FRANKSMITHSAYSNB
EDITORIAL:
I am inclined to agree with the on dissenting vote, by
Alderman, Michael Trueworthy, with his indicating his having a hard time with
this when we are going from “$40,000,000 to $56,000.000 Million dollars being a good chunk of
change being borne by the local taxpayers”.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Just the interest on this debt must be several million per year that the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for, and that still doesn't pay back the initial principal.
They mentioned $3.2 million dollars per year for interest.
The uninformed voters view these bond issues as "free money" but the cost is significant just for the debt service.
Don't the voters have to approve any bond issue that they will be on the hook for paying for?
Here's a novel idea: How about cutting spending???
the "net savings" over the life of these deals, by making this change is actually that the city SAVES just over $42k. The bigger issue is it removes to glaring issues from the cities "credit report" that played a large part in the downgrades from last year.
This is not new bonding or new spending- it is converting an old bond from variable to fixed.
I agree with this in concept however Storace missed the point of why some may be concerned about this. It's NOT a straight swap or refinance. The city is cashing in the savings to put towards the budget. Which means the debt does not go down but actually means the we'll be paying it off longer. It's like refinancing a house that has 10 years left on a 7.5% mortgage. Instead of just refying for lower rate - the city is cashing in the savings for CASH NOW and then turning that 10 years of debt into 30 years of debt - albeit at a lower interest rate. It's a like taking grandmas ring to the pawnshop it's like refinancing to lower interest rate which usually always is a good thing.
Sounds like the new mayor is an expert at sleight of hand!
If the mayor is so concerned about cutting the budget, why not get rid of the free city car she rides her butt around in?
When my town had a Republican mayor, one of the first things the new mayor did was to eliminate the city owned car for the mayor. Instead of paying all that money for a free car, the mayor instead took a monthly stipend as compensation for the personal use of the mayor's personal vehicle. This saved the city a fortune. This was the practice until a Democrat was elected and ran out and bought a brand new $45,000 vehicle for the mayor to ride around in with all the free gas that one could ever want.
An issue has arisen regarding whether or not officers who take home cars which belong to the department will be taxed for the value of the use of the vehicle during the commute back and forth from work. The IRS has always considered the personal use of a vehicle owned by any employer, by an employee, as a "non cash taxable fringe benefit" and the value of that benefit must be included in the employee's wages making it subject to income and employment taxes.
However, an employee's use of a "qulaified non-personal use vehicle" is NOT subject to taxation and should not be included in his/her wages. A "qualified non-personal use vehicle" is defined by the IRS and, generally, is any vehicle the employee is not likely to use more than minimally for personal purposes because of its design. Those types of vehicles include, but are not limited to, (1) clearly marked police and fire vehicles; and (2) unmarked vehicles used by law enforcement officers. [Note: those officers MUST be authorized to carry a firearm, execute search warrants and make arrests. As such, if an officer's peace officer authority has been temporarily suspended (eg. pending a medical evaluation), he/she will not qualify for the exemption].
Therefore, if an employer provides an employee with an employer-owned vehicle that does not qualify as a non-personal use vehicle, and the employee uses the vehicle for personal use, which includes commuting, the personal use of the vehicle is a non-cash taxable fringe benefit. It is the employer's legal obligation to determine the actual value of the fringe benefit and to include the taxable portion in the employee's income. It is irrelevant that the taking home of the vehicle may also benefit the employer.
A town provides cars that its officials and other employees use during the workday for business purposes. These employees also use the cars for commuting to and from work. Is the use of these vehicles for commuting taxable income to the employees?
The value of noncash fringe benefits is taxable income to the recipient. Thus the commuting value of a vehicle owned or leased by a public entity usually represents taxable income to the employee.
One exception is for the qualified nonpersonal use vehicle, described above. Thus, for example, when a law enforcement officer drives a clearly marked police car to his or her residence when off duty and otherwise satisfies the requirements described above, the commuting value of that vehicle is not income to the employee.
An IRS finding handed down January 31st will surely be the talk of the next meeting of the Township Officials of Illinois.
Township Road Commissioner Jack Freund’s Ford F250 pickup truck was the subject of the final finding.
Purchased on December 8, 2010, “for the Road Commissioner’s use. The vehical was inspected by the Specialist and the vehicle is not deemed to fall into the category of a Qualified Nonpersonal Use Vehicle.
“There was no adequate substantiation of business uses v personal use of the vehicle.
“Therefore, the automobile lease value for this vehicle is $7,250 (see tables in Publication 158). As it was used for 23 days in 2010, the calculation is as follows:
Annual Lease Value = $7250
Days of Use in 2010 + 23.365
%7,250 X (23/365) = 456.85
Elected Officials: Elected officials are employees for income tax purposes under the section 3401(c) provision that applies to public officials. They are subject to a degree of control that typically makes them employees under the common law, and are subject to social security and Medicare taxes.
You people are a joke with this car talk. You'll never gain traction with it. But thanks for the laugh losers !
Anonymous said...
You people are a joke with this car talk. You'll never gain traction with it. But thanks for the laugh losers !
ONE PHONE CALL TO THE I.R.S. SAYS YOU ARE WRONG ON THAT ONE. EVER HEAR OF AN AUDIT, AND THE PERSON WHO REPORTS IT GETS A REWARD OF 10% OF THE BACK TAXES AND ANY PENALTIES LEVIED AS A REWARD FOR THEIR REPORT?
Simply fill out form 3949-A and sit back and wait and laugh!
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf
and don't forget to tell the Obama IRS that the person you are reporting is a Republican!
REWARD OF 10%--the standard reward for turning in tax fraud is 15%
You do realize it's based on mileage. And the only mayor without a personal car in the last 14 years was ..... Tim O'Brien. So let's let the fun start shall we
This is funny. Let's forget about the millions that was Stolen by the last Mayor
This Administration thinks that it's been it sleek at introducing items to the Agenda at the last minute intentionally creating an atmosphere either you vote for this or the world ends kind of attitude, for The sole purpose to scare the elected Zombies that we have supposedly representing us. With the exception of the only one that had the backbone and the courage to oppose the deal and took a stand against it vs. the other scared one's! If these Representatives continue to vote to please their Master and the Queen running City Hall we are in for some serious trouble. Shameful that a Debate was not allowed and that the Voters didn't have a say so! How is it that this Mayor has so much Authority and when was this charter changed?
I believe with regard to the so-called powerful queen you need to blame Lucien because he was the one that got the charter re-written to create an all powerful mayor as he was on a power trip. Now the all powerful one hasn't paid his taxes for several years. The taxes on his house for 2010, 2011, and 2012 are the subject of tax liens and sent to a collection agency. Do you think that just a regular person would be allowed to go so many years without paying his/her taxes without the city foreclosing the property?
Dave, Phil, Chris et al, GROW UP. You think, assume, assert that the Mayor is pushing a vote ? Oh effen please, THE DEM'S still out number the R's. Spin all you want. You "kids" are a joke. And Dave too bad you will never beat "her" in an election. And what is ( Ricks) daddy going to do ( to screw us all) now that he is giving up DAS ? Maybe he can run again and have is ass handed to him like Lucian did. lol Go blow a whistle (wink) and kick sand
Recent audits at state, local and national government departments have revealed weak controls over personal use of government–owned vehicles by employees, government failure to report personal use as a taxable benefit, underutilization of government owned vehicles and inadequate control of employees’ access to government-owned fuel.
Lucian had his butt handed to him because he raised taxes. Didn't her majesty the queen raise taxes even higher than Lucian did?
one problem with this statement:
"This Administration thinks that it's been it sleek at introducing items to the Agenda at the last minute"
Council Leadership knew about this WEEKS ago and even had a special leadership meeting to discuss with the mayors office and financial advisors. Then the next week the financial advisors met with leadership AND both caucus's to discuss.
Post a Comment