On 06 Feb, 2004, at 17:09, Brian Siano wrote:
Mark Krull wrote:It appears that such tax-cut incentives will be given to businesses rather than homeowners. (The text doesn't say so explicitly, but it appears in a paragraph dealing with tax breaks given to businesses, so it's a logical assumption.) While this is nice for business-owners, it reinforces one of the problems with Historic Designation: it amounts to a penalty for homeowners, who don't get these breaks.-----Forwarded Message----- Subject: FYI: Historic preservation tax cut
Thanks for your email. I wanted to forward this email to you because it mentions
a proposal by Gov. Rendell for tax cut incentives for historic preservation.
Councilwoman Blackwell might cause the city to lose the potential to earn a lot
of state money, if this bill passes. It might add to your ammunition against
her proposal to mention Gov. Rendell's plans.
I'm confused....
The note explicitly says its a business tax credit.
But it also contains over $176 million in business tax cuts and business tax
credits, including ... a new historic-preservation tax credit, ...
Furthermore, this is nothing new, unless the previous version (which either expired or was repealed several years ago) of the credit was a Federal tax credit. It is what made "Historic Landmarks for Living" a functioning enterprise.
But it is clear from the note that whoever wrote it is adamantly opposed to the idea of cutting taxes... even when proposed by a Democrat.
T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
