When I am not lurking on this time suck of a board I have a quasi-real job as a Legislative Aide for a Nebraska State Senator.  Currently, we are drafting legislation to exempt the retirement benefits of all Armed Forces members from state income taxation.  Personally, I feel that this is the least the state can do to repay the enormous debt that we owe our vets.  However, I would like to get the views of the ARFCOM bretheren on some issues that have occurred in the drafting of this bill.  Here is the chance for all of you to actually have input on a bill that will have a direct impact on thousands of Nebraska's veterans.

Questions?

1.  Do you believe that it is proper for the state to exempt veterans' retirement benefits from taxation?  Or should a veteran be taxed the same as everyother citizen in the state?

2.  At what age should the tax exemption begin? Many state that have enacted such legislation have made it effective between age 60 to 65.  Or should the tax exemption occur when the veteran begins to receive retirement benefits?

3.  What other incentives could be offered to repay veterans for their service?  Unfortunately, property tax breaks are probably out because it would have have a horrible impact on an already tough budget situation, but state motorvehicle taxes may be a possibility.

Thanks for any input you may have.

Kyle

The Same as everyone else, with the exception being "line of duty" disabled vets.




Only disabled vets.




"Veterans", should NOT get special treatment from the State.

It defeats the whole idea of "Citizen Soldier", and creates YET ANOTHER speshul class.....


In Oregon, a 100% disabled vet, gets 1 free for life set of license plates, and a reduction in property tax....

Veterans should pay taxes.

Active duty servicemembers should not.
Disabled Vets already do not pay taxes on their disability income.

As a Cold War Vet I agree 100%. I don't think my Grandfather or my Father received any special "gimmies" and I know I never did.

I think those folks in the military deserve some sort of recognition for putting the interests of the nation they serve ahead of thier own.
Do not forget, they are often underpaid, compared to thier civilian counterparts.
They do not get paid overtime.
They have to maintain all military standards (no beer guts and gotees)
They are told to go to far off places at the last minute, leaving their family behind for long periods of time.
They do this proudly and voluntarily.

At least relive the active duty NE residents from paying all income and vehicle taxes.

Tax breaks for retired military would give them a much needed incentive to retire here.
Retired military people are a great asset to any community.

It is a good idea for a couple of reasons.
It encourages veterans to retire in states that they otherwise would try to avoid.  A lot of vets avoid states with income taxes to save their limited money.  States with no income tax overcome this by increasing property taxes.  But with a property tax, a retiree can buy a smaller house and save his money.  A state with an income tax gets you regardless how you live.  Plus, retiree money is a fantastic revenue source for a state.  No kids whose schooling you have to pay for, plus they don't drain the state medicare funds as much because of tri-care, but the state gets reimbursed for the guy anyway.  Attracting retirees is a good thing for the state.  This would attract a lot of military retirees.

Oh, and it is a nice gesture.  The old guy didn't earn the money in the state anyway.  

Active duty personal = no income tax, no real estate tax if Base housing is not available, if they refuse Base housing, they pay the tax.

Non disabled Vet’s = no special tax break

Disabled Vet’s = Tax break based on level of Disability.

Treat all of them just the same as the rest of the citizenry. While I applaud their service, it is a voluntary lifestyle they choose. Active duty, retired, disabled are no better nor deserve no more benefits than some guy that works in the private sector or gets hurt at work.

I wholly disagree with using the tax code to encourage/discourage reward/punish behaviors, lifestyles, career choices, etc. The fact that legislators even consider this kind of proposition is prima facia (sp?) evidence that the populace in general is over-taxed.

[/blue]

I think there is a difference.

One serves at the bidding of his country. He cannot quit, can have his commitment extended and places his very life if the hands of others.

The other works at his choosing and can decide to quit when he feels.


There are a complete host of other differences that are too numerous to mention.  We owe our servicemembers that are serving [b]us[/b].  To stay "you volunteered to do it" does not pay tribute to their commitment and sacrifice.

I don't doubt what you say is true concerning responsibilities of service members. They can, however quit. They may not like the consequences of that descision, but they can quit. It all go's back to a voluntary lifestyle. The service men & women know what they are potentially getting into and what the payoff is. They serve at their own will and for the most part get paid a pretty good wage. You might show that a private gets poverty wages, but if he hasn't overextended himself with a family or car or whatever, he gets it fairly good when you add in housing, food, medical etc. Military people are citizens as well and should pay taxes just as the rest of us.

Ditto. And disabled vets tax rate based on their disability rating.