More taxpayer waste

[Swimmy]

$23,000 in mileage reimbursements to county legislators travelling from home to the County Office Bldg

Yet, in the private sector where we don't slop out of the public trough, there is no such thing as reimbursement for such expenses! At least, it's not available to me through my employer, nor through my girlfriend's, nor through any of my other friends' employers. Hmmm, maybe I should start requesting county reimbursements for mileage...

It is pathetic that they have lost the concept of public SERVICE! As the Rockland County Legislative Chairman put it, "it's part of the job." Just as they knew their salaries were part of the job, this travel should also have been part of the job!

[Clipper]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but if a vehicle gets 20 mpg and the gas is about $3.75 a gallon, does that not make the actual fuel cost about 18 cents a mile. Seems to me that 32 cents a mile is an awful lot for "wear and tear" and the entire concept of paying these people mileage to drive to the meetings is ridiculous. In my own biased opinion, I would say if ya can't afford the gas to tend to business, don't run for the damned office to begin with. Whatever happened to running for office in order to SERVE, instead of to SCREW the taxpayer.

[firstamendment]

Commuting to and from work is not a reimbursable expense, at least not in the eyes of Federal tax code. Travelling FOR work business is and so is travelling between jobs.

$23K may only seem like a drop in the proverbial bucket, but it goes to show a much greater problem and helps to illustrate how much waste there is in the government ranks.

[Clipper]

I don't know how the reimbursement it determined or who authorized it to begin with, but it seems to smell a lot like the law that allows the congress to get a raise by NOT voting against one. Nobody should be able to vote to give themselves ANY of a taxpayers money to be put into their own pockets without some sort of referendum and vote by the taxpayer.

Gee, it seems awfully nice of them to have lowered it from 55 cents to 50 cents. How very generous of them. Now it is only a little less than 3 times the actual cost of operating their vehicles. But then, you are probably paying for the wear and tear on the ass of their pants while the drive to and fro also. Gotta stay on top of those business expenses. Pants aren't cheap either.

[firstamendment]

Actually it wasn't them it was the IRS who lowered the reimbursement rate. For 2011 it is now 51 cents per mile for business use. Most employers will follow along with that very same rate. 2009 it was 55 cents, 2010 50 cents and this year 51 cents. In the middle of 2008, it was raised from 50.5 cents to 58.5 cents because of the spike in gas prices.

I wholeheartedly agree that they should not be voting themselves raises. They are an employee. They are employed by the taxpayer, and likewise, they should be accountable to that employer. If they want a raise, its high time they EARN a raise in the eyes of the public. I go to work and don't expect a paycheck simply because I showed up. I expect a paycheck because I get work done, because I am reliable and dependable. I expect a paycheck because I am an asset, as is any other hard working employee.

As elected representatives, we can't fire them as quickly as we'd like to, but we the public should have the ultimate control over holding them accountable. It is about time the people took back the government.

[ladyoracle]

First Amendment is correct: under IRS guidelines, it is 51 cents per mile for business use and is not deductible for tax purposes for ordinary commutes to work. Many private employers follow this same rule for reimbursement purposes. The reimbursements to the legislators is an abuse of the system.

[firstamendment]

Getting to and from work is a condition of having a job. It is not your employer's obligation to make sure YOU have a ride to work nor to pay for it. Commuting is personal use of your vehicle, not business use, and therefore is not considered a reimbursable expenditure.

This isn't a matter of us being jealous of them, it is a matter of fairness and right from wrong. This is so wrong.

[Swimmy]

Apr 11, 2011 12:58:35 GMT -5 firstamendment said:

This isn't a matter of us being jealous of them, it is a matter of fairness and right from wrong. This is so wrong.

Speak for yourself!! I'm extremely jealous that they can cheat the system without consequence. And here I am struggling to pay my own bills and repay my student loans (which are no longer dischargeable through bankruptcy).

[firstamendment]

Your comment is probably satire swimmy, but I will never find myself jealous of those who can cheat the system. I have too much dignity and self-respect for that to be honest. And because I have those qualities, I would never make it in the political arena nor would I want to if it means selling my soul.

[Deleted]

But Swimmy as a Lawyer can't you charge your clients for gas milage while working on their case. Seems to me that on Monday you will be working on Case A, B and C and on Tuesday you work on Case A, B, C then the gas that you use to get to your office for work on those cases should be shared amoung those clients. The same for anyother clients you have during the week. I would think and research you have to do away from the office then they should be paying for your gas milage.

[Swimmy]

Apr 11, 2011 15:11:05 GMT -5 @alanquigly said:

But Swimmy as a Lawyer can't you charge your clients for gas milage while working on their case. Seems to me that on Monday you will be working on Case A, B and C and on Tuesday you work on Case A, B, C then the gas that you use to get to your office for work on those cases should be shared amoung those clients. The same for anyother clients you have during the week. I would think and research you have to do away from the office then they should be paying for your gas milage.

Good question. There was an ethics opinion I read a few years ago about this. The short answer is no. If I'm going to work from home, I cannot charge that to the clients. However, a case where I have left from the office (already at work) to court, I can. Here's where it gets interesting (this is from an ABA ethics committee article):

Attorney A is flying cross country for depositions relative to client z, which takes a total of 10 hours from the time he leaves the office to arriving at his destination. During the flight, A spends three hours on paperwork for client x, two hours for client y, and during a 5-hr layover, 4.5 hours for client a.

The question posed was how does A bill for his time. Three hours to client x, two to client y, 4.5 to client a, and .5 to client z. The idea is that it is unethical to double charge for the same time. So when I go to court for two cases that are back-to-back, I cannot bill the time it takes for me to get to court twice. So my time sheet would look like this:

Client x	.2 travel to court, .5 court appearance, .3 discuss case with client
Client y	.2 discussion with opposing counsel, .3 court app., .2 travel from court

And if I was talking with one of the clients I was going to court for, another client, or attorney, on a different case, I cannot even charge for that travel. At least that is what the ethics commissions state, and the policy my boss imposes for us. So I'm not about to change that just to get mileage that county officials are not legally entitled to.

[Swimmy]

And yes, I was being sarcastic about being jealous. It just annoys me that they can break the law without consequence, and expect the rest of us to not follow their lead only because they're in a position of authority to enforce it on us.

[longtimer]

Swimmy, if you owned the business or were working as a 1099 employee you could deduct the mileage when going from the office to court or from one court to another so attorneys, and every other business, can deduct mileage. I have no idea how they would go about charging a client but if they did then it would not be a deductible expense. You can't deduct home to office but once in the office all trips done for the business are a legal deductible expense.

Many companies reimburse people for mileage once they are at work and have to travel for any reason. They may have a have a minimum mileage policy, say 5 miles or more, and anything over that is reimbursed at the IRS rate when using your own vehicle.

[larry]

This is crazy. Although some may not like him, once again, Hennessy is the only one that is not only pushing to change this, he is also leading by example and has never accepted a penny of this money. Likewise, when I was on the board, I never filled out a single voucher for reimbursement. However, I did get a check every few months for about $20. I guess they automatically pay you for the regular meetings you attend and I wasn't aware, until Hennessy just told me, that you could refuse that.

Many of the other legislators file vouchers for every penny they can. If they go to a committee meeting, they get paid for it. If they hold a town hall meeting, they get paid for it. If they go to a village board meeting, city council meeting, town board meeting, etc., they get paid for it. Totally useless. Then you have them getting full health care and even though they're "part-time", every year they serve counts as a full year toward the state pension system. It's a scam.

I proposed making legislators get paid per diem, like members of a authority board or MHA. You pay them a set rate, per diem, with no benefits and no membership in the state pension system. You would have thought I just killed someone by the way they responded to that proposal.

[firstamendment]

It should be paid per diem.

Well, Larry, your proposal would have killed their lifestyle and that is why it is going to take more than just Hennessy to get this moving.

That ethics opinion makes absolutely perfect sense, billing each client for the exact time spent on their benefit. What a concept. Also, exactly what you state about not being able to bill clients for your commute to the office jives with the tax code regarding commuting in general, it is NOT business related.

The problem with legislators and positions such as those is determining exactly when they are technically "working". Perhaps they can sit there and say they were on conference calls related to government business on their morning commutes in order to justify that they were indeed working all the time. I just find it all too disturbing that our "leaders" can't even lead us by example. They expect all of us to tighten our belts and contribute more of our hard earned money when they do not do the same.