Dodd, Collins introduce bill to help retain volunteer emergency responders

[gamewell45 258]

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) have jointly sponsored a bill in the US senate that would protect tax benefits for volunteer fire fighters and EMS personnel.

Here is the link to the story:

http://www.stamfordp...nders7820.shtml

[ex-commish 490]

I guess I will rain on this parade. This to me seems like another feel good piece of legislation. With all the "incentives" that have been passed on federal, state, and local level there is still a decline volunteers and those who are joining have limited time to give. I don't see this working.

[JFLYNN 681]

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) have jointly sponsored a bill in the US senate that would protect tax benefits for volunteer fire fighters and EMS personnel.

Here is the link to the story:

http://www.stamfordp...nders7820.shtml

This is bad policy. It is wrong headed and unfair on so many levels, and it won't make any significant improvement in services delivered.

[Guest ff101]

This is bad policy. It is wrong headed and unfair on so many levels, and it won't make any significant improvement in services delivered.

What's unfair?

[Bnechis 3,961]

What's unfair?

Because the majority of the population of the US pays for career fire services and with this bill they get to subsize communities that chose not to fund career fire departments.

The main purpose of this bill is to convince volunteers to vote for those politicians. We all know that "real" volunteers don't need benefits to get them to volunteer and many on here have honestly stated that the perks have done more damage than good.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Bnechis

[JFLYNN 681]

What's unfair?

Thank you for asking...it's unfair that people who live in communities that are not served by a volunteer department and who pay taxes for a career department have to pay for other communities who are served by a volunteer department. Don't you agree? If not, please explain.

[MoFire390 118]

Thank you for asking...it's unfair that people who live in communities that are not served by a volunteer department and who pay taxes for a career department have to pay for other communities who are served by a volunteer department. Don't you agree? If not, please explain.

chief flynn, i dont understand what you are trying to say can u please elaborate for me. thanks

[x635 4,066]

In actuality, you're compensating the volunteers, who signed up to serve their communities. One of the main reasons I hear from volunteer departments that are hurting for manpower is that they can' afford to hire to make up for their shortages.

I'm sure that there are many volunteers who are offended by this bill, as it makes it appear like they do it partially for tax reasons. I understand the reasoning that they shouldn't have to pay for the service they provide, but that still doesn't make sense. This is so they can't get taxed on OTHER incentives they recieve.

I lived in Hartsdale Fire District as well was enmployed there as a career firefighter and had to pay the same fire district tax as everyone else, yet I was essentially contributing back my own salary. The volunteers in the district were subject to a property tax rebate. And I was basically had no say on where my taxes went.

“Requiring these brave and selfless volunteers to pay taxes on the benefits they receive creates a disincentive for them to serve.

I find that quote insulting to all volunteers. I don't know anyone that won't volunteer or complains because they have to pay taxes on the incentives, and anyone that does isn't in it for the right reasons.

[JFLYNN 681]

chief flynn, i dont understand what you are trying to say can u please elaborate for me. thanks

I don't understand what you are trying to ask would you please elucidate for me. thanks

[gamewell45 258]

I don't see too many volunteers in here criticizing the bill. Mostly paid personnel are the ones who have issues with this bill.

As I've said in an earlier thread, to those volunteers who are opposed to this: no one can force you to enroll in LOSAP if you think its that bad and hurting the volunteer fire service. So if you feel that way, set the example and refuse to sign up for LOSAP.

Edited March 20, 2010 by gamewell45

[abaduck 123]

Thank you for asking...it's unfair that people who live in communities that are not served by a volunteer department and who pay taxes for a career department have to pay for other communities who are served by a volunteer department. Don't you agree? If not, please explain.

I'm not quite clear how far your objections go. Are you suggesting that there should be some kind of Chinese wall between career and volunteer funding? Take the Valhalla FTC, for instance. Who pays for that? Are some of the taxes being used to provide the facilities and train volunteers there being paid by people who have already paid for a career department to protect them? Is that fair? How far should we go in stopping the redistribution of the proceeds of taxation beyond the community where the taxpayer lives? Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, Chief, but I detect a certain parochialism in your thinking here.

Having said that, on the original question... I'm a vollie, and I don't need or want a dime from anybody for what I do; I don't *personally* support this bill. The occasional 'thank you' from the people we serve is enough for me - as the Runrig song says, "we don't play for fame, we don't play for cash". But I speak only for myself there.

[fireguy43 35]

Because the majority of the population of the US pays for career fire services and with this bill they get to subsize communities that chose not to fund career fire departments.

The main purpose of this bill is to convince volunteers to vote for those politicians. We all know that "real" volunteers don't need benefits to get them to volunteer and many on here have honestly stated that the perks have done more damage than good.

Back up a minute on that one..... a gross oversimplification. There are many communities that do not have "career departments", but to suggest that they have somehow "opted out" (your words "chose not to fund...")is ridiculous. It suggests that there are no other variables at play and that is just not true. Not every municipality or unincorporated area has the wherewithal to have a "career department" if they so chose to. Here we go again with the "paid vs. vollie" argument. We almost made it a month on this forum without this flaring up again.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I don't see too many volunteers in here criticizing the bill. Mostly paid personnel are the ones who have issues with this bill.

Is that a surprise? While it maybe hard to seperate it, my issue is as taxpayer in a career community. If I lived in a volunteer community my federal tax dollars (under this proposed bill) would be supporting my FD.

As I've said in an earlier thread, to those volunteers who are opposed to this: no one can force you to enroll in LOSAP if you think its that bad and hurting the volunteer fire service. So if you feel that way, set the example and refuse to sign up for LOSAP.

This is good, but if you are really really opposed to this and believe it hurts the vollunter service, then you need to take it further...notify the law makers that your vote can not be bought this way.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I'm not quite clear how far your objections go. Are you suggesting that there should be some kind of Chinese wall between career and volunteer funding? Take the Valhalla FTC, for instance. Who pays for that? Are some of the taxes being used to provide the facilities and train volunteers there being paid by people who have already paid for a career department to protect them? Is that fair?

WHile this was geared to AC Flynn, I'll take a crack at it. We do not need a wall, we need a fair system for funding. The WCFTC is funded by all the taxpayers in the county...as it should be. The funding for training is not as fair. The training costs for all of the CFI's is also paid for by all the taxpayers in the county, but for the most part all of the CFI's time is spent training volunteers. And no VFD recieves a bill for training, but the career depts. are charged thousands of dollars per firefighter for the career fire accadamy. Law requires that the depts provide the training, but only the career depts have to actually sign a check. Now as a city and county taxpayer why do I have to support both?

How far should we go in stopping the redistribution of the proceeds of taxation beyond the community where the taxpayer lives?

This is a great question, I am tired of seeing my tax dollars going everywhere but my community. New Rochelle is the 7th largest city in the state and when you calculate out how much goes out, then how much comes back, we are #22 on the list for what comes back.

[gamewell45 258]

Is that a surprise? While it maybe hard to seperate it, my issue is as taxpayer in a career community. If I lived in a volunteer community my federal tax dollars (under this proposed bill) would be supporting my FD.

This is good, but if you are really really opposed to this and believe it hurts the vollunter service, then you need to take it further...notify the law makers that your vote can not be bought this way.

As a suggestion, if you feel so strongly about this bill, why don't you write to your Congressman and/or Senator and state your objections. I"m sure those in here who likewise feel that strongly about it, will likewise correspond to their appropriate representative. They could even contact FASNY and express their concerns as well.

[gamewell45 258]

The main purpose of this bill is to convince volunteers to vote for those politicians.

No more then fire labor unions catering to politicians to pass legislation favoring their causes. Sauce for the Goose.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Back up a minute on that one..... a gross oversimplification. There are many communities that do not have "career departments", but to suggest that they have somehow "opted out" (your words "chose not to fund...")is ridiculous. It suggests that there are no other variables at play and that is just not true.

Yes there are other considerations, but economic considerations is the primary driving force in determining the delevery of all services in a community.

Not every municipality or unincorporated area has the wherewithal to have a "career department" if they so chose to. Here we go again with the "paid vs. vollie" argument. We almost made it a month on this forum without this flaring up again.

I am not suggesting that everyone or anyone for that matter should have a "career department" and this is not a "paid vs. vollie" argument ( I am sorry that some can not see past that). If the City, town, village, or district wants to give benefits to its volunteers that is up to the taxpayers of that community. My only issue with that is how are you selling it. Local fundung is just that a local issue.

The issue here is why should any community have to fund another communities fire protection. Thats what this bill is asking to do.

[Bnechis 3,961]

No more then fire labor unions catering to politicians to pass legislation favoring their causes. Sauce for the Goose.

Can you list any "career" legislation that costs taxpayers in other communities tax money?

Also I had stated: "The main purpose of this bill is to convince volunteers to vote for those politicians"

My point was this legislation does not appear to be coming from the volunteers, but from the politicians who do not care if it is good or bad for the VFD's but that it will get them votes.

[gamewell45 258]

My point was this legislation does not appear to be coming from the volunteers, but from the politicians who do not care if it is good or bad for the VFD's but that it will get them votes.

I honestly don't think that the politicians were sitting around a table having a beer and conjured up this legislation; rather i'm sure they were approched by various organizations representing the volunteers who planted the seed and the legislature, more or less on cue, developed this Bill. I think we can both agree that most politicians are opportunists; they will cater to their constituients no matter what if it means they can count of their support when they run for office.

[fireguy43 35]

Can you list any "career" legislation that costs taxpayers in other communities tax money?

Also I had stated: "The main purpose of this bill is to convince volunteers to vote for those politicians"

My point was this legislation does not appear to be coming from the volunteers, but from the politicians who do not care if it is good or bad for the VFD's but that it will get them votes.

1) The world is full of examples where taxes are levied on people who derive little to no benefit from the service. Let's not make this sound like the fire service has a monopoly on that problem. Talk to anyone in upstate NY about how much of their tax dollars go to support downstate, I've seen those stories in the media all of the time. Ask anyone in the counties of the Hudson Valley why they need to support the MTA, and you'll get an earful. Is it wrong? Absolutely. Should it be fixed? Sure. Will it happen anytime soon? Doubt it.

Specifically as it relates to the fire service, I can't think of any "career" legislation that costs taxpayers in other communitities tax money, but give me some time and maybe I can come up with something.

2) Politicians are indeed an opportunistic bunch, and yeah, they approve things that will enhance their popularity. Vollies don't have a corner on this market, as politicians are always eager to kiss a___ to get the endorsement of whatever career unions they can find. No difference there, a vote is a vote, career or vollie, and a good deal of the politicians out there will fall all over themselves to get the vote, no matter what.

3) Despite your protestations to the contrary, the act of classifying the issue in terms of "career" or "vollie" makes the issue one of "career" vs. "vollie". The issue is really one of the political process, access to decision-makers, and how the political process is tainted by special interest groups, be they career unions or vollie lobbying groups. Both are guilty of looking out for their own members to the exclusion of what it costs everyone else. If you really don't believe it is a career/vollie thing, then stop using the terms when you make a point.

[abaduck 123]

The issue here is why should any community have to fund another communities fire protection. Thats what this bill is asking to do.

How much tax revenue did NYC 'export' to the rest of NY State last year? $11 Billion or so? Did any of that go towards supporting career firefighters in, say, Syracuse? How many fire departments (and other services beyond counting) are those taxpayers who pay for the FDNY (and other NYC services) also supporting? Aren't they bankrolling OFPC for the rest of the state? This is a much bigger can of worms than just the bill in question.; it goes to the heart of our tax and public finance systems. This bill isn't even small dust in the balance.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Talk to anyone in upstate NY about how much of their tax dollars go to support downstate, I've seen those stories in the media all of the time.

How much tax revenue did NYC 'export' to the rest of NY State last year? $11 Billion or so? Did any of that go towards supporting career firefighters in, say, Syracuse? How many fire departments (and other services beyond counting) are those taxpayers who pay for the FDNY (and other NYC services) also supporting? Aren't they bankrolling OFPC for the rest of the state?

This is interesting....goes NYC support NYS or is it the other way around? I remember a few years back those upstate complaining that 80% of the tax monies go to the NYC metro area, when I looked it up I found that 80% of the taxes came from the NYC metro area. NYC exports about the same amount that it recieves. Did NYC $$ go to OFPC? Maybe, but those in Rochester also had thier $$ go to NYC Schools. Did anybodys taxes support Syracuses FD (other than Syracuse) I do not know, but I do know that the funding that cities recieve from the state (that is not dedicated to specific mandates & FD is not one of them) is so small that it is academic.

Ask anyone in the counties of the Hudson Valley why they need to support the MTA, and you'll get an earful. Is it wrong? Absolutely. Should it be fixed? Sure. Will it happen anytime soon? Doubt it.

I have major problems with how the MTA tax is collected and how the state refuses to deal with the MTA's mismanagment, but I also understand that everyone in the Hudson Valley benefits economically from NYC and the MTA. Million dollar homes in Bronxville, Rye, Larchmont, etc. would be worth $200,000 if you could not work in NYC and get there easy and quick.

Specifically as it relates to the fire service, I can't think of any "career" legislation that costs taxpayers in other communitities tax money, but give me some time and maybe I can come up with something.

Currently there are 10 bills that the "career" fire unions are fighting for:

3 are death and disability bills that would be paid for by the employeer

5 are pension issues that would be paid for by the employeer

1 is about hearing officers (disapline) that would be paid for by the employeer & union

and 1 is to study the effects of Payment in Lieu of Taxes by developers (and its effect on all public services).

So this is not about what "career" legislation costs taxpayers in other communitities, it costs nothing.

[spin_the_wheel 460]

Thank you for asking...it's unfair that people who live in communities that are not served by a volunteer department and who pay taxes for a career department have to pay for other communities who are served by a volunteer department. Don't you agree? If not, please explain.

It's like a lot of unfair taxing, like when you have your own village Police, but get taxed by the County Police for some services as well, or when you pay School taxes and do not have Children in School anymore, or never had. Should be revamped in many areas.

[ladder55 26]

Unfair? How about welfare? I make to much money to apply but barley enough to support my family.I can't afford a house or child care yet my tax dollars go to assisting people with no jobs and lots of kids. Atleast this bill is going to something positive and not to people that survive off of the working class.

[dmc2007 17]

It's like a lot of unfair taxing, like when you have your own village Police, but get taxed by the County Police for some services as well, or when you pay School taxes and do not have Children in School anymore, or never had. Should be revamped in many areas.

We pay for the county police because they fund the roads that we drive on. As far as I'm aware municipalities who pay for the county police pay for their services. Is that correct?

As for the schools, the reason why we pay for them no matter whether we have children attending or not is because we all benefit from a well educated populace.

[helicopper 1,050]

We pay for the county police because they fund the roads that we drive on. As far as I'm aware municipalities who pay for the county police pay for their services. Is that correct?

I don't know which county you're referring too so I'm only referring to Westchester County and its police force. Some counties may have police districts (not unlike fire or EMS districts) so their funding and organization may be different. I'm not sure what you mean by the County PD fund the roads you drive on???

According to the Westchester County budget for 2010, the cost of Public Safety, Corrections, and Courts is 12.9% of the total budget. The Department of Public Safety (County Police) is 2.1% of that (7.2% is Corrections, the largest share of this subgroup). By contrast, social services is almost ONE THIRD of the County tax (31.7% to be exact) or almost 600 MILLION dollars.

Summonses and arrests on the parkway system do generate revenue but that goes exclusively to the local communities and the State; with the exception of a portion of DWI fees/surcharges the County PD doesn't see any of the revenue it generates from enforcement activities.

I'm not sure if you're implying that the County PD "bills" local communities for its services (Bomb Squad, Aviation, K-9, Crime Scene, etc.). If you are the answer is categorically NO. You're paying for the services already via the County tax so no local community receives a bill for services.

Getting back to the underlying issue here, the proposed legislation should be a concern to all taxpayers. We're giving another special interest group another loophole to avoid paying taxes on income (however slight). This will have to be made up somewhere and will undoubtedly cause tax increases elsewhere. In fact, without seeing proof to the contrary, I suspect that the intended beneficiary will be hurt as much or more than they're helped because they'll be taxed more on their primary income. Would you be as defensive if we said that there would be more loopholes to reduce the tax burden on corporate big-shots? Simply put this is the same thing - special rules for special interests.

Taxes are a disaster because of these and other inequities. To say that this legislation should be passed because there are other bad tax rules is like saying two wrongs make a right. We have to overhaul the whole system so we shouldn't be adding to the problem now. Fix it, fix it right, fix it once and for all.

This is an interesting discussion so let's not start attacking each other for divergent viewpoints. Agree to disagree and fight the issues not each other.

[LFD34 12]

Taxpayer funds are being used by many departments. Several federal programs such as AFD are giving grants. Many career departments have received those funds. In addition many of the city are getting state assistance for their general funds. This to is a subsidy from other taxpayers.

I believe that if the fire service wants to stand on its own, it must go back to the old style where people paid individually for protection if they desired it. Otherwise it is difficult to determine a viable fair funding model for all concerned, as issues of providing protection for highways or other large special use structures distorts individual community needs.

This is along the same lines as using property valuations to pay for protection. Expensive houses on large properties don't cost more to provide coverage than little houses on small plots but they pay more in taxes.

As such funding is a complicated issue that needs deep thought on how to improve. This is why their has been such debate concerning consolidation.

[dmc2007 17]

Thank you for the very informative post.

I don't know which county you're referring too so I'm only referring to Westchester County and its police force. Some counties may have police districts (not unlike fire or EMS districts) so their funding and organization may be different. I'm not sure what you mean by the County PD fund the roads you drive on???

Total typo on my part. I meant to type "the county PD patrol the county roads we drive on."

I'm not sure if you're implying that the County PD "bills" local communities for its services (Bomb Squad, Aviation, K-9, Crime Scene, etc.). If you are the answer is categorically NO. You're paying for the services already via the County tax so no local community receives a bill for services.

I was reffering to municipalities who use the County Police exclusively for their law enforercement (which in hind sight are probably irrelevant to the discussion at hand). I am not sure if we currently have any such communities in Westchester. However, I do remember that there was a community in northern Westchester (which one it was specifically escapes me at the moment) that was considering disbanding their police deparment in favor of having the County Police patrol their community. If such a measure would pass, would the County Police not receive any funding from the municipality for this?

Getting back to the underlying issue here, the proposed legislation should be a concern to all taxpayers. We're giving another special interest group another loophole to avoid paying taxes on income (however slight). This will have to be made up somewhere and will undoubtedly cause tax increases elsewhere. In fact, without seeing proof to the contrary, I suspect that the intended beneficiary will be hurt as much or more than they're helped because they'll be taxed more on their primary income. Would you be as defensive if we said that there would be more loopholes to reduce the tax burden on corporate big-shots? Simply put this is the same thing - special rules for special interests.

Taxes are a disaster because of these and other inequities. To say that this legislation should be passed because there are other bad tax rules is like saying two wrongs make a right. We have to overhaul the whole system so we shouldn't be adding to the problem now. Fix it, fix it right, fix it once and for all.

I think you and I are both in agreement that this is not a productive measure. Aside from the issues I have with placing too many incentives on volunteering, I do agree that it is ridiculous for communities with career staff to fund other communities who can't maintain a volunteer department.

My post was intended to show that he inequities that the prior post cited were not in fact inequitable, and that all players involved were paying their fair share.

This is an interesting discussion so let's not start attacking each other for divergent viewpoints. Agree to disagree and fight the issues not each other.

Agreed. I hope my post didn't come off as an attack.

[ex-commish 490]

Thank you for asking...it's unfair that people who live in communities that are not served by a volunteer department and who pay taxes for a career department have to pay for other communities who are served by a volunteer department. Don't you agree? If not, please explain.

I don't support this bill due to enough time and money has been wasted on legislation on incentives to keep volunteers and I feel the leadership in volunteer departments need to rise to the occasion and address the issue and stop looking for someone else to solve thier problems. I also feel incentives should be at the local level. Now I have a question. I live in a community that is protected by a volunteer department. Doesn't my tax dollars support the SAFER grants that help fund career staff in career departments? Couldn't I use the same argument?

[JFLYNN 681]

I don't support this bill due to enough time and money has been wasted on legislation on incentives to keep volunteers and I feel the leadership in volunteer departments need to rise to the occasion and address the issue and stop looking for someone else to solve thier problems. I also feel incentives should be at the local level. Now I have a question. I live in a community that is protected by a volunteer department. Doesn't my tax dollars support the SAFER grants that help fund career staff in career departments? Couldn't I use the same argument?

You could make that argument and you would be correct. I can sympathize with why a taxpayer may have a problem with SAFER grants. However, there is one big difference... with a SAFER grant there is accountability. If the federal grant pays for firefighters, the firefighters who are being paid have to show up to work and respond when they are called.