"Disabled". An over counted minority

[MASSDRIVER]

The ADA tax credit applies to 50% of the cost of the improvementsEnlighten me if I am wrong

"Some", not you, don't see the difference in a tax credit and a grant.

You get a maximum of a 50% tax credit on a maximum of 10,000, so $5,000. You only get that if you have turned enough profit, or income to be taxed that amount. If you operate on a loss and are not paying a tax you can't get a credit.

Brent.

 

[mark handler]

"Some", not you, don't see the difference in a tax credit and a grant. You get a maximum of a 50% tax credit on a maximum of 10,000, so $5,000. You only get that if you have turned enough profit, or income to be taxed that amount. If you operate on a loss and are not paying a tax you can't get a credit.

Brent.

The definition of business is to provide goods and or services for a profit..... if you are not, you are not in business.

 

[mark handler]

Make the business more accessible and maybe gain more of the twenty percent of the disabled consumers.

Some contractors have stayed in business by embracing ADA rather than mock it.

Falure rate of construction companies 53 percent, 46 percent due to incompetence

Do we want these guys in the buisness

 

[mjesse]

I propose an additional 15% income tax on all individuals who do not own a business, to be transferred to small business owners, for the sole purpose of making improvements to our property for your benefit.

Those who refuse to pay, will be prohibited from entering any small business owned property or face legal action. All legal fees shall be paid by non-business owning individuals.

Individuals earning less than $35,000 annually, who believe they "can't afford" the 15%, will qualify for an automatic deduction from their net pay by their employer to be used to improve said employees work environment.

If you refuse to pay, I have no sympathy for you.

 

[jar546]

http://missionlocal.org/2011/08/business-owners-fear-%E2%80%9Cdrive-by%E2%80%9D-ada-lawsuits/Average lawsuit in CA is 20, 000

Which is money well spent?

I love the complaint that an ADA toilet is $300 but a regular toilet is $100. I can buy an ADA compliant at Lowes for $99 so once again it is the uneducated hype that drives people to be so far to the left or right.

 

[pyrguy]

Re: "Disabled". An over counted minority

The definition of business is to provide goods and or services for a profit..... if you are not, you are not in business.

I've heard that you can make a pretty good living going broke in any business.

 

[mjesse]

The ignorance of what a tax credit is and does is astounding. Brent

I love when people say, "Oh, you can just write it off" like it's free or something.

I still have to pay for it! "Writing it off", means I pay a lower rate of tax on that amount.

These are usually the same people who want you to "throw in" some extras for the job. "Well you're already here, what's the big deal?"

The same people who want your "square foot price" for building a home. They assume cutting off 100 s.f. of family room, can get them 100 s.f. of additional kitchen (with cabs., tops, and appliances)

The same people who ask you to move the toilet over "a couple inches" on a whim (for no charge of course)

The best things in life might be free, but if you want me to work for free you can forget it.

 

[mjesse]

Make the business more accessible and maybe gain more of the twenty percent of the disabled consumers. Some contractors have stayed in business by embracing ADA rather than mock it.

Falure rate of construction companies 53 percent, 46 percent due to incompetence

Do we want these guys in the buisness

Probably.

Many of them still need to pay for architecture services, so that keeps you employed.

They need somebody to inspect their work (can't trust 'em you know) that keeps 80% of this forum's participants employed.

They buy lumber and materials, that keeps manufacturing alive.

Etc., etc., etc.

P.s. Not that it matters, but my construction business didn't "fail" I chose to shut down for multiple reasons. Bureaucracy, too many lawsuit ready clients, and a growing lack of appreciation for quality work led to my increasing disgust of the "job". Throw in the exponential growth of the Codes, rules, regulations, and taxes, it's enough to stifle the spirit of many an entrepreneur.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Probably.Many of them still need to pay for architecture services, so that keeps you employed.

They need somebody to inspect their work (can't trust 'em you know) that keeps 80% of this forum's participants employed.

They buy lumber and materials, that keeps manufacturing alive.

Etc., etc., etc.

P.s. Not that it matters, but my construction business didn't "fail" I chose to shut down for multiple reasons. Bureaucracy, too many lawsuit ready clients, and a growing lack of appreciation for quality work led to my increasing disgust of the "job". Throw in the exponential growth of the Codes, rules, regulations, and taxes, it's enough to stifle the spirit of many an entrepreneur.

Also, and mjesse's hits it square, Ada is just another facet. It's oppression does not stand alone.

Brent

 

[kilitact]

Business owners are not for the most part people with deep pockets as the misconceptions noted in this tread appear to imply. They are in most cases people who work each day struggling to make their way, with mortgages, children etc. In some cases after 20, thirty and forty years of abiding by the rules the rules changed and they’re now being told they need to invest their savings into barrier removal. Another way for some to look at this would be if you had 30 years invested and then you’re told you need to pay 65% of your earnings to eliminate barriers that were legally installed.

 

[JPohling]

and how long has the ADA been in place? these are such pointless threads. Its the law and has been codified. Understand the requirements, design them correctly, inspect it thoroughly a move on to the next one.

 

[mjesse]

and how long has the ADA been in place? these are such pointless threads. Its the law and has been codified. Understand the requirements, design them correctly, inspect it thoroughly a move on to the next one.

The majority of the disagreement is not about design requirements for new construction, it's the 70-80% of existing buildings build prior to 1990.

If the thread was truly pointless, we would all agree, and it would die. Obviously, some feel the topic is worth more than a "do it right, and move on" comment.

Not all laws are good laws. To quietly accept them at face value is harmful to liberty. But to negatively speak up against anything deemed a civil-rights law, gets folks tarred and feathered without any reasonable debate. "How dare you discriminate....No sympathy....the Government knows what's best for us"

Some won't be happy until stairs are outlawed, 1:20 slope maximum in a one-story, ground-level world. Others want all doors to be 48" wide and have power operators with battery back-up.

Tear down everything built between 1890 and 1990, and start over. Anything older is "historic", and anything newer is either built in accordance with "the Law" or subject to demolition.

 

[JPohling]

If the construction had been following along with the law/code since its inception then we would not have these issues. If you choose to ignore it for 30 years because, previously, there was no consequence for doing so then when your feet are held to the fire don't start your crying now.

There are plenty of venues where you can go and have a discussion about changing poor laws that have been adopted. (ADA would be no where near the top of that list. Just let me train at home with my nunchuks!!!) This Forum is not one that will have any effect in that regard.

 

[mjesse]

jp - "Just let me train at home with my nunchuks!!!"

The government has decided you don't deserve to have those killing sticks, but you can buy a Cal-legal AR-15 so we'll call it even.

jp - "This Forum is not one that will have any effect in that regard."

True, but we can discuss pros, cons, and gray areas of law here. Occasionally some are called out as absurd and subsequently batted around ad-nauseum.

 

[ADAguy]

MJ, knowing that "we" can't win you over, what would "old Abe" say to your arguments.

He who opened the door to civil rights; how many wheelchair users did the civil war create and how did they get around?

 

[mjesse]

"Disabled". An over counted minority

I can be won over, my perspective has been readjusted by discussions here on multiple occasions. I believe ADA regulations are generally a good thing. No one should be unfairly discriminated against.

What bothers me is the "evil business owner" mentality. Are there evil business owners? Of course...

But to conclude that every mom & pop shop in existence, regardless of their buildings age, should be vilified and given no sympathy because they can't/won't make physical changes to their property which might benefit less than 1% of their clientele is absurd.

The OP mentions an overstated minority. In support of this statement, I've spoken with many hotel owner/operators regarding the pool lift regulations that recently went into effect. Most can't come up with even a few examples of when this may have caused a problem out of their thousands of guests over the years. Several have filled in their spas instead of installing the multiple lifts required. How is this helping the majority OR the minority? When the best solution to avoid non-compliance is to eliminate an amenity, instead of making it accessible for fractions of a percent of users, I become concerned.

 

[mjesse]

what would "old Abe" say to your arguments.

In his second inaugural address, Abe Lincoln said;

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as

God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in,

to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the

battle and for his widow, and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and

cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

The bolded portion is the credo of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA and ADA work hand in hand to care for our vets, and the ADA provides that, absent undue hardship ("significant difficulty or expense"), applicants and employees with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodation to apply for jobs, to perform their jobs, and to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment (e.g., access to the parts of an employer's facility available to all employees and access to employer-sponsored training and social events).

The way I see it, we are essentially debating what constitutes an "undue hardship". ADAAG barrier removal, 20% modification ratios, and other written requirements are reasonable. We need to balance the needs of the general public, with the abilities of those who provide for them. Sometimes a "perceived" injustice against a small minority is just that, and if it's used to create an undue hardship on another party, we are no closer to the peace which Abe imagined.

 

[ADAguy]

Thank you for revealing a "logical" side of yourself. As to "perceiving injustice"; like "awareness" perception is both in the eyes of the beholder and he/she who has been the receiver of an action perceived by them (per the law?) as discriminatory.

If even but a single person is the receiver of that action, must an entire society be made to "pay" for that discrimination? That seems to be your contention, no?

Is it charity (the role of) on the part of society to provide for those less fortunate? Is society not a "we" vs and "I"? Are we not intended to be our brothers/sisters keepers?

Moral vs legal discussion?

Why cannot common sense prevail vs the "need" for numerous laws? Are not many/most politicians lawyers?

 

[conarb]

It might be helpful for interested people to read what the law actually says as enacted by our elected representatives, everything else is a comprehensive set of regulations written by unelected beuracrats, regulations do have the full force of law, perhaps the unreasonableness of ADA regulations should be brought to the attention of our elected representatives.

Civil Rights laws were originally passed to give special privileges to "Negroes" in redress of past grievances, I never saw any ill will against the disabled until ADA became law, the real culprits here are those exploiting the disabled for their personal profit.

 

[mjesse]

ADAguy-Thank you for revealing a "logical" side of yourself. As to "perceiving injustice"; like "awareness" perception is both in the eyes of the beholder and he/she who has been the receiver of an action perceived by them (per the law?) as discriminatory.



I'm all about logic (it's the Vulcan in me). Similar to harassment laws, sexual or otherwise, any offending action perceived as negative by the recipient, is a valid complaint. Logically, that is reasonable. However, some individuals are serial "victims" and their complaints need to be justified as reasonable by a group of their peers (see: gray area). This is partially what has caused the rampant growth of "political correctness" that some find so annoying.

ADAguy- If even but a single person is the receiver of that action, must an entire society be made to "pay" for that discrimination? That seems to be your contention, no?

Yeah that's about it, and without attempting to speak for MASSDRIVER, I believe that's his point too. How far are we willing to go for just one individual?



ADAguy- Is it charity (the role of) on the part of society to provide for those less fortunate? Is society not a "we" vs and "I"? Are we not intended to be our brothers/sisters keepers?

One would hope we are a "we" society, and in times of national tragedy I think it becomes evident. There are many citizens who believe the "me" society more aptly defines their American Freedom.

ADAguy- Moral vs legal discussion?



Absolutely.

ADAguy- Why cannot common sense prevail vs the "need" for numerous laws? Are not many/most politicians lawyers?

Mostly because, like question one above, common sense is subject to perception.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

There is a huge difference between "fairness" and discrimination.

I apologize for not being more involved in my own thread, but I wanted to see the discourse of others, so I'm lurking for now.

Thanks to ALL for the excellent discourse. It's not so much about changing anyone's mind, rather the thought process behind our opinions.

Brent

 

[mtlogcabin]

You do it to attract customers, you want more customers to come to your business so that you can make money, plain and simple.It's the same thing when you make your business accessible. By doing so you will have more customers had previously wouldn't have used your business and thus you make more money

The question is how many potential customers are they among the disabled community that will visit a particular business and how much money will they have to spend for me to recoup my cost.

5, 10, 15, 50 or 100? That will depend on the size of the community, how many disabled people live within that community and do the need or want the product or service being provided.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

The question is how many potential customers are they among the disabled community that will visit a particular business and how much money will they have to spend for me to recoup my cost.

5, 10, 15, 50 or 100? That will depend on the size of the community, how many disabled people live within that community and do the need or want the product or service being provided.

The answer is never enough. Not saying they're not trying, but it relies on a benevolent society to pick up the tab. Customers pay what is effectively a tax, employees pay with what is effectively a pay cut, and the business owner endures either a reduced salary or reduced profit.

Brent

 

[mtlogcabin]

Taxing individuals either outright or hidden within the cost, pay cuts and reduced salaries or profits for the benefit of a selective group does not equate to a benevolent society