|
|
Post by stoney on Apr 11, 2011 18:21:01 GMT -5
$23,000 in mileage reimbursements to county legislators travelling from home to the County Office BldgYet, 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! I agree there shouldn't be reimbursement for traveling to & from ones' workplace. But having to travel for one's job requirements should be reimbursed. Every position I ever had at an agency would reimburse me for mileage when I went to see a client. Many years ago (early 80s), I could still deduct that as a business expense on the long form over & above what I was being reimbursed due to wear & tear on my vehicle. Just because it appears the amount of mileage given is more than it would cost for gas for the same distance doesn't mean there is any "profit" being made. When you take into account insurance, maintenance, depreciation, etc., the owner normally loses out when using their own vehicle for work. |
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Apr 11, 2011 18:30:00 GMT -5
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. But Larry, when you worked for those few months for the City of Utica, you did use the city's charge card to pay for your gas, correct? So how was that any different from these legislators receiving reimbursement?? |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Apr 11, 2011 18:30:10 GMT -5
$23,000 in mileage reimbursements to county legislators travelling from home to the County Office BldgYet, 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! I agree there shouldn't be reimbursement for traveling to & from ones' workplace. But having to travel for one's job requirements should be reimbursed. Every position I ever had at an agency would reimburse me for mileage when I went to see a client. Many years ago (early 80s), I could still deduct that as a business expense on the long form over & above what I was being reimbursed due to wear & tear on my vehicle. Just because it appears the amount of mileage given is more than it would cost for gas for the same distance doesn't mean there is any "profit" being made. When you take into account insurance, maintenance, depreciation, etc., the owner normally loses out when using their own vehicle for work. That would be business use of your vehicle. You could depreciate it as a business asset or expense it off as it is actually used in business related activities. The IRS has been very tough on vehicles in terms of write-offs because it is very easy to scam with one. that is why in most cases you are not allowed to claim 100% business use of a vehicle. It has been some time since I took income tax accounting. If you are really bored, here: www.irs.gov/publications/p463/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Apr 11, 2011 18:33:28 GMT -5
That's why I said it's been years since I was able to do it.
I just wanted to make it clear that the mileage amount paid is not just for gas, but for all the other that I mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Apr 11, 2011 19:13:03 GMT -5
That's why I said it's been years since I was able to do it. I just wanted to make it clear that the mileage amount paid is not just for gas, but for all the other that I mentioned. Well it can still be done, but IRS rules generally allow you to pick one method or the other but you have to stick with it. Say you decide to count your personal car as part business use and depreciate it accordingly. You can't change methods as you want to. That doesn't mean at some point with a different vehicle you have to stay with that method, its just that when you are expensing a particular asset using one method you have to stay with that method for the useful life of that asset. I think, for people that itemize, unreimbursed business related expenses go on Schedule A. Business expenses Schedule C if I'm not mistaken. I never got too far into income tax returns besides pretty basic ones for some friends and family. Hell the toughest items were early withdrawl of a 401K and education credits that I've personally run into. |
|
larry
French Fry
Posts: 169
|
Post by larry on Apr 11, 2011 19:16:50 GMT -5
Stoney, that's because I was using my own car to drive around the city all day showing houses to people. I didn't get paid just to drive to work and home. It was about $15 per week and if I wasn't out in the field all day driving around, I wouldn't have been paid. Also, I wasn't an elected official. Although I wouldn't have a problem paying for gas if a legislator traveled to Albany, etc. for a government function. But getting paid simply to go to work (Board Meetings and Committee Meetings) is wrong.
How did I know my comment, no matter what it was, would illicit a response from you? Kind of like me having less than ten posts and -11 "karma". Come on Stoney, you're obsessed. Like your failure to recognize that Hennessy and I fought for reducing the legislature while giving credit to one of the worst legislators in history (Hertline). Harry did nothing other than what Bob Julian told him to do. In 1993 he just happened to be Minority Leader when Bob reduced the leg from 37 to 29. But it hasn't been reduced since (nearly 20 years). And I was on the Charter Committee with him in 2008. He stated on the record that he was against reducing the legislature. It was only after we created enough public stir that Fiorini gave him the ok to say they were going to recommend reducing by six. That made it look like it was their idea and it still hasn't been done. It should be on the ballot in November for the people to decide. But they're talking about 2014 now. You can defend the status quo because you don't like me all you want, but the facts are the facts.
And if you think all the people running for office in Utica are "losers", then why don't you put your name on the ballot? That's right, you don't even live in Oneida COunty. Happy now? You got me to respond to you. Good job.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 11, 2011 19:56:43 GMT -5
Larry, will reduction of the number of legislators save all that much money or is it for other reasons? I'd worry about less representation.
|
|
larry
French Fry
Posts: 169
|
Post by larry on Apr 11, 2011 20:23:08 GMT -5
Dave, even if they reduced by just 6 members, that would save roughly $150,000 per year. That's not counting the pension costs that are bankrupting the state. I understand the representation point. At first, I was skeptical as a representative of a district with a large minority population. I was worried that less legislators would dilute the minority representation. However, after studying it more, I became less worried. Honestly, Utica could do with less legislators seeing as though we currently have more legislators than district councilman. They could cut 2 from Utica and have one legislator per council district. That would still allow the 5th ward (Cornhill) full representation on the legislature. I can't speak for rural legislators, but I can tell you that Utica legislators can get by doing absolutely NOTHING. I, of course took the initiative to try implementing larger reforms and tried tackling bigger issues. In hindsight, all it did was make me enemies. Other than that, most day-to-day issues facing city residents are city issues that they call their councilman for. So, with that said, there is definitely a savings that can be seen with respect to Utica and Rome legislators.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Apr 11, 2011 21:45:46 GMT -5
$23,000 in mileage reimbursements to county legislators travelling from home to the County Office BldgYet, 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! I agree there shouldn't be reimbursement for traveling to & from ones' workplace. But having to travel for one's job requirements should be reimbursed. Unless I misread the article, the od was reporting on mileage claimed for travel to work from home and from work to home. Under those circumstances, it is WRONG to be paid for mileage. Otherwise, I would have no beef with them claiming milegage. I wouldn't like it, but it's what the rules allow for. |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Apr 11, 2011 21:59:58 GMT -5
And if you think all the people running for office in Utica are "losers", then why don't you put your name on the ballot? That's right, you don't even live in Oneida COunty. Happy now? You got me to respond to you. Good job. I never saw where Stoney claimed all people running for office in Utica were "losers." Perhaps you could post that source for me? I think you're taking this a little too personal. From my take on the exchange of posts, Stoney was merely pointing out a possible discrepancy between your philosophy as a county legislator and as a Utica City employee. I would hope that a candidate with a shot at becoming a councilman would be more respectful toward those harboring differing view points, or asking tough questions. And laboring on a point that is so old as to her point about who first suggested the reduction of county legislators is a little sub-class for a political candidate. The appropriate place to point out that response was in that thread relating to reducing county legislators, by any number. Instead, you ignored her post, and let your personal anger fester until this post. You cannot be a successful politician by ignoring the tough questions and blowing up at the minor ones. Honestly, even I have learned how to better handle those situations. Perhaps you should employ the 24-hr rule. Wait 24 hours before posting something. You will be calmer and better able to filter out the personal slants. As you have pointed out before, your conduct as a county legislator, and shortly after won you many political adversaries. It is childish to get hung up over something as silly as "karma" on an Internet Forum, which is just a number, by the way. There are more important numbers a political candidate need worry about, e.g. poll results, petition signatures, percentages to cut spending, etc. A petty number as karma on an Internet forum is not one of them, especially where - as here - karma is an arbitrary number that Ralph or Clipper could easily set to 1,000,000 if you so asked. Much of the opposition that faces you is that you run for cover with tough questions. So while you think you're putting Stoney in her place by pointing out she finally got you to respond, it actually garnered you political points to your advantage. However, what little gains you made you eradicated and worse by your chosen manner in response. With that type of attitude, I would find it difficult to support you for any political position, where I living in your district. Please, before knee-jerking to my post, think it over. You used to be more rational, and your posts were well-thought. I could tell you put great effort into conveying a point that succinctly summarized your position, while trying to persuade others to your way of thinking (as I'm sure many others did too). Bring that guy back and your political feats are potentially limitless. |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Apr 11, 2011 22:03:22 GMT -5
Dave, even if they reduced by just 6 members, that would save roughly $150,000 per year. That's not counting the pension costs that are bankrupting the state. I understand the representation point. At first, I was skeptical as a representative of a district with a large minority population. I was worried that less legislators would dilute the minority representation. However, after studying it more, I became less worried. Honestly, Utica could do with less legislators seeing as though we currently have more legislators than district councilman. They could cut 2 from Utica and have one legislator per council district. That would still allow the 5th ward (Cornhill) full representation on the legislature. I can't speak for rural legislators, but I can tell you that Utica legislators can get by doing absolutely NOTHING. I, of course took the initiative to try implementing larger reforms and tried tackling bigger issues. In hindsight, all it did was make me enemies. Other than that, most day-to-day issues facing city residents are city issues that they call their councilman for. So, with that said, there is definitely a savings that can be seen with respect to Utica and Rome legislators. Now, what about lesser members then representing adverse interests? For example, say the number of county legislators is cut by half. It stands to reason that at least one legislator is representing some constituents in rural areas and some in metropolitan areas. So, when the issue of consolidating police forces comes up, and it passes, the rural constituents would be in favor of the merger because then they would not be paying for two police forces. While the metropolitan constituents prefer to dual police force because there are more road patrols in the metropolitan areas, as opposed to a more dispersed patrol pattern. Isn't that a concern? |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 12, 2011 6:43:53 GMT -5
Thanks, Larry. I'm still unconvinced and Swimmy's example, above, is one reason. Also, $150K doesn't sound like that much, frankly.
Hope all is going well for you. Keep at it!
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Apr 12, 2011 7:18:03 GMT -5
"Stoney, that's because I was using my own car to drive around the city all day showing houses to people. I didn't get paid just to drive to work and home. "Larry, calm your jets & re-read what I wrote. I stated mileage reimbursement should be given for work-related mileage, not going to-&-from work. "Likewise, when I was on the board, I never filled out a single voucher for reimbursement."
Which is why I pointed out you did not have that same philosophy when working for the city; therefore, these legislators who claim mileage are fully entitled to it, also. "How did I know my comment, no matter what it was, would illicit a response from you? Kind of like me having less than ten posts and -11 "karma". "
Sorry, dear. Your karma has nothing to do with me at all. That's someone elses' doing...  "Come on Stoney, you're obsessed."I've said it many times before & I'll say it again: I have a low tolerance for bullshit. If you were on this board more often & involved with us, you would see I am that way with everybody. Larry, I'm sorry you harbor these paranoid feelings. I'll try not to hurt the latter so much in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Apr 12, 2011 7:23:28 GMT -5
F.A., I remember when I had to calculate those expenses on the long-form & how damned complicated it was!! Percentages, 3 & 8 year schedules, blah, blah. That was unbelievable.  |
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Apr 12, 2011 7:29:09 GMT -5
And thank you, Swimmy. I agree the questions a person running for office (or already in office) will get hard for them sometimes. The way in which they handle such questions are indicative of how they will handle problems once elected.
|
|
