Nursing as Tax Exempt Profession

Nurses General Nursing

Published

Because of the huge nursing shortage, should nursing be made a federally tax free profession, as a way of encouraging more people to join it's thinning ranks?

Yes or no?

Thanks for all responses.

Ralph

Specializes in Nursing Professional Development.
That's not true:

Are you saying we didn't have roads, firemen, police etc. untill the ratification of the 16th Amendment?

If I stick a gun to your face and take half the money in your wallet, use that money to feed myself or take my kid to the doctor, is it right? Or how about I donate it to charity? I'm using the money for a good purpose.

.

In fact, there were very few "public works" projects before income tax. That's why the fire departments were "volunteer fire departments" and were under-resourced .... and few policemen ... and few roads, bad roads, etc. That's why it took "robber barons" to build the railroads and canals. Only rich people could go to the few private colleges that existed and most people did not graduate from the 8th grade, much less high school.

Human kind has used taxation in one form or another for millenia. It's just the details that have changed. As society has grown more complex, it's social institituions and social processes have grown similarly more complex. That's to be expected -- though I strongly favor efforts to simplify the tax code.

As for comparing it to putting a gun in my face and demanding my money, that's ridiculous. The taxation we have today comes from government officials we voted into office. We may disagree with them and with our fellow citizens who voted for them ... but they were voted into office and serve with the consent of the governed. They have a legal right to impose taxes to conduct their business and to serve the needs of the people. You can disagree with their priorities and their decisions -- but if you don't accept their legitimate right to govern, then you have a whole different set of issues I'm not going to waste my time with.

llg

Specializes in Nursing Professional Development.
So when you call the police they can not come to your house, and you can not drive your car on the road, you better home school you kids, and if your house catches fire grab your garden hose.....if you do not contribute to the system then do not expect it to help you.

Actually, the garden hose wouldn't work either because the water works wouldn't be working either.

I definitely agree with you HeartsOpenWide. There is probably no one who likes where every penny of his/her taxes goes. But we all depend on the programs and projects those tax dollars support. Our society would fall apart if we suddenly stopped paying for those services.

llg

Specializes in Nursing Professional Development.

I hadn't noticed that this was only the OP's 2nd post. I deeply regret having fed the troll.

llg

i don't think we should be exempt paying taxes but we sure should get a break

Specializes in ER/Trauma.

heartsopenwide:

sorry but that's not the complete equation; it ignores that a great many of the "services" provided by government do not need to be provided at all and therefore the corresponding expenses would disappear entirely.

think of government as a conglomerate of service businesses. the providers

of those services do not have to be government employees, and the services

do not have to be paid for with tax dollars. whether it is education, security,

transportation, charity, energy, or whatever, the private sector is already

doing it for less. to cut taxes, we must allow private service providers to

replace inefficient bureaucracy.

if the private source in't offering it for less, given time, the market will.

market competition will give us better service at lower cost, and put

the consumers in control.

lastly - elimination of taxes will not eliminate services. for example the government doesn't build roads or provide water - it contracts corporations to do so. if it doesn't, it can have corporations do it cheaper - so why pay for the government intermediary?

there is a difference between voluntarily paying for something as compared to forcibily supporting something.

and no, i have zero problems with privatising police and fire companies (for example).

Specializes in ER/Trauma.
As for comparing it to putting a gun in my face and demanding my money, that's ridiculous.
No it's not. You've simply not read my argument - I did't say all taxation. I said income taxation.

Big difference between excise taxes and income and property taxes.

The taxation we have today comes from government officials we voted into office. We may disagree with them and with our fellow citizens who voted for them ... but they were voted into office and serve with the consent of the governed. They have a legal right to impose taxes to conduct their business and to serve the needs of the people. You can disagree with their priorities and their decisions -- but if you don't accept their legitimate right to govern, then you have a whole different set of issues I'm not going to waste my time with.

llg

Suit yourself - I never disagreed that Congres has a right to levy taxes. The Constitution guarantees it. I also agree that by law, it also has a right to levy income taxes - the 16th Amendment guarantees it.

I can't help it if you misconstrue my argument. We can't get out of paying our taxes - not without breaking the law. But as Charlie Dickens put is many moons ago, "the law is an ass". I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the 16th Amendment repealed.

The only function of government should be the protection of rights, property and life. That's it.

I bet if they made nursing a tax exempt profession then they would make politicians tax exempt also.

Read Neal Boortz's Fair Tax book. It would solve a great many of our tax issues! It was an eye opening read for me. If you don't spend it, you don't get taxed. Imagine a system where the individual is the ultimate decision maker in whether or not taxes are paid.

In Atlanta on Wednesday there were over 8,000 people gathered for the Fair Tax rally. Thousands more were turned away because of lack of space.

Lets get behing this one people!!

Specializes in ED, CTSurg, IVTeam, Oncology.
I hadn't noticed that this was only the OP's 2nd post. I deeply regret having fed the troll. llg
I beg your pardon. Just because I'm new here doesn't mean that I'm trolling. Your DTR (Deep Troll Reflexes) is perhaps a bit hyperactive.

The question was offered not to debate taxation or it's inherent fairness or flaws. That can be exhaustively argued with citation of opposing historical views and examples. Frankly, I have no real interest in that. The main reason that I ask this is my desire to address the inherent dangers of the shortage and it's potential for insidiously allowing the acceptance of intermediate or lesser trained bedside caregivers (ie. nsg techs, EMTs or paramedics). It's always been my greatest personal fear that if nurses don't deal with the shortage, that others eventually will. And it may well wind up being in a manner that is unfavorable to nursing as a profession.

Similar to how the US military and many in the private sector views and treats recruitment and retention of certain skill sets, offering additional monetary compensation via federal tax exemption would not impact on any individual employer's bottom line. States can follow suit if they so desire, but are certainly under no obligation to do so. Nursing educators can be similarly addressed, that is, those involved in nusring education be given similar exemptions. Tax exemptions or rebates are nothing new. Many public and private organizations and individuals have already benefitted from this (fairly or not). I'm suggesting that this may be one way of dealing with our progressively thinning ranks of nursing professionals and is an idea worth exploring.

Ralph

Specializes in Critical Care.
It's always been my greatest personal fear that if nurses don't deal with the shortage, that others eventually will. And it may well wind up being in a manner that is unfavorable to nursing as a profession.

Not a huge reason to fear, IMO.

Simply put, there is no shortage of nurses; there is a shortage of nurses willing to work as nurses. If you took every nurse not currently practicing and enticed them into the workforce, there would be no shortage.

So, any change that is 'unfavorable' to nurses simply results in more nurses opting out of the profession with their feet, and an increasing shortage as a result. In fact, the ONLY effective way to deal w/ the shortage is in a manner that is FAVORABLE to nurses.

And even if TBTB get it wrong, the resultant wave of nurses leaving just creates more demand; and more salary for me. And that just creates an ever greater need to 'fix' the problem.

On a personal level, it's win-win. Now, on a societal level; that's a different story.

But tax exemptions wouldn't be effective. As has been posted, it would just intensify people going to school for the WRONG reasons. I'm not big on the concept of 'care theory' blah blah blah; but, pure financial motivation isn't good for nursing, either.

And the money grab game would take off! It would simply be destabilizing to the tax game to grant 'exemptions'. Keep in mind that paying taxes is essentially voluntary in any case; the gov't has no real mechanism to enforce compliance except fear - and that only works when those that are non-compliant are relatively few in numbers. The gov't simply can't allow the concept that some shouldn't pay. The result: many others will include themselves in that mix. And as more and more did, enforcement would be impossible. The whole tax system would drop on its head.

Now, maybe that WOULD be a good idea, and foster a wholesale change, such as Boortz's 'fair tax'. I'm not debating whether that would be a good idea; I'm saying that those that DON'T think it's a good idea in gov't aren't stupid about this: they know the current system is based on voluntary compliance and they aren't going to threaten that system by creating wholesale class and occupation resentment vis a vi taxation.

I half agree w/ Roy. A goodly amount of our tax dollars are 're-distribution of wealth' theft. If the gov't stuck w/ it's original premise: enumerated Congressional powers, and operated only within it's granted power, some of those problems that Roy et. al. have would be addressed.

Nevertheless, disagreeing with the uses of tax is no justification for not paying. The solution to that is the gov't processes; go vote (at the ballot and with your dollars) and campaign for those that share your view.

The only real solution to the 'shortage' is two-fold: 1. healthier work environments (both ANA and Amer Assoc of Critical-Care Nurses have detailed position papers on healthier work environments) and 2. starting instructor salaries in the 130k range (if I, an ADN, can and DO make more than instructors, how in the heck do they think MORE nurses will go back to long schooling to get an MSN to make LESS??)

~faith,

Timothy.

Specializes in ER/Trauma.
Nevertheless, disagreeing with the uses of tax is no justification for not paying. The solution to that is the gov't processes; go vote (at the ballot and with your dollars) and campaign for those that share your view.
My disagreement isn't with the "uses" of tax - my disagreement is with taxation itself :)

Now if only I can convince you to vote for "my" side :p :p

But we've already had this discussion before.....

Specializes in Critical Care.
My disagreement isn't with the "uses" of tax - my disagreement is with taxation itself :)

Now if only I can convince you to vote for "my" side :p :p

But we've already had this discussion before.....

I could be 80% convinced.

Scrap the income tax and have a small sales tax that covers the enumerated powers: printing money, providing for military, post offices, etc.

The States are responsible for local infrastructure, roads, power, water, etc.

Given that prospect, I'd gladly vote for such a deal, knowing it means scrapping unsustainable programs of re-distributions of wealth (aka theft) such as EITC, AFDC, medicare, social security, etc.

But, reality is reality, and I'd settle for serious reforms such as scrapping EITC in favor of eliminating income taxes for anybody making less than 40k (and that's a cost-neutral idea), and means testing ss/medicare (if you're rich, congrats, you don't need an 'insurance' payout. Your wealth automatically 'insures' your retirement and health.)

Oh, I know - they PAID into the program. Well, I pay State Farm every month, but I only get something back if I need it. And the payout is, on high average, more than the pay-in. It's not an earned benefit. It's a benefit stolen from current workers. And that works fine, when the ratio of workers/beneficiaries is 18-1 (as it was when the program started). But now, it's 5-1 moving to 3-1. It's simply not an 'earned' benefit; it's a handout - a hand out of MY check.

Just because you were robbed to pay others during YOUR working career doesn't mean you 'earned' the right to steal from others. . . it IS a handout. "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul." – George Bernard Shaw

And Roy, I KNOW you know this one: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." - Author Unknown, but generally attributed to Alexander Tytler.

~faith,

Timothy.

+ Add a Comment