Tax Credits for Government Lawyers
House Bill 1323 - Rep. Mary Flowers (D-31, Chicago)
Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Illinois Income Tax Act. Creates a tax credit for individuals who are assistant state's attorneys, assistant attorneys general, assistant public defenders, assistant public guardians, or civil legal services attorneys. Provides that the amount of the credit is an amount equal to the interest paid on the taxpayer's student loan during that year. Provides that the credit may not reduce the taxpayer's liability to less than zero. Effective immediately.
I came across this bill when Rep. Flower's hand washing bill made me curious about what other bills she may have introduced. This particular bill strikes me as playing favorites for certain government employees and granting them special treatment that the rest of us meer taxpayers don't enjoy. I sure could've used a tax credit for my student loans after I graduated. How about you? I'm generally not opposed to tax credits, but this one seems to benefit a much too narrow audience.
10 comments:
This is essentially a way to boost the pay of state's attorney. It's a transfer of funds from the state to the counties to help them attract prosecutors. It's not that much different than the military using college scholarships to recruit.
The reality is that students who graduate from professional schools -- primarily law, medical, and dental schools -- are burdened with fairly large student loans. This means that lower-paying jobs with a high social value (e.g., teachers or prosecutors in small counties) are financially attractive only to graduates without student loans or with large trust funds -- usually the same people. So, if we want to attract the best graduates to jobs with a high social value, we must provide some relief from burdensome student loans.
The better solution would be simply to raise salaries for jobs with high social value. The problems with this approach are primarily political: no one wants to be on record supporting higher pay for government employees. The other problem is the cost of raising salaries of, e.g., prosecutors to the level paid by big law firms.
The background is that these folks could make so much more money in the private sector that something needs to be done to level the playing field at least somewhat. Not sure if this is the best way to do it but it is worth considering.
We really have a shortage of prosecutors? I have never heard that. There is only one place to get prosecutorial experience, and I would suspect that is very valuable, hence the lack of a shortage of prosecutors. A comparison with private practice falls short since this kind of experience can't be gained there. No problem to be solved, which makes this a handout.
I come from the train of thought that government's first priority is to help those that truly need help. Lawyers do not need welfare or good paying jobs. If they need higher pay, then they need to go to the voters and taxpayers who they work for. Last I checked poverty was increasing in Illinois. This shows preferential treatment to a few government employees at the expense of people struggling to get by.
The money from those tax credits could be much better used and of much higher social value giving tax credits to the poor in Chicago paying 18% electricity tax rates, for example. Lessening their tax burden will improve their economic condition and will reduce crime leading to fewer prosecutors being needed and the opportunity for pay increases.
You seem to believe the misconception that lawyers make a lot of money. Lawyers that work for large firms do make a nice salary, however government lawyers typically make less than the janitor in the building. Lawyers that work for the government DO NEED help. Most lawyers graduate with $100,000 in loans, and government jobs pay around $40,000 a year. Now, I do think that $40,000 a year is a living wage, however when you have to pay $100,000 back in 10 years, plus interest, it's impossible!
The state and federal government should have the best lawyers possible, but they cant afford to pay them, and the lawyers cant afford to take the jobs and pay their loans.
Jeff,
Think about this for a while. Why should state employees pay state income taxes? Pay them net of their taxes. You would save on overhead required to compute their deductions, process their returns, receive back their taxes if any due, etc.
We should also offer full-rides in public law schools to anyone who agrees to take a public sector job for a decade, sort of like the program for doctors in rural areas the federal government runs.
Jeff,
Mary Flowers is a great advocate for good causes - look at what she did for Illinois Nurses just last year.
As far as the hand-washing goes - hell, yes! Having been a teacher since 1975, I can not tellyou how many air borne pathogens have coursed their way through this middle- aged petri-dish and most of it due to bacteria passed on when kids cough into their hands and pass their homework in.
Now as to the prosecutors - great idea.
Mary Flowers also helped fund an after school Boxing/Academic mentoring program that Leo High School has initiated with Mary's help. If there is a good - mission statement matchs actual operation - Mary Flowers is there!
Now, if Illinois really wants to see a great African American in the U.S. Senate again - take a long look at Illinois Representative Mary Flowers!
1st anon, the debt load they have was their choice and is their responsibility, not the taxpayers. $100,000 for law school sounds like Northwestern instead of Northern. There is also a misconception that the best and brightest will always go where the biggest money is. If that is true, then we simply can't afford the best and brightest lawyers because the private sector can not provide an endless stream of money to the government. The best and brightest and dedicated will make sacrifices to do what they feel is valuable to them which goes beyond the salary. We see it everyday in the non-profit sector where they also do not make an equivalent to their conterparts but don't expect taxpayers to make up the difference either. I don't see a shortage of government lawyers, so if the problem is jealousy over what others make, that's not our problem.
However, something that would help a lot more is to up the standard deduction to $20,000 including FICA.
2nd anon, they should have to pay taxes for the same reasons everyone else has to. As much as I hate WalMart, but our economy would see more improvement if their employees didn't pay taxes. When you exempt government from the rules the rest of us follow they lose touch, as they have already. I'm all for ending the payroll tax on the families where 20% of our children live in poverty. Punishing people's work is counterproductive.
Dan, I'm still having a hard time believing we have a shortage of prosecutors and necessary government lawyers, unlike rural doctors. So I don't see the need to throw our money at a problem that isn't there. We should have much more important priorities.
Pat, hand washing is a good idea. So good that union teachers should have no problem agreeing to that being in their job descriptions and being held accountable if they do not perform. Right Pat? It seems to me Rep. Flowers would make education worse if she had more power. She would mandate all kids be able to read and punish them if they don't, but not require anything of teachers. That's brilliant.
She is brilliant, Jeff! Nice girl too!
I would applaud her for her effort. I am a first generation lawyer with a ton of student loan debt. I thought it would be easy to repay them and have found that most legal jobs pay medium range salaries. I have had to use deferments during times of low income jobs, such as assistant county attorney position and small firm jobs. I believe our country should help out the ones who worked hard, and have taken the jobs to help our society when others will not do them due to the low pay. I hope all legislators will some day understand how to help the middle class.
Carry on the good work.
Post a Comment