Post by: MattC on March 29, 2007, 02:55:47 PM
What if your federal taxes were decreased by 25% if you served in the armed forces (unless dishonorably discharged)? I do not know how feasible that is given the current overspending in Washington, however I think it would rapidly raise enlistment. The tax benefits could quickly offset the decreased salary. How long should the break last, however? It would have to extend at least a decade beyond the end of service, I assume, in order to be attractive enough. Would it be too much if it was a life-long reduction in taxes?
Post by: Car Knocker on March 29, 2007, 03:19:51 PM
Post by: MattC on March 29, 2007, 03:36:17 PM
Your question about re-enlistments is good. Off the cuff, I answer that it would work best as a single discount, not increased for re-enlistment. Perhaps an increasing scale for time in service. But increased benefits for re-enlistment encourages repeated leaving and then returning--an adverse incentive that would decrease stability and increase the costs of operation.
But what are your opinions about would it increase enrollment, especially from the underrepresented economic classes? And what do you think would be a reasonable length of time to extend the tax reduction?
Post by: The Rabbi on March 29, 2007, 03:42:59 PM
Further, people from advantaged backgrounds join the military out of a sense of duty. Giving them a tax break won't affect that.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 29, 2007, 04:11:46 PM
A lot of my pay was tax free, depending on how much of a given month was spent in a designated combat zone. It's called the Combat-Pay Exclusion, and I'd wager the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard have similar exclusions.
Post by: MattC on March 29, 2007, 04:14:20 PM
If it is, or even if it is not, then let's consider the question posed differently. The US Government has stated that it is strapped for soldiers and is trying to boost recruitment rates. Would these tax breaks provide them with the relief they desire?
Rabbi, you suggested that those who join the military do so out of a sense of duty. I contend that there are several factors that enter into the decision to enlist, duty being one of them. Do you think enlistment would increase if people had less cause for economic concerns to outweigh a sense of military duty?
I do have a bit of a problem with the "huge number of fallacies" statement, however. I made 5 assertions:
(1) "A major problem with recruiting for the armed services is the economic disadvantages for the middle and upper classes, but the economic advantages for lower middle class and lower class members."
(2) "To the latter, there are opportunities for further education and good pay."
(3) "For the former, it means years out of the workforce--which can have high opportunity costs in regards to promotion salaries."
(4) "This drastically limits the number of people who consider enlisting."
(5) "The tax benefits could quickly offset the decreased salary."
If "major problem" in 1 is fallacious, then 4 is as well. However, 2, 3, and 5 stand independently. Did you find problems with 2, 3, and 5?
Gewehr98, thank you for cluing me in to the tax benefits already in place. I had no idea.
Post by: wmenorr67 on March 29, 2007, 04:57:12 PM
Post by: Lennyjoe on March 29, 2007, 04:57:52 PM
On the other hand, us military folks pay taxes just like everyone else (unless we are in a combat zone). Only difference is, our taxes go towards paying a small part of our own wages. How many of you folks are doing the same?
Post by: K Frame on March 29, 2007, 05:28:39 PM
The tax benefits Gewehr98 mentioned are in fact true.
On the other hand, us military folks pay taxes just like everyone else (unless we are in a combat zone). Only difference is, our taxes go towards paying a small part of our own wages. How many of you folks are doing the same?
On the other hand, us military folks pay taxes just like everyone else (unless we are in a combat zone). Only difference is, our taxes go towards paying a small part of our own wages. How many of you folks are doing the same?
Me.
I work for a government contractor providing software solutions to the Air Force.
Post by: Moondoggie on March 29, 2007, 06:28:21 PM
I don't think tax breaks would entice many to enlist. Most junior enlisteds don't make enough money for a tax break of any kind to amount to much. Enlistment bonuses do work, as do re-enlistment bonuses. The services manage those $ carefully to maintain the manning levels in various job specialties.
Gewher and Lennyjoe may be in for a pleasant surprise....for all of their yrs of service the DOD was paying an extra 1/3 above the normal contribution to SS. Bumps your SS benefits quite a bit...if we ever actually get to collect any. That got my attention during my seps briefings.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 29, 2007, 06:37:07 PM
Gewher and Lennyjoe may be in for a pleasant surprise....for all of their yrs of service the DOD was paying an extra 1/3 above the normal contribution to SS. Bumps your SS benefits quite a bit...if we ever actually get to collect any. That got my attention during my seps briefings.
Post by: Telperion on March 29, 2007, 07:01:22 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 29, 2007, 07:13:42 PM
Brilliant idea! Now you just have to sell it to the bigwigs in Washington.
Post by: BobR on March 29, 2007, 07:16:52 PM
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Moondoggie on Today at 03:28:21 PM
Gewher and Lennyjoe may be in for a pleasant surprise....for all of their yrs of service the DOD was paying an extra 1/3 above the normal contribution to SS. Bumps your SS benefits quite a bit...if we ever actually get to collect any. That got my attention during my seps briefings.
So is Sgt Bob, MSgt, USAF Retired! Most of my surprises lately have sucked.
Quote from: Moondoggie on Today at 03:28:21 PM
Gewher and Lennyjoe may be in for a pleasant surprise....for all of their yrs of service the DOD was paying an extra 1/3 above the normal contribution to SS. Bumps your SS benefits quite a bit...if we ever actually get to collect any. That got my attention during my seps briefings.
So is Sgt Bob, MSgt, USAF Retired! Most of my surprises lately have sucked.
Here is the page that tells about it. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/military.htm
Here is a small part of it.
Quote
Note: Change in special military service credits.
In January 2002, Public Law 107-117, the Defense Appropriations Act, stopped the special extra earnings that have been credited to military service personnel. Military service in calendar year 2002 and future years no longer qualifies for these special extra earnings.
In January 2002, Public Law 107-117, the Defense Appropriations Act, stopped the special extra earnings that have been credited to military service personnel. Military service in calendar year 2002 and future years no longer qualifies for these special extra earnings.
So, be sure to check with your SS office to ensure you get the proper credits.
bob
Post by: wmenorr67 on March 29, 2007, 07:24:01 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on March 30, 2007, 05:21:32 AM
But there is a basic fallacy that a) upper and middle class people dont serve in the military, and b) that if their service is underrepresented by thei general numbers in society that this is a problem. I think they are probably under-represented. I also dont think it makes much difference, except to class warriors trying to score political points one way or another.
Post by: mountainclmbr on March 30, 2007, 09:06:54 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 30, 2007, 11:08:13 AM
The military was told that they are supposed to start some sort of program to match TSP. However the DOD has balked crying that the money is not available. Not holding my breath.
Probably another unfunded mandate.