doesn't give a flying (_________) about the veterans and never will.
This screwed up country America is officially communist and the people behind it including the media will dread the day.l
Liberal hypocrisy is so amusing to watch.
Here we have all the Libbies patting each other on the back about their alleged "patriotism" or compassion for our fighting men and women.
In the very next thread most of them will be spewing their venomous hate for the military and demand the $600 Billion in cuts to the military, because the
SocialistsLiberals of the "StupidSuperCommittee" refuse to give up their sacrosanct entitlements and social programs, are instituted.Of course the fact that the military is one of the Enumerated Powers demanded by our Constitution, means nothing to the Left. Their indoctrinated belief that entitlements and social programs, that are NOT mandated anywhere in the Constitution, that consume over 60% of our budget be untouched because of their inability to survive independently.
The hundreds of thousands of jobs that will be lost from the military's budget being slashed, and the subsequent thousands from collateral losses, will finally collapse our fragile economy. The Liberals will be happy because they will still get their free handouts,,,until all the money runs out.
Such is the Liberal patriotism.
JustConcerned-4468020 -- There are "liberals" like me who are posting objectively. Try it, and YOU might get the hang of it. BTW, our government-employed standing military is a form of socialism. You should therefore support the draft.
Patriotism does not only come in the form of invading other countries. It also comes in the form of worrying about your fellow countryman.
Those "entitlements" are, in a way, a manifestation of such worry for our countrymen. I don't care what you call me (as if "progressive," i.e., standing for progress, were an insult), I'd rather pay more taxes than I do or have a marginally less powerful army if that means we can take care of our elderly like they deserve to be taken care of, or if it means we can make sure this country's standard of living remains unmatched.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a powerful military. I do believe that our unmatched armed forces are the most powerful deterrent against a multipolar world like the one that led to the two world wars, and I do believe that our military is a force of good, and yes, I do believe that it's part of what makes us the world's remaining superpower. But our military is, and will remain for a long time, the world's most capable BY FAR. And if the choice comes down to make it marginally less capable (read: still tens of times more so than the next most powerful), burdening ourselves with EVEN MORE debt, or taking the bread off somebody's plate, I'll choose military budget cuts any day of the week.
Please understand that we're $15 trillion dollars in the hole and there are some luxuries that we CANNOT afford, for the sake of our citizens and for the sake of our children and grandchildren. A trillion-dollar defense budget is one of them (half a trillion will HAVE to do). It's not about phony patriotism or partisanship or even ideology. It's about common sense.
edandbunny; it looks like the good citizens of the Vine can't handle the truth (only 4 votes for your post). Employers can create 10 million jobs - but when they all pay $8 an hour and only give you 20 to 30 hours a week, to avoid paying any health care, not to mention all the rest of the benefits and taxes they (the employer) avoid by screwing the workers - there isn't one red cent left to boost the economy after the basics are paid.
Looks like bob got checkmated - the only people who got regulated were the employees - by the insurance companies and their drug tests. I can't even get health insurance and I have no doubt that the insurance provider of every employer gets to check me out before I'm considered for hire.
I sure would like to know where these "tax everybody" people work and what their benefits are from their employer - don't bitch unless you are willing to lay out your own situation.
Good! Now bring our children home so they can get a job and help us get out of this mess. Don't just spend money overseas so the upper 1% can get richer.
Sorry Gbaby This is NOT a "FACT". I am an ex-Navy Hospital Corpsman who went to nursing school (many years ago) when I got out. Corps school did not give me the training that I needed as a nurse. If this were a fact the military would give direct Nurse Corp commissions to it's enlisted personnel. They don't do that. They send them to nursing school and commission them after they get their degree and license
A 'Loophole' is a tax benefit that someone else gets.
A 'Tax Credit' is a loophole that you get.
HeY Feisty, Just what point are you trying to make other than off the wall horse$hit? The draft ended about 40 years ago and you might want to try understanding the tax codes and the other type of crap the rides shotgun with it. Your arguments or posts are just plain weak so just go away.
This is what you call reverse-discrimination. By helping one group you inadvertently hurt another. Think of small business loans for women and minorities. By giving these demographics priority you are actually penalizing Caucasian males that want to start a business.
People need to stand on their own merit, capabilities and competencies.
"But despite all the talk, Congress is creating another tax break: last week the Senate voted, 94 to 1, to give a tax credit to employers who hire military veterans; it was a small victory, too, for the White House, which had pushed for the new deduction as part of its jobs package. The House is expected to follow suit this week."
Politics as usual...vote getters all the way....
I think overall this is a good move - for starters, with alot of vets coming home from Iraq that will increase unemployment numbers, so ANY incentive to hire would help there. Plus, it's not really THAT big a "tax break," and one that could easily be made up in a year of tax revenues from a newly employed vet. You know, more people working = bigger tax base.
Does anyone know who voted NO?
Fiesty,
I am all for supporting those who serve in the arm forces, after all my son is one of them. However this new tax break is just another campaign treat thrown out to make incumbents look good with the coming elections. Veterans already receive preferential treatment in hiring both on the private and government sides of the coin. I support all who have serve and have served, but this is another waste of tax payer dollars. What about the 9.1% of the population that is currently unemployed? Half of those receiving long term benefits that can't find work? We should be finding ways to get these people into jobs first as they are the most in need. Veterans leaving the service have employable skills that will help them, plus their service record and service itself is a plus to employers, especially if they do business with the federal government. Sorry but I cannot get behind this type of feel good BS.
Here is an interesting solution. Why not make military service for three years mandatory for everyone coming out of high school or college. Those graduating high school can opt for ROTC through college before serving, and those leaving college can do their three years before joining the work force. This would alleviate the numbers of unemployable graduates by giving them valuable experience through the military. It could also help alleviate the retention problems experienced by the military and lower unemployment rates. Creating social safety nets are counter productive if they become relied upon in the long term. We have plenty of real experience through the debates on the welfare system to see this truth. Let's instead do something which requires the individual to give back for the help they receive as they receive it. This thought was used once before during Roosevelt's administration and was a benefit to the country. Though not using the military, it did set up the CCC which enabled men to find work, while helping develop this nation.
Lusitania - Aside from the your oral diarrhea, what other delusions do you wish vent here. Have your health care professional up your meds.
While it's not true of all who serve, many come out of high-unemployment communities and join the military as an employment option. But when they return, nothing's changed at home and they're out of work again. I think this is an important consideration for those who served and sacrificed for America. On the other hand, why doesn't Congress act on the USPS problem which could result in laying off thousands of vets?
By doing what exactly...forcing people to send mail? I think that (USPS) ship has sunk.......
USPS isn't supported by individuals sending first class letters, but reducing services and raising rates will affect the commercial and non-profit mailers who are their real revenue generators. So it doesn't just put a few thousand veterans out of work - it trickles down to countless other businesses that will ultimately pass those costs on to the consumer...that's you, BTW.
AP... If the USPS ship is sinking you might be the first to complain when the mail is no longer delivered to your mailbox. Just imagine what you will do if you have to go to your local post office to pick up your mail.
The Post Office has to take about $5 billion dollars out of their operating budget annually all because a republican lame duck congress passed a law in 2006 telling them to fund their pension plans up into the 2080's.
UPS and FedEx use the USPS to deliver to areas that they don't service. Pray that you are not in one of those areas.
Daryl Thanks for the response. It was quite enlightening.
Many brick and mortar USPS offices could be closed, and delivery on Saturdays ended. However... What's with the middlemen selling USPS postage at a profit? The ATMS at banks, at grocery stores, etc. -- WTF?
If the USPS put stamp vending machines in a bunch of locations and sold postage at that profit, they would be fine. We need the US Postal Service for rural areas and to provide affordable delivery. Believe me, without the USPS, UPS and FedEx prices would skyrocket.
Right-wingers who support privatization of such things have no idea of the greed that would be unleashed upon us. If anything, I'm all for nationalizing the energy industry and keeping the Dept. of Energy to run it. Our natural resources should be non-profit.
Actually TruePatriot the rightwingnuts do have an idea of how the prices would skyrocket if the USPS were abolished. That's why they want it gone. They want their 1% masters to get more exhorbitant profits off of the 99%.
U.S.P.S. is a perfect reason to be glad a LAW like this would exist. Vets Preference when & if the P.O. would give up the ghost. Can't picture it; 'cause UPS & FedEx couldn't handle the more desolate areas which, under LAW, the U.S.P.S. MUST! ! Also, one thing people forget, since 1990's Postal Employees ARE UNDER S/S and Medicare. (Congress eyed that hunk of Civil Service $Dollars$) Plus, Ronnie Regan fired the Air Controlors mainly to scare the 3 main Postal Unions (I million strong) , who were ready to ready to actually go on Strike after tiny 1% raises. Gee...it worked ! ! ALL Gov't. Unions aren't over-paid as the Tea Party/GOP would have YOU believe.
Fine, give a tax break to hire Vetrans. Of course it's a good idea.
But how about off-setting it by eliminating something of equal value?
10 million a year isn't even a decimal point in the larger scope and we have to start someplace.
WCA
End bush tax cuts and we'll breathe better. Whatever you eliminate add a new burden on the economy. The effort then equals to zero. What do you propose government should cut?
Dept of Commerce, Education and...uh...um...oops!
PEN, how about $10 million a year worth of Medicare.
Think anyone would notice?
WCA
You guys on the right are so predictable. Push grandpa and grandma quietly off the cliff while the rich and corp. keep living on tax welfare...........99% will notice.
Push them off a cliff?
And you call me predictable.
Estimated budget of Medicare in ten years is:
$1,000,000,000,000
minus $10,000,000 is
$999,990,000,000 or .001% of the expected budget.
Push Grandma off a cliff?
You.Have.Got.To.Be.Kidding.
WCA
Can you give us an estimate of bush tax cuts yearly?
PEN, they are Obama tax cuts and you have entirely missed the point
You people and your 99% garbage. I'm not in the 1% and you don't speak for me, so spare me your talking point.
And so, white collar, you continue to argue against your economic self interest. Could I ask why?
Jamie, you assume I argue against my own self interests because I am not part of the 1%.
Short sightedness has always been a problem with Liberals.
You don't know what "percentile" I am or where I expect to be in the futureyet you assume I argue against my "self interests"
How very presumptive of you to think you know what those interests might be now or ever for that matter.
The Bush tax cuts were approx 3.7T over 10 years. Despite being constantly called "tax breaks for the wealthy", only 800B or 22% went to the top 2% of earners, the group that pays over 50% of individual federal income taxes!
Well Daryl with comments like teabaggers, buttholes,greed and violence being "all the right knows", I guess it's pretty hard to debate with someone as eloquent as yourself.
Daryl is quite erudite isn't he? Does the libs proud!
I'm sure wca would have no problem offsetting this program with a 10 million dollar cut to the bloated defense budget. Right?
Daryl These numbers can be found from multiple sources. I don't watch Fox news!! You may disagree with them but these are cold, hard facts, something that you know nothing about! So if you think the Bush tax cuts were truly "tax breaks for the wealthy" then you could agree that they sould be eliminated. No, not on just the top 2% but ALL of them. If they are really tax breaks for the wealthy, the not wealthy wouldn't be harmed! How does this fit with the fact that even Obama, when he allowed them to be extended, called it the largest tax cut for the middle class in history?! Is he a liar (I think he finally told the truth here!)?!
Sometimes you must argue against your own self interest simply because it's the right thing to do. It like the extreme case of a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to protect his buddies.
Yes, we could always cut the Defense budget $10 million. But wait, that's going to happen anyway. ROFL
Here is how to offset $10,000,000. Have an even tax increase. It will cost 3 cents for 100% of Americans. I think it is a tax increase we can live with to help our men and women in uniform. You aren't going to do anything with 3 cents, so don't tell me you'd be better off spending it on a tic tac or whatever.
This is a tax break I totally agree with.
Hire the vets and fire the politicians. Problem solved for the offset.
And all this time I thought the candidate was chosen based on experience and skills. I am a veteran but I don't think a company should be enticed to hire anyone because of a tax break. It doesn't make much business sense to me.
They won't hire just for a tax break. that's why this is just pure political showboating. This is just not the way a for-profit business works. On the other hand, as little difference as it will likely make, I don't think it's going to hurt anything and may at least get someone THINKING about hiring a vet.
Why can't we all be honest, and say "why hire a vet, when you can hire a Chinese or Indian citizen for a fraction of the cost?
You know- 'free enterprise' and all that.....
(and no, I don't really belive that is what should be done.....)
For companies that are in a hiring mode, this might just serve an an added incentive.
Instead of giving the employers of vets the tax breaks, why not just give a break to the vets themselves?
Well how about two job applicants,one a vet and one a non vet has the same qualifications as far as job skills go.The non vet graduated high school and did odd jobs for a couple of years living in mom and dads basement.The vet finished high school then served two years.Which one would you hire?
I was thinking of the structure maybe doesn't make the best sense. After all, the way I read it, the Veteran hired within 4 weeks of discharge is worth no tax break, the Vet hired after 4 weeks is worth $2,400 and after 6 months is worth $5,600.
I'm thinking of the scenario when I got out of the military, I was in the US Navy and I was on what's called "terminal leave", in that I had about a month's leave built up so my last four weeks in the military were in name only. I was let go a month before I was really for real out of the Navy.
I got a job that fast (comm techs with Navy training are a hot ticket) but if the employer would be looking at me saying "hold off for 4 weeks after you get out so I can get this credit" that would have sucked. The job started at $60,000 per year, so losing a month's pay (2 months actually with terminal leave double dipping) would cost me $10,000 so the employer could save $2,400! What a rip!
Sitting it out 6 months so employers could get $5,600 would even suck worse, I'd be out $35,000 if that happened.
I get the good intentions of the tax break, but I can see there might be some unintended consequences.
I'm a veteran, and 99% of all veterans have experience and education. The military is not an easy task master. It does establish some discipline and motivation. Hire a veteran and you'll get an experienced employee.
Quite interesting--some of the huge, too-big-to-fail banks have been advertising on TV, trumpeting about what great institutions they are because they are hiring veterans! I should have known that this had more to do with dollars attached, not because they really want to help the veterans!
"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly
How about breaking up the "too-big-to-fail" government. We have two options in any election: Dumb and bad. Do you choose someone that is going to make dumb decisions, or bad decisions?
End the bipartisan days of America.
Government must be as big as society and if we had rank choice voting, a third party might be able to take root. Currently, it's useless to vote for a minority party candidate since it just serves as a vote against one party or the other...see Nader.
There is a way to change politics using the established party system. See Tea Party. OK, I didn't say it would change for the better.
Actually GBaby1, the most famous example of where rank choice voting might have made a difference is the election of 1980. A substantial majority of Americans liked John Anderson, they just thought he had no chance of winning as an independent. And that is exactly why rank choice voting will never ever EVER happen. It diminishes the power of the major two parties and strengthens the third parties. Until we rise up and say a choice between corruption and corruption is no choice at all, the pattern will continue.
Most employers I am familiar with like the vets who work for them. They always show up and do the job. They are the ones who work hard and are problem solvers. I don't mean to sound like a commercial, but this is one I am passionate about.
Our Company is here to help the veterans who served in the military so my company and its profits would be safe and secure- by the way send my $ 5,600 as proof what a good corporate citizen I am. :-)
I am a vet and I agree that many vets are great employees. However, keep in mind that some are not. I worked with a great guy that was suffering from PTSD. This alone caused enough problems that he was eventually laid off. Learning to follow orders will help in many jobs. It can also be a problem in jobs that require "Out of the box" thinking. You don't find a lot of vets working in the advertising business or fashion industry.
I agree with Lukwarm, this incentive will not actually help that many vets find jobs. A $6K tax credit is a drop in the bucket when it comes to paying for an FTE. This is a great political stunt that both parties are behind. (Notice the 99 to 1 vote in the Senate.) I guess on this site, all the credit will be given to BHO for instituting this policy, regardless of who votes for it.
Two months ago Obama gave a speech to a joint session. My opinion then:
___________
I do like his idea about providing incentives for hiring the long term unemployed and the veterans. Personally, I think the business world's latest MO to only hire people who have jobs, passing on those actually unemployed is wrong.
I think the school improvement and infrastructure repair can help re energize the construction and architectural fields.
I will be interested in learning more and find it hopeful that the GOP leaders did not outright reject it.
Potential Political ramifications - It would be politically wise if the GOP accept a small package, obviously it will only include tax cuts, then when minimal growth is seen they can point to it as a failed exercise...
#1.95 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 11:31 AM EDT
__________
If Congress wants to reduce tax cuts they can always do nothing and let the Bush/Obama cuts expire for the 1% and for the 99%.
so according to Obama tax credits/cuts create jobs. so why do the liberals want to raise taxes again?
It wouldn't be raising taxes... SMH, they would be returning to a rate from which they were before passing a tax break bill, during a war.
Maybe they are convinced to do that fiscally conservative thingy you TP keep on about. ROFL
In all probability this is one good tax, but the breaks the Congress has given to themselves borders on treasonous treachery! 60 Minutes segment on the stock trading perks the Congress has voted themselves and their actions in getting to millionaire status stinks to high Heaven! The main thrust is "We cannot trust our Congress persons"! America needs to vote out all the elites in both parties and have "Initiative and Referendum" nationwide on every issue concerning perks for and to the Congress people. They are there to provide a fiduciary function for and to the people not themselves. Wake up America! Pelosi and numerous others were caught with their hands in the "Cookie Jar"! America needs to vote out all the elites in both parties and have "Initiative and Referendum" to shut these kind of actions down, if the Congress isn't going to do it!
I support initiatives that help our veterans, but I can't get away from the fact that our politicians mainly act in the interests of the 1%. A veteran serves our country, but a corporate CEO can outspend that vet during a campaign. Let's make political campaigns fair, so we can have government of the people, by the people, for the people again. http://wh.gov/bEL
Businesses should be ashamed for taking the business credit offered. They have a moral obligation to hire veterans. They should take that money saved through this credit and give it to Veterans of America.
The intent of the 1983 legislation was to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years that were supposed to be saved and invested, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could later be drawn down to pay benefits to the baby boomers. The 1983 payroll tax hike has generated more than $2.5 trillion that is supposed to be in the trust fund. If the trust fund actually held this amount in real assets, full Social Security benefits could be paid until at least 2037 without any changes. Unfortunately, none of the surplus revenue was saved or invested in anything. It was all spent by the government on wars and other government programs without making any provisions for repaying the money.
Prior to 1983, Social Security had operated on a “pay-as-you-go” basis with each generation responsible for paying for the benefits of the generation that preceded them. The 1983 legislation changed the nature of Social Security funding. In addition to paying for the benefits of the preceding generation, as was customary, the baby boomers were also required to pay additional taxes to partially pre-fund their own retirement. The net result is that the baby boomers have paid more into Social Security than any other generation. Yet they are often made scapegoats and blamed for the Social Security funding problem. We are getting a bum rap.
Over the past 25 years, five presidents, and the members of Congress, have participated in the great Social Security scam. All Social Security contributions made by working Americans, except the amount which was needed to pay current retirement benefits, has been funneled into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes. Some like to say that the government just “borrowed” the money during the time period when it was not needed to pay benefits. If the money is not repaid in full, with interest, it will have been stolen by the government from working Americans who paid into the fund. Congress must pay their debt to the American workers. They should be held accountable for the $4.63 trillion that they have borrowed. Forgiving this debt is not an option! Section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 made it a violation of federal law to use Social Security revenue for non-Social Security purposes. As of 2011 4.63 trillion dollars have been stolen from SS. My questions are, why aren't these politicians behind bars and what recourse do we have to prosecute these scoundrels?? Gus Piliafas
All in All.. I would agree with most posts. Am a Vet having served during both Korea ( You've heard of that one?) and Vietnam. Having said that... I Think it is true that not many businesses would hire anyone , just for the tax break. As for the reference of the1% as it relates to YellowDogs comments... I think the one per cent applies to our great Congress folks. Seems they are truly more interested in becoming millionaires than doing the countries business. Yep,,,, Let;s vote them all out and get new ones.
It's most likely that if a member of Congress has no business interests of their own, it will be impossible for business leaders to level with them since folks with money rarely even associate with, mush less relate to or deal with, those without. This is a result of the previous selling out of our government to business leaders which started in the Nixon Administration. Hey, wasn't Darth Cheney a Chief of Staff or Defense Secretary for Nixon? Seems like our choices in the past keep haunting us on and on.
The tax breaks for some areas such as in the energy field should have a limit when the companies in this arena have reached a certain level of revenue. The oil industry does not need to be given a $2-10B tax break when their revenue continues to reach new heights. Therefore, a formula needs to be contained in the tax break bills. Otherwise, these become "entitlement" programs which the GOP claims it does not believe in. After all, if these conservatives believe in the free market concept, giving these companies tax breaks creates a false free market condition because it is Congress not the marketplace that is in control. Or do they see it as OK because it is for the 1%ers. I denote some hypocrisy here? We pay into Medicare and Social Security and yet these conservatives consider these entitlements where when it comes to the wealthy and corporations its tax breaks for the "job creators." What a job!!!!!
The problem is not targeted tax breaks. The problem is "once Congress creates one of these tax breaks... they never go away...". We need to demand that Congress fulfill its (theoretical) responsibilities. That includes setting sunsetting provisions for each tax break (i.e., give a date on which it expires). Require that the tax break be reinitiated if the tax break should be continued.
I'm just glad we can all agree on something.
People, people, people???!!! You are trying to get upset at a 95 million dollar tax break to help our veterans??!!! Come on now. These men and women went over into two war zones and fought againist an enemy that was out to destroy us. And we are questioning the Presidents motives for helping them. Are we that divided that we can't just ok that's cool the are US Government came together and did something right for is most beloved citizens are veterans.
Let me see if I got this right. If your a newly unemployed vet your screwed because your not worth anything. If you've been unemployed for over four weeks but less than 6 months your only worth $2,400.00, But if you've been unemployed for over 6 months then your worth $5,600.00.
The only real incentive here is to hire vets that have been unemployed for longer than six months and in the meantime they will have been collecting unemployment benifits for those six months or longer. You have 6 months or more of unemployment benifits being paid by the goverenment, and the goverenment will lose $5,600.00 in Tax revenue and we wonder why our goverenment is disfunctional and were 15 trillion dollars in dept.
Don't get me wrong I'm all for Helping our vereterans. They are the noes tah should be getting helped before Welfar moms, Adult babies, crack heads, etc. I just dont see how this is really going to help the country get back on a right path.
Seems to me this is just another Ploy by a disfunctinal goverenemtn that doesnt have a clue how to fix anything and is just trying to make it appear they can do something.
The sad thing is no company is going to hire a worker for a measly $5,600.00 tax break considering how much each employee costs a company each year. If they were going to hire they would do it anyways.
Personnel Entering Active Duty on or After 1 Aug 86
If a member's DIEMS is on or after 1 Aug 86, retired pay is calculated by using the average of the member's highest 36 months basic pay, times 2 ½ percent of the member's years of service (based on the 1405 service date) minus a 1 percent reduction for every year of service less than 30 years. Retired pay for 20 years would be calculated at 40 percent. This reduction is restored permanently at age 62. This pay calculation is normally referred to as the "High 36/40 Percent Plan." Here is the calculated example using the MSgt from the previous examples:
61.25% multiplier - 5.5% = 55.75%
$2531 (average basic pay) X 55.75%=$1411 (estimated retired pay)
Let's see.After 24 years of service, a Master Sergeant's PRE-TAX pension amounts to $16,932.
Some would say that's more than enough. Hardly.
Considering that the Master Sergeant is probably less than 45 years old and the pension continues even if he gets another job, it ain't bad.
don't forget Obama's tax credit. donate big to Obama's campaign and he'll divert millions of tax payer money back to you.
Maddening is spelled with 2 'D's and the tax credit is for employers to hire an unemployed vet, this man is a retired vet, You know; a member of that group from whom you wish to steal um, cut Medicare and SocSecurity benefits from? Those guys.
lol
John
I would like to ask a question and I am not begrudging a vet a job but will the 50 or 60 year old vets be counted? I know of several of those who have lost jobs. Will the fact that they are a vet be checked? Employers are not allowed to ask if you are illegal but they can ask if you are a vet. What if they lie? All of my family except one brother who had asthma are ex military. Will it be discrimination if the disabled are placed behind the vet? This all sounds wonderful but when you start picking winners and losers it usually has a few drawbacks.
What an insult to the people who have served and the people of this country. Just another example of how Congress is out of touch with reality and what is happening in this country. Its no wonder that this country is turning into a 3rd world nation.
Our government doesn't know how to do anything BUT insult the peasants who serve thier misguided, greed-filled pursposes.
We're not just 'turning the corner into a third world nation'. Our economy is thrusting us down the path of no return here.
Remember Ramen noodle dinners when you were going through college? Don't forget the taste; it will be coming back in vogue very soon...
Do you know what "Third World Nation" means?
We're not turning into a third world county. We're migrating towards a feudal system. Our current political and corporate thiefs will become our fiefs.
Serf's up.