Bulletin Board for Laws & Legislation

• State of Indiana, inheritance tax versus state income tax on older hoosiers pensions; (Older Hoosiers Exodus) -- In reference to newspaper article; "Letter spurs action on inheritance taxes", by associated press writer Anthony Jewell. "For older Hoosiers, the Indiana inheritance tax acts as an incentive to move to some other state to reside"; Senator Joe Zakas R-Granger said. The "INCENTIVE" for older Hoosiers to move their residence to some other state is the Indiana state income tax on public, private, and military pensions. As of the year 1994, fourteen states either have no state income tax or exclude public, private, and military pensions from state income tax: Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wyoming. I urge every Indiana resident to write their Indiana State Senator and their Indiana State House Representative asking them to eliminate Indiana state income tax on older Hoosiers pensions. If you can't locate their individual address mail your comment to:

  Indiana State Senator or Indiana State House Representative (their name)
  200 West Washington Street
  Indianapolis, IN 46204

  The loss of revenue from older Hoosiers leaving Indiana will far out weigh the gain from taxing older Hoosiers pensions. Please take the time to let your Indiana State Senator and Representative know if you support this opinion; And pass this information to all your friends and ask them to send letters to their Indiana State Senator and Representative to eliminate the Indiana state income tax on older Hoosiers pensions. Sincerely, Alan W. Blanchard

  (Biographical comment), I have served ten years active duty and fourteen years National Guard in the military service for the United States of America. I will be sixty years old May 7th, 1997, and am now retired from the military. My address is: Alan W. Blanchard; P.O. Box 370; Washington, IN 47501; 812-254-4407 -- wilburgess@webtv.net

• A company providing Long Term Care Insurance, Senior Care, has provided information indicating that it will be a FELONY CRIMINAL OFFENSE to knowingly and willfully transfering assets to become elibible for Medicaid, if the transfer triggers a penalty period, for example if the transfer occured during the look-back period of 36 months (60 months for trusts). The offense is punishable by a fine of not more than $25,000, imprisonment for no more than five (5) years, or both. It is a misdemeanor if "any other person" does this for you. See Kenndey/Kassebaum Bill

• I would like information regarding the laws and legalities in Florida for a spouse's rights after the other spouse is admitted to longterm care. If there is property involved and cash savings that are in both names, what rights does the well spouse have? I have relatives in Florida who are concerned about this. One of them may need to go into a longterm care home while the other will be able to stay in their home. They do have some cash that they have saved over the years and do not want to see this all have to go the cost of caring for the spouse in the longterm facility. Is there a time limit for disposing of some of this cash like there is in NY? Please send me any info you might have on this. If you want or need to my mailing address is Noreen Flynn, Box 93, Retsof, NY 14539. Thank you for your help. E-mail Noreen

• Sep 12 -- Yes on Prop 211 -- Hello: -- I am writing to you on behalf of The Citizens for Retirement Protection and Security. On November 5th, Proposition 211 will be up for vote. We would like to call attention to our website which contains valuable information on why Proposition 211 is so desperately needed to protect the seniors, consumers and investors of California. The site contains the full text of Proposition 211, case histories of investors who have been swindled dry, recent press about Prop 211, research and facts on securities fraud, and a list of the community groups who endorse Prop 211. For more information click on Stop Fraud Organization. Our URL is: http://stopfraud.org. Thank you in advance for your time. Kelli Geehan, Site Administrator, Citizens for Retirement Protection and Security, 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4178, Los Angeles, CA 90071; Phone (213) 617-7337; Fax (213) 617-9470; Email: prop211@aol.com. Kelli Geeham

• 3 Aug --Noise pollution & Harassment -- I need to knbow if there is a federal law that allows trains to blow day and night which has robbed me of peace, tranquality, sleep , or being allowed to have any quality of life. --- E-mail Bobbie Harris - bobbie@kymtnnet.org

• 23 July 1996 -- Landloard-Tenant Laws -- The Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, a legal clinic serving low income seniors across Ontario, is a member of the Coalition to Save Tenants' Rights. The Coalition is concerned about the proposed changes to the landlord-tenant relationship as described in "Tenant Protection Legislation: New Directions for Discussion". ACE is especially concerned about its impact on seniors, including residents of care/retirement homes. The proposals could take away tenants' rights and protections currently afforded by the Landlord and Tenant Act, the Rent Control Act and other legislation.

  The government's discussion paper proposes:

  1. changing rent control to facilitate dramatic rent increases
     
  2. allowing landlords to charge whatever rent they want when new tenants move in
     
  3. eliminating the rent registry
     
  4. using mediation, rather than courts, to deal with landlord-tenant disputes
     
  5. permitting care home operators to transfer or evict residents easily

  If these changes affect you, we encourage you to become informed and get involved in responding to the discussion paper. Committee hearings, likely accompanied by vocal demonstrations, will be held in Toronto Aug. 19-23; Thunder Bay Aug. 26; Sault Ste. Marie Aug. 27; Ottawa Aug. 28; Peterborough Aug. 29; Hamilton Aug. 30; Windsor Sept. 3; London Sept. 4 and Kitchener Sept. 5. We must persuade the government not to sacrifice the rights of tenants, and not legislate anything that could harm seniors.

  For a copy of the discussion paper, please call (416) 585-7041 or local Rent Registry office. ACE and the Coalition to Save Tenants' Rights will be happy to forward copies of our responses to the discussion paper to you, and can assist in helping you submit a response to the government by August 30th. Submissions should be sent to The Honourable Al Leach, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 777 Bay Street, Toronto ON M5G 2E5.

  Please feel free to contact myself at ACE or Tim Welch of the Coalition at (416) 467-7599 if we can provide any further information. You can also contact your local legal clinic, tenants' association or residents' council to find out more about getting involved. And be sure to forward this message to others who would, or should, be interested in protecting tenants' rights. Thanks! Caryl Silver, Summer Law Student, Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, 120 Eglinton Ave East #902, Toronto, ON M4P 1E2; (416) 487-7157 fax (416) 487-1342. E-mail Caryl Silver -- aa835@freenet.carleton.ca or Caryl Silver ar717@freenet.toronto.on.ca

• 2 Apr 1996 Court widens field for suits on age bias -- A Supreme Court ruling could unleash a new wave of baby boom-era lawsuits charging age discrimination in the workplace. The court agreed unanimously that employers are subject to lawsuits even when older workers are replaced with others who are themselves older than 40. "The most common victim of age discrimination is becoming someone in his or her mid-50s who is replaced by someone in the mid-40s," says Sally Dunaway of the American Association of Retired Persons. "Now those people will have their day in court." The number of age discrimination suits is expected to increase as baby boomers, now entering their 50s, find themselves replaced by workers only a few years younger. Under some prior rulings, lawsuits could be brought only if the replacement worker was under 40, outside the category of workers protected by the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. "The fact that one person in the protected class has lost out to another person in the protected class is . . . irrelevant, so long as he has lost out because of his age," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia. The court said the difference in age between the fired worker and the replacement had to be "substantial." But it did not define how much of a difference was necessary. Business says it will still be difficult for workers to make a convincing case that age was the reason they were fired. "There will be two hurdles - showing a substantial difference in age and showing the firing was related to age discrimination," says Robin Conrad of the Chamber of Commerce, a business lobby group. The ruling revives a lawsuit brought by North Carolina vending machine salesman James O'Connor, who was 56 when he was replaced by a 40-year-old. A supervisor had told O'Connor he was "too damn old for this kind of work." -- By Tony Mauro, USA TODAY

• State Mental Hospitals Barred from Seizing Patients Benefits -- A federal judge in Sacramento has forced California's state-operated psychiatric hospitals to halt a 40-year-old practice of confiscating Social Security and veterans/ monetary benefits form mentally diabled patients -- with or without their concent -- to help defray the costs of care. U.S. District Judge Edward J. Garcia found that the practice of seizing the money "without the knowing, affirmative and unequivocal concent" of the beneficiaries was in violation of federal statues and the constitutional guarantee of due process. This issue has not been settled as of this time. If you know of any action on this issue please send us an e-mail.