# "Disabled". An over counted minority



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 21, 2013)

(CNSNews.com) - In the fourteen fiscal years that preceded President Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009, the tax receipts coming into the federal government’s Disability Insurance Trust Fund exceeded the benefits paid out, and the trust fund ran a surplus.

In each of the five fiscal years Obama has served as president, the trust fund has run a deficit as the number of people receiving disability benefits has surged. The Disability Insurance Trust Fund has never before run five straight years of deficits.

In fiscal 2013, which ended on Sept. 30, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund ran a record deficit of $31.494 billion, according to newly released data from the Social Security Administration. That followed deficits of  $8.462 billion in fiscal 2009, $20,831 billion in fiscal 2010, $25.264 billion in fiscal 2011, and  $29.701 billion in fiscal 2012.

From fiscal 1995 through fiscal 2008, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund ran surpluses, as receipts from the disability insurance taxes paid by people who were working exceeded the value of the benefits paid to those claiming disability.

Congress created the federal disability insurance program by adding an amendment to the Social Security Act in 1956. The government paid the first disability benefits in fiscal 1957.

That year, the Social Security and disability programs were funded by payroll taxes that equaled a combined 5.625 percent of a person’s earnings. If someone was employed by someone else, this included a 2.0 percent tax for Social Security that was withheld from a person’s paycheck, an 0.250 percent tax for disability that was also withheld from the paycheck, a 3.0 percent tax for Social Security that was paid by the employer, and an 0.375 percent tax for disability that was paid by the employer.

A self-employed person paid the full 5.625 percent directly from his or her earnings.

Over the years, the payroll taxes for Social Security and disability have more than doubled to 12.4 percent. Self-employed individuals pay the entire 12.4 percent directly. People employed by someone else see 5.3 percent withheld from their paycheck for Social Security and 0.9 percent withheld for disability. Employers pay the other 6.2 percent on the worker’s behalf.

In 1957, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund took in $709 million and paid out only $59 million in benefits—or 8.3 percent of total revenues. A surplus of approximately $649 million was deposited in to the Trust Fund.

In reality, that means the government took that "surplus" and used it to pay for other government expenses, giving the Trust Fund an IOU to pay the money back later.

In the 57 fiscal years that the federal disability program has operated, it has run deficits in only 11 years---with five of those years coming under Obama. Prior to the last five fiscal years, the longest run of deficits in the Disability Insurance Trust Fund was the four-year span from fiscal 1962 trough fiscal 1965, when John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were president.

The trust fund also ran three straight years of deficits from fiscal 1975 through fiscal 1977, when Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were president.

When President Obama took office in January 2009--which was the fourth month of fiscal 2009--there were 7,442,377 workers on disability, according to the Social Security Administration. As of October 2013, there was a record 8,936,932. That means the number of people on disability has increased by 1,494,555 while Obama has been in office--a jump of 20 percent.

In addition to the 8,936,932 workers collecting disability in October, there were also 157,676 spouses of disabled workers who collected additional benefits, and 1,871,127 children of disabled workers who collected benefits.

All told, 10,965,735 people collected federal disability benefits in October.

At the end of fiscal 2008, there was a net balance of $216.239 billion in the Disability Insurance Trust Fund—meaning the Treasury owed $216.239 billion in IOUs to the trust fund for surplus disability insurance tax receipts it had taken in previous years and used for other government expenses.

At the end of fiscal 2013, the net balance in the Disability Insurance Trust Fund had dropped to $100.486—a decline of $115.753 billion.

That $115.753 billion, the cumulative five year deficit of the disability insurance program, equals the amount of money the Treasury had to borrow from other sources to pay disability benefits during that time.

From the last day of January 2009 through the last day of September 2013, the total debt of the federal government climbed from $10,632,005,246,736.97 to $16,738,183,526,697.32—an increase of $6,106,178,279,960.35.

That equaled approximately $53,091 in additional debt for each of the 115,013,000 households that the Census Bureau now estimates there are in the United States.

Since the last day of September, the federal government’s total debt has continued to increase, hitting $17,200,725,370,597.56 as of Tuesday—or approximately $149,555 per household.

Brent


----------



## mark handler (Nov 21, 2013)

All that means is that everyone that is disabled is not on public assistance

And has nothing to do with this website


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 21, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> All that means is that everyone that is disabled is not on public assistance And has nothing to do with this website


This thread or this entire website?

Don't be threatened by information. It relates directly back to an earlier conversation.

Brent


----------



## RJJ (Nov 21, 2013)

So what is the point?


----------



## mark handler (Nov 21, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Don't be threatened by information.  Brent


And you can misinterpret information anyway you want


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 21, 2013)

> All that means is that everyone that is disabled is not on public assistance


My mother in-law and bother in-law are both on disability and both receive public assistance in other forms of a government "entitlement"

[h=2]en·ti·tle·ment[/h] _noun_ \-ˈtī-təl-mənt\: the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something

: the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)

: a type of financial help provided by the government for members of a particular group

[h=2]1wel·fare[/h] _noun_ \ˈwel-ˌfer\

: a government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc.

Why don't we call it what it really is?


----------



## mark handler (Nov 21, 2013)

Misinterpreting Statistics

When dealing with statistics, numbers are often thrown around so fast that it is easy for a group or individual to manipulate how their statistics are viewed. Dr. Joe Schwarcz wrote an essay "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"

You may want to read.

How many people are disabled has nothing to do with how many receive a government "entitlement"


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 21, 2013)

RJJ, it's a counterpoint. Not proof, but evidence. There is a difference. It is evidence that by there a far less "disabled" than propoganda would have us believe.

I like to explore:

The merits of Ada

The validity of Ada

The need for excessive accessibility.

The industry of Ada.

The false discrimination of Ada.

To be explored philosophically, as a bad law, much the same as prohibition was bad law. One that was repealed.

Brent


----------



## mark handler (Nov 21, 2013)

Discrimination against one of one hundred is still discrimination.

And the ADA "civil rights law" will not be determined here


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 21, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Misinterpreting StatisticsWhen dealing with statistics, numbers are often thrown around so fast that it is easy for a group or individual to manipulate how their statistics are viewed. Dr. Joe Schwarcz wrote an essay "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"
> 
> You may want to read.
> 
> How many people are disabled has nothing to do with how many receive a government "entitlement"


That is surprisingly shallow.

Those numbers can and will be used to further bloat the amount of our population that claim to need disabled access when they do not. A means for an industry and those that profit by the law to keep adding "improvements" so they can make more money through products, consultation, litigation, and construction.

Brent


----------



## mark handler (Nov 21, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> That is surprisingly shallow. Those numbers can and will be used to further bloat the amount of our population that claim to need disabled access when they do not. A means for an industry and those that profit by the law to keep adding "improvements" so they can make more money through products, consultation, litigation, and construction.
> 
> Brent


*You *calling me shallow.

Next you will be quoting information from George Lincoln Rockwell


----------



## JPohling (Nov 21, 2013)

"excessive accessibility"  hahaha  that's ridiculous..............you really need to spend your time and energy towards more altruistic thoughts and actions.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 22, 2013)

My detractors are so apparently void of intellect that no debate can be had.

So instead of discourse there are personal jabs, the true indication that the loser has not a thought to offer.

JPohling, my altruism is personal and genuine. I am a helper of time and material. I also make sure to allocate enough time in my day to spend towards these posts, as well as other thoughts and actions. But thanks for your concern. As Mark likes to haughtily shout down from the gleaming white tower, "You know nothing about me. You have no clue". Well, should you learn more about me, you would be impressed with my pursuits of generosity.

You would buy me multiple beers.

Speaking of Marky Mark, and his lack of reading comprehension, I said I was "surprised"  at how shallow , not that you ARE shallow. I have come to expect a better effort. Please work on that.

But back to the point, I posted the above not for statistical masturbation, but to illustrate what I would consider false pretenses for disability considerations, namely the overstatement of how many disabled there actually are in this country. That again points to the disparity of money and energy devoted to a very small group of people.

As for the notion that excessive accessibility is ridiculous, let me ask this: Can we say we are done now? No more regulations and reams of paper inhabited only by little elvish consultants and litigators? I think there are excesses, such as yellow dot mats (absurdity) and chirping walk/don't walk indicators. Especially the latter, always placed in shopping areas and high pedestrian concentration (so you know WE care) but never where blind people actually are. As with any government program, the ADA regulatory gnomes will seek survival by continuing "improvement" of the ever growing catalog.

Which directly relates to the artificial discrimination issue. A discrimination determined at regular intervals by unelected bureaucrats. That it is manufactured is inarguable.

As I asked before, whom amongst the true believers of the religion Of ADA are willing to end discrimination by building full accessibility into their own homes? None is the answer, as the only responses were intellectually weak, if at all. Mainly I heard crickets.

So yes, I will keep posting looking for dialog. But apparently it's not worthy of discourse amongst the bureaucratic throng, who only accept "that it is". Right or wrong.

Really kind of sad.

Brent


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Nov 22, 2013)

_Non sequitur_ (logic); I could use those same statistic to show that contributions to DI trust fund went down for whatever reason; low employment, fraud, military operations or natural catastrophes; and therefore mandatory spending created the deficit.

How not to debate; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

In my opinion it would benefit to link the where the earlier conversation took place (#3 post) to show relevance.


----------



## steveray (Nov 22, 2013)

Brent,

Are you trying to say that the federal government makes spending decisions with a rediculously low return on investment? Without any consideration for the taxpayer?  NO WAY!


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 22, 2013)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> _Non sequitur_ (logic); I could use those same statistic to show that contributions to DI trust fund went down for whatever reason; low employment, fraud, military operations or natural catastrophes; and therefore mandatory spending created the deficit.How not to debate; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
> 
> In my opinion it would benefit to link the where the earlier conversation took place (#3 post) to show relevance.


I agree. Laziness took hold early last night.

Brent


----------



## JPohling (Nov 22, 2013)

artificial discrimination..................  hahaha there is another zinger!  So your basis on judging others commitment to this is if they would, or have, modified their homes to provide full accessibility?  That makes no sense at all.  If the ADA was being forced on individual homes then I could understand your concern.  It is a law meant to improve accessibility for the disabled as they try to live their lives just like you and I.  If you feel they are not worthy of this then no discourse is going to enlighten you.


----------



## Frank (Nov 22, 2013)

There are two different definitions of disability being used here--The partially disabled that need barriers removed but can still work as addressed by the ADA, and those on SS Disablity that are "totally and permanently" disabled and therefore get larger Social Security checks early.  The latter is often being used by the states that pay unemployment and other need based assisstance that are state funded to get the long term unemployed off state funded assistance and onto Federal funded maintenance.  Some states even hire consultants to go over the welfare rolls to see who might be transferred to SS disability.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/09/in-response-to-just-how-distorted-is-u.html

This also greatly reduces the unemployment rate.


----------



## JBI (Nov 22, 2013)

Well, that 15 minutes of my life i'll never get back... :-(


----------



## High Desert (Nov 22, 2013)

JBI said:
			
		

> Well, that 15 minutes of my life i'll never get back... :-(


I only took 6 minutes to peruse this so I'm 9 minutes up on you.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 22, 2013)

Jp, let me ask; how can you discriminate by location?

True discrimination means across the board, anywhere you are at. Ada actually allows discrimination in certain instances.

Can you give me an instance where it is acceptable to discriminate against blacks?

Honest question brother. Enlighten me.

Brent


----------



## JPohling (Nov 22, 2013)

The idea is to improve access where it will provide the most benefit.  Providing fully accessible residences where many will never see a wheeler is not very beneficial.  I never have a clue where your trying to go with these posts.  I dunno? tanning competitions?


----------



## steveray (Nov 22, 2013)

Brent....You are allowed to dicriminate at your home...or any other "private" setting....But when you welcome the public in, it is ALL of the public you need to accomodate.....Do I agree with it 100%? Not necessarily because I do not know it 100%....But I do believe in the intent....

And it is OK to discriminate against blacks at a Klan rally wether they are disabled or not...(not any kind of endorsement)...it's a private club.....


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 22, 2013)

Do you believe houses built in the past discriminate against blacks?

Do you believe houses built now discriminate against blacks?

Do you believe houses built in the past, or built now discriminate against the disabled?

Brent


----------



## JPohling (Nov 22, 2013)

no,no,if public yes, if public more than likely


----------



## conarb (Nov 22, 2013)

Brent:What you fail to understand is that it is perfectly legal to discriminate, you just can't discriminate against Suspect classes of people.  This is complicated at law becasue there are Suspect Classes, Quasi-suspect classes, and All others, in addition Suspect classes get strict scrutiny, Quasi-suspect classes get Intermediate scrutiny, and All others get Rational basis scrutiny.  The disabled came late to the party and are classified in All others entitled to Rational basis scrutiny.  The subject then turns to reverse discrimination, every time the law grants special treatment to certain classes of people it deprives others  This is nowhere more evident than in college admissions, Bakke made quotas unconstitutional, so the EOC came up with Affirmative Action, in 2003 Justice O'Conner ruled in Grutter v. Bollinmger that while basically unconstitutional the minorities needed 25 more years of special privileges, just this year the Court again reviewed the matter and removed the time constraint saying that Diversity itself was a valuable consideration for all members of society, so diversity didn't just benefit the suspect classes it benefited all.  Interestingly through our public educational system young people already see diversity as the ultimate good, I was reading the paper the other day and saw this cartoon about a teenager looking at colleges, note how thrilled she is to see  "A happy diverse group of happy laughing friends", I bet she is seeing an Asian, a white, a black, and a person in a wheelchair all sitting on a sunny lawn laughing in complete harmony.

View attachment 946


One of the consequences of giving people special treatment and entitlements is that the entitled may become lazy and obnoxious.
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 946


/monthly_2013_11/luann.gif.4333bbcd8202b5301e63d0b79e607550.gif


----------



## steveray (Nov 22, 2013)

Yes....to some extent in all cases....assuming you are not talking about the structures themselves but the people that build and maintain them.....



			
				MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Do you believe houses built in the past discriminate against blacks?Do you believe houses built now discriminate against blacks?
> 
> Do you believe houses built in the past, or built now discriminate against the disabled?
> 
> Brent


----------



## TJacobs (Nov 22, 2013)

I think there is a big difference in trying to make the built environment more accessible and paying benefits to the disabled.  This board should focus on the former.

JMO


----------



## conarb (Nov 22, 2013)

Jake said:
			
		

> I think there is a big difference in trying to make the built  environment more accessible and paying benefits to the disabled.  This  board should focus on the former.


Jake:

I wonder if a cost benefit analysis has ever been done on ADA laws?  Obviously there are some good parts that all good people should support, but there are many over-reaching stautes and reglations that even many disabled don't want.  As I've said before my biggest objection is the companies, organizations, and individuals who exploit the law and the truly handicapped for their personal financial benefit.


----------



## JPohling (Nov 22, 2013)

well I dont want tamper proof receptacles!


----------



## TJacobs (Nov 22, 2013)

conarb said:
			
		

> Jake:I wonder if a cost benefit analysis has ever been done on ADA laws?  Obviously there are some good parts that all good people should support, but there are many over-reaching stautes and reglations that even many disabled don't want.  As I've said before my biggest objection is the companies, organizations, and individuals who exploit the law and the truly handicapped for their personal financial benefit.


You could say the same for almost any code.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 22, 2013)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> You could say the same for almost any code.


And you should.

Brent


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 22, 2013)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> I think there is a big difference in trying to make the built environment more accessible and paying benefits to the disabled.  This board should focus on the former.JMO


That's what this thread is about.

Brent


----------



## ICE (Nov 23, 2013)

JPohling said:
			
		

> well I dont want tamper proof receptacles!


Pretty soon, only criminals will have regular receptacles.


----------



## ICE (Nov 23, 2013)

The ADA lobby won't be satisfied until six months in a wheelchair becomes a rite of passage and the Sierra Nevada mountain range is paved over.


----------



## RJJ (Nov 23, 2013)

Well Brent I see the point and you have a good debate going. Type on!:-D


----------



## mark handler (Nov 23, 2013)

Individuals use the term disability in different contexts; disability is not a single definition. Even Medical personal often refer to the term disability in the physical realm or as a physiological condition requiring treatment or therapy.

 As a demographic category, disability is an attribute with which individuals may broadly identify, similar to race or gender. In contrast, certain federal programs narrowly define disability as the impairment or limitation that leads to the need for the program’s benefit such as the Social Security Disability Insurance program’s income support for individuals who are not able “to engage in any substantial gainful activity.”  The agencies and organizations that provide benefits to, advocate for, or study these populations, each refer to their targeted group as people with disabilities; but because of the differences in definitions, an individual may be considered to have a disability under one set of criteria but not by another.

Disabilities Affect One-Fifth of All Americans

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cenbr975.pdf

ABOUT 1 IN 5 AMERICANS HAVE some kind of disability, and 1 in 10 have a severe disability. And, with the population aging and the likelihood of having a disability increasing with age, the growth in the number of people with disabilities can be expected to accelerate in the coming decades.

If current trends continue, Americans 65 years old and over will make up 20 percent of the total population by the year 2030 compared with about 12 percent currently. In the October 1994 - January 1995 period, for example, about 16 million of an estimated 31 million seniors age 65 and over reported some level of disability.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 23, 2013)

CNSnews "....misinform the public, behind the guise of  “news” reporting."

Always consider and scrutinize you sources of information.


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 26, 2013)

Mass, have you "met" Ed yet? You might learn more than a few things from him.

You have touched more than a nerve among many of us.

In some circles you would be viewed as an "anti-".

Then again, dialogue is similar to having another drink; some need just one more and some can walk away.

Is your bottle half empty or half full?


----------



## JPohling (Nov 26, 2013)

I dont believe Ed has found his way here.


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 26, 2013)

Interesting to note the parts of the definitions you chose to omit (smiling!!!)

en•ti•tle•ment

noun\-ˈtī-təl-mənt\: the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something

: the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)

1. The act or process of entitling.

2. The state of being entitled.

: a type of financial help provided by the government for members of a particular group

1wel•fare

noun \ˈwel-ˌfer\

a. *Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.*

*b. Prosperity.*: a government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc.


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 26, 2013)

Mark,

Thanks again for expanding my interest in your postings.

The Media’s Misinterpretation of Statistics

Scientific research and the media go hand in hand. Without one another, both are severely restricted. For researchers, what good is a ground-breaking discovery if you have no way to get your findings to the general public? The scientific community relies heavily upon the media for this reason.

Firstly let us discuss why are statistics important. Statistics quantify information, and make it more easily understood. They allow a higher level of detail to be portrayed, and add credibility to research. With this in mind, let us look at two statements.

1.	Some university students drive to university.

2.	On average, 50% of university students drive to university. **

Adding the percentage value transforms the statement from common sense, to something relevant and meaningful. Statistics are an invaluable component in scientific research, and one that must be given considerable thought.

**Disclaimer: This is purely for illustrative purposes, the actual number is likely to be different.

Statistics can be confusing however, and as such it is vital for them to be reported accurately. A complication is that the media will often not fully understand details of the research. Resultantly, it is important that research is presented both accurately, and at a level that can be understood.

This responsibility falls squarely upon the researcher. Given these requirements are fulfilled by researcher, accurate reporting statistics is the responsibility of the media. Journalists hold an important role in communicating to the public, and must ensure they present details accurately.

Often it is not the actual statistics that are debated, but the conclusions made from the research. Scientists are accustomed to making conclusions based on research, but this is a skill less practiced in journalism.

 This is the case in the article “Can breastfeeding halt obesity – or is the media misreading the research?”.

A recent study found that 32 percent of babies are obese, a shocking statistic. The original article attributed this to a combination of bad food, and eating solids too early. Several media sources including MSNBC and AOL Health, came to the conclusion that mothers should breastfeed rather than use formula. Whilst the statistics were reported accurately, the resulting conclusions were anything but. Given that the general public is far more likely to see the article from the press than the original study, this is worrying. In this case, misinforming the general public on a large scale is the outcome – obviously undesirable. Or is it?

Political tacticians are not in search of scholarly truth or even simple accuracy. They are looking for ammunition to use in the information wars. Data, information, and knowledge do not have to be true to blast an opponent out of the water.

In my research on the topic, I came across the above quote. It introduces the concept that misreporting statistics or making incorrect conclusions may not be accidental. There are many situations where adjusting conclusions could be done deliberately for personal reasons. For example, if the owner of a newspaper had a family member who was the CEO of a fast food company. Directing the attention away from the bad food causing obesity in babies and using a scapegoat (baby formula) would be beneficial for the newspaper owner. Far-fetched? Maybe, but its definitely something to think about.

Misleading Statistics

Statistics, when used correctly, can be a good tool for looking at trends in large numbers and making correlations between different events. However, sometimes these statistics are misinterpreted, misanalyzed, or just plain wrong.

Examples of different types of ways to manipulate statistics is given in Misleading Statistics: faulty statistics, bad sampling, Unfair poll questions, statistics that are true but misleading, ranking statistics, qualifiers on statistics, and percentages. These are outlined below:

•	Faulty statistics: Statistics can often be fabricated out of thin air. Fabricated statistics are harder to see through than fabricated statements, since statistics command more authority than simple statements.

For example, saying that "61% of all Americans are obese" seems less suspicious than saying "most Americans are obese."

•	Bad sampling: Bad sampling is simply sampling too few people, or sampling people who are atypical of the general population. If a television show asks viewers to call in and give a response to a poll, the people who bother to telephone in, and more generally the people who are watching the show might be inclined to answer one way or the other.

•	Unfair poll questions: Poll questions may be worded differently in order to create an impression on the voter.

An example from Misleading Statistics claims that there could be two poll questions, "Do you feel you should be taxed so some people can get paid for staying home and doing nothing?" and "Do you think the government should help people who are unable to find work?" Both questions deal with taxes, but the first question is more likely to get more "no" answers than the second question.

•	Statistics that are true but misleading: Statisticians can always "select" the data they wish to present in order to mislead the readers. For example, in an election one candidate's supporter claimed that employment was up when their candidate was in office. The opposing party claimed that unemployment was up when their candidate was in often. Both statements were true, since the population had increased during the candidate's time in office, meaning that the number of both employed and unemployed people had risen.

•	Ranking statistics: The problem with ranking statistics is that it is dependent on how you split up the items you are ranking. In an example from Misleading Statistics diabetes is listed as the third leading cause of death in the United States -- but is cancer considered one disease, or many diseases based on its nature (lung cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, etc.)?

•	Qualifiers on Statistics: By adding qualifiers to statistics, it makes them seem as if they are something they are not.

The brown bear is certainly a large animal, but not the largest in the world. However, if we say that the brown bear is the largest land predator in the world, then that statement is true, and it makes the brown bear's size seem more impressive.

•	Percentages: Statisticians can switch between numbers and percentages based on which looks more impressive:

 if a factory of 100,000 people fires 10,000 people, a newspaper might report that 10,000 people were fired. However, if a factory of 100 people fires 10 people, that same newspaper might report that 10% of all workers were fired.

Misleading Statistics also discusses how to avoid being misled by statistics. One strategy is to take a step back, and look at how the statistic could have been reworded or changed to make it seem misleading. Another strategy is to consider the group who is presenting the statistics: do they have a reason to be biased one way or another, or are they neutral?


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 26, 2013)

Just quickly, want to expand tonight.

I agree you have to be careful with stats.  But raw numbers are useful. Thanks to mark and ADAGUY for dialog.

But briefly, on this point, my simple contention is there are far less disabled that actually NEED architectural assistance than is thought, or more concisely, born out of statistics. The notion that even 20% of our population is so disabled that they require special Ada construction is absurd. There is the huge number of disabled, then are are subsets to which there's abuse of the system. And down there somewhere is the actual number that truly benifit, or more accurately require architect help.

Brent


----------



## JPohling (Nov 26, 2013)

There will always be people who game the system and abuse it to their benefit.  Unfortunately we should not let that stop us from providing improved accessibility from those who genuinely need this type of assistance.  What % of the population being disabled would you determine is the tipping point that you would then feel comfortable providing these types of improvements?

Not even considering the individuals that were born with the types of disabilities that would benefit from these codes/laws, or were involved in accidents or incurred diseases etc,  being born and raised in a military town I feel compelled to provide these types of improvements to the built environment solely for the benefit for our injured soldiers.  If someone has sacrificed their limbs in order for me to remain free I owe it to them to make sure they dont have to pee themselves.


----------



## steveray (Nov 26, 2013)

Not to even mention the increase that is coming from the aging baby boomers......(No offense!)   We might actually be ahead of the curve....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 26, 2013)

Wel´fare`


*n.**1.*Well-doing or well-being in any respect; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; exemption from any evil or calamity; prosperity; happiness.How to study for the people's welfare.

Pros`per´i`ty


*n.**1.*The state of being prosperous; advance or gain in anything good or desirable; successful progress in any business or enterprise; attainment of the object desired; good fortune; success; as, commercial prosperity; national prosperity.Now prosperity begins to mellow.



Amazing how in 100 years a definition can change from individual achievements to a government provided program

The above definitions are from Websters 1913 edition


----------



## Mac (Nov 26, 2013)

The ADA's forerunner legislation was first passed in 1973. The era of the WW2 generation. A time when other equality laws were being approved.

Kwitcher bellyachin' , do your job, and hope you never need the turning radius, lever doorknob, or breathing apparatus.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 26, 2013)

Mac said:
			
		

> Kwitcher bellyachin' , do your job, and hope you never need the turning radius, lever doorknob, or breathing apparatus.


No.

Brent


----------



## JPohling (Nov 26, 2013)

Brent, You didn't answer my question?  My assumption is that you feel that the law should be repealed because the cost to the many is to great of a burden for the few that you feel actually need these improvements.  I never have a clue what your actual point is, but that is my take away.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 26, 2013)

I will JP. Trying to get some punch list crap done  

Wanna relax tonight and see if I can tie my thoughts together. Might take a try or two.  

Brent


----------



## JPohling (Nov 26, 2013)

Got to pay the bills!  try = shot!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 26, 2013)

> Kwitcher bellyachin' , do your job, and hope you never need the turning radius, lever doorknob, or breathing apparatus.


Our jobs have nothing to do with the civil rights of individuals. Our jobs are to enforce the building codes as adopted. The intent of the code doesn't even mention "accessibility" as a purpose for the code, See Section 101.3.

I have no problem with the federal ADA law and its enforcement by the federal government. I have a problem with state laws that encourage and grant certain individuals a venue to collect money from business owners through intimidation or out and out extortion by sending a simple form letter that threatens a lawsuit.

"The difference between bribery and extortion, I tell them to imagine the following scenario: "A man is pulled over by a State Trooper for driving 100 miles per hour. As the Trooper approaches and asks for his wallet, the man pulls out a $100 bill and says 'I bet you $100 that you're going to give me a ticket.' The Trooper smiles, takes the bill, and says 'Nope, you're wrong.'"

  After students correctly conclude that the above scenario constitutes bribery, I give them this scenario: "A different man is pulled over by a State Trooper for driving 100 miles per hour. As he approaches the vehicle and asks for the man's wallet, the Trooper looks at him and says 'I bet you $100 that you're not going to get a ticket today.' The driver smiles, takes out a bill, and says 'I'll take that bet.' The Trooper takes the bill, says 'Sorry, you lose,' and walks away."

That second scenario is extortion - as opposed to bribery - because the communication was initiated by the officer and because it contained an implicit threat."

Quote from Mike Adams Law Professor UNC

http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2013/11/12/bribery-and-extortion-n1743810


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 26, 2013)

Thank you Mike for informing us as to "why" attorneys persue these claims of failure to provide access.

"If" counsels would agree to better "inform" their clients of their duty to comply, then they would be providing a "value" added service to their clients and society.

Too much to ask/expect?

Less costly (billable hours) to inform but ethically isn't it the right thing to do?


----------



## JPohling (Nov 27, 2013)

actually............... that is to much to expect because I would say the majority of these shakedown targets are mom n pop shops that do not typically have the funds for legal counsel.


----------



## Mac (Nov 27, 2013)

My point is that there is a distinction between the ADA and building code required accessibility. That's the part about doing my job.

Although it's not invoked here in NY as much, other regions seem to have serial ADA offenders that appear to be in it for the money money money.

Meanwhile, I for one will continue to enforce Chapter 11 along with all the other stuff that I'm not in total agreement with, and pause to give thanks and enjoy some family downtime. Happy turkey day!


----------



## mark handler (Nov 27, 2013)

Mac Accessibility Laws in some states, actually goes  back into the '60's

Always remember:

Accessibility is like an electrical system in that conductivity needs to be provided.

If there is a break in the line, circuit failure will occur.

For example, an accessible drinking fountain is not much good if you are unable to get through a door to where the fountain is located.

It is important to remember that the codes come from laws.

One must always look to the intent of the law in this regard.

Similarly, if The Building Code or ADASAD does not specifically address an item, assume that feature still needs to be accessible.

Finally, it is important to remember that accessible environments benefit everyone.

Curb ramps serve parents pushing baby strollers, elderly persons with carts, bicycle riders and other members of the general public.

Hi/low drinking fountains assist the disabled but also are, nondisabled,  children and adult friendly.

Making a business accessible can tap a previously untapped revenue source.

Enabling a disabled person to work at an accessible workstation decreases the burden on government assistance and contributes to our community as a whole.


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 27, 2013)

This thread is a build-up for Thanksgiving. Right?


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 27, 2013)

MH, this is one of your more lucid and to the point comments. It emphasizes the purpose and intent for our role as access specialists.

Happy Turkey day to all!


----------



## mark handler (Nov 27, 2013)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> .... lucid and to the point comments....


And your point.....


----------



## Msradell (Nov 28, 2013)

Mac said:
			
		

> My point is that there is a distinction between the ADA and building code required accessibility. That's the part about doing my job.Although it's not invoked here in NY as much, other regions seem to have serial ADA offenders that appear to be in it for the money money money.
> 
> Meanwhile, I for one will continue to enforce Chapter 11 along with all the other stuff that I'm not in total agreement with, and pause to give thanks and enjoy some family downtime. Happy turkey day!


The biggest problem with Chapter 11 is with existing structures that are renovated.  It works quite well for new construction but Chapter 11 and actually the entire IBC doesn't place any emphasis on bringing parts of the building now under construction up to code which IMHO leave a huge hole in accessibility standards when you rely on the IBC only!  I'm personally handicapped and need buildings to be accessible to live a normal life.  Too many times I find buildings that don't even come close to meeting the ADA even after major renovation but still met the IBC requirements.  There obviously are offenders that are only in it for the money but that happens with anything.  There's no reason for any business not to be in compliance these days and those that aren't need to be punished!


----------



## mark handler (Nov 28, 2013)

Msradell said:
			
		

> The biggest problem with Chapter 11 is with existing structures that are renovated.


With existing structures you need to start with SECTION 3411 ACCESSIBILITY FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS not Chapter 11.


----------



## Msradell (Nov 29, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> With existing structures you need to start with SECTION 3411 ACCESSIBILITY FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS not Chapter 11.


I should've clarified that however, per local officials is no change in use occurs no changes to accessibility have to be made during renovations!  That is certainly left open to interpretation in chapter 3411 as to what a change in use is.


----------



## conarb (Nov 29, 2013)

MSRadell said:
			
		

> There's no reason for any business not to be in compliance these days and those that aren't need to be punished!


You certainly have a sense of entitlement and are vindictive at that.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 29, 2013)

Equal rights, and access, is a Basic American Principal. You seem to speak of having a right to something, as an Bad thing and mistakenly equate an entitlement with a bad thing, We are all entitled to rights given by our laws.

ADA is not a special privilege, it creates equal, not special, equal access.

If you provide equal access, you provide equal opportunities, and the Disabled will not be on the disability/welfare roles.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 29, 2013)

The Americans with Disabilities Act Sailed through the U.S. House and Senate and across Republican President Bush one's desk. The strongly bipartisan House vote in 1990 was 377 to 28, the vote in the Senate an equally overwhelming 91 to 6. Reaffirmed by Bush two.

It is the law, get over it.


----------



## ICE (Nov 29, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> The Americans with Disabilities Act Sailed through the U.S. House and Senate and across Republican President Bush one's desk.


They should have spent a little more time thinking about what they were doing.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 29, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> The Americans with Disabilities Act Sailed through the U.S. House and Senate and across Republican President Bush one's desk. The strongly bipartisan House vote in 1990 was 377 to 28, the vote in the Senate an equally overwhelming 91 to 6. Reaffirmed by Bush two.It is the law, get over it.


 There are plenty of laws I can't just get over. This is just one. A bad one.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 29, 2013)

Many cannot get over the civil war.

If you want to re-enslave People, then keep worrying about it, until you or a family member needs that ramp.

Some people just have to experience it.

The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced. Frank Zappa

But still the best country in the world.


----------



## tmurray (Nov 29, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> They should have spent a little more time thinking about what they were doing.


Good luck. Fighting a law giving a certain group of people the same rights as everyone else is political suicide for most representatives.


----------



## ICE (Nov 29, 2013)

I am not against the concept.  Every now and then, society musters the fortitude to do the right thing.  It's too bad that result hasn't been a bragging point.  A better thought out plan could have opened up virtually all of the natural and built environment to people in wheelchairs.  There wouldn't be a need for a ramp next to every stair, at least not one that you drive a chair on.

Okay you say, what about people in walkers?  They are in a transition from walking to a wheelchair and they must be accommodated?  Get the wheelchair.  Do we build for every stage of life?

There should be a door knob, oh excuse me it's door lever not door knob,  I guess that when it comes to ADA,  I'm dumb as a door lever.  Ya that door lever should be 12' off the floor for toddlers.

I recently saw a wheelchair that was operated by moving a magnetized tongue piercing.  By now there could be wheel chairs that can climb trees.  But that will not happen.  We will continue to cut down trees for form boards to build ramps so overweight people don't have to climb stairs.  Ramps and crossing guards are why so many kids are fat.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 29, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> ...  Do we build for every stage of life?...


No you build a ramp for a wheelchair, and a "walker" and baby stroller user can use it.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 30, 2013)

For those that belive in jesus, think about how he would see this law.

Would he think it wrong?

 Doing the right thing allows me to sleep at night and not worry about those things that I can not change.


----------



## ICE (Nov 30, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> baby stroller user can use it.


There ya go, start 'em off young.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 30, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> There ya go, start 'em off young.


Young, old and those disabled in between.


----------



## Msradell (Nov 30, 2013)

conarb said:
			
		

> You certainly have a sense of entitlement and are vindictive at that.


Certainly not, I just know what the law says and means!  It's been around long enough that there is no excuse for any business not to be in compliance.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 30, 2013)

Msradell said:
			
		

> Certainly not, I just know what the law says and means!  It's been around long enough that there is no excuse for any business not to be in compliance.


Especially those businesses and buildings that have been around less than twenty years


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 2, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Equal rights, and access, is a Basic American Principal. You seem to speak of having a right to something, as an Bad thing and mistakenly equate an entitlement with a bad thing, We are all entitled to rights given by our laws.ADA is not a special privilege, it creates equal, not special, equal access.
> 
> If you provide equal access, you provide equal opportunities, and the Disabled will not be on the disability/welfare roles.


There are 2 different kinds of rights that are granted by government. Negative rights and Positive rights

"Negative freedom or rights refers to the absence of constraint or coercion when people engage in peaceable, voluntary exchange. Some of these negative freedoms are enumerated in our Constitution's Bill of Rights. More generally, at least in its standard historical usage, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. As such, a right imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference. Likewise, my right to travel imposes no obligation upon another.

Positive rights is a view that people should have certain material things -- such as medical care, decent housing and food -- whether they can pay for them or not. Seeing as there is no Santa Claus or tooth fairy, those "rights" do impose obligations upon others. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something he did earn. 

Comparing ADA which is a positive civil right to all other civil rights such as right to vote and not be required to ride in the back of the bus or use a different facility because of you may be from a different ethnic or racial background which are a negative right is not apples to apples

As a business owner I can easily accommodate any racial or ethnic person without a significant expenditure of funds. Under ADA this is not possible. Money is not free and easily available and for those who make the statements it is the law and the have had twenty years to comply does not solve the funding problems. A business has to make a profit before it can invest itself back into its facilities. Some mom and pops just do not make that kind of money.


----------



## mjesse (Dec 2, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> As a business owner I can easily accommodate any racial or ethnic person without a significant expenditure of funds. Under ADA this is not possible. Money is not free and easily available and for those who make the statements it is the law and the have had twenty years to comply does not solve the funding problems. A business has to make a profit before it can invest itself back into its facilities. Some mom and pops just do not make that kind of money.


Well said sir.

mj


----------



## kilitact (Dec 2, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> There are 2 different kinds of rights that are granted by government. Negative rights and Positive rights"Negative freedom or rights refers to the absence of constraint or coercion when people engage in peaceable, voluntary exchange. Some of these negative freedoms are enumerated in our Constitution's Bill of Rights. More generally, at least in its standard historical usage, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. As such, a right imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference. Likewise, my right to travel imposes no obligation upon another.
> 
> Positive rights is a view that people should have certain material things -- such as medical care, decent housing and food -- whether they can pay for them or not. Seeing as there is no Santa Claus or tooth fairy, those "rights" do impose obligations upon others. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something he did earn.
> 
> ...


well put mtlogcabin.


----------



## ADAguy (Dec 2, 2013)

That "kind of money" being how much? it is far less then paying an attorney or the plaintiff. 20 years at 500 a year ='s 10k, you can do an awful lot with 10k. Its deductable and your business is now open to all.

Can you stay open on only $1,000 profit a year? Why stay in business?


----------



## steveray (Dec 2, 2013)

"Comparing ADA which is a positive civil right to all other civil rights such as right to vote"

I am pretty sure the right to vote costs more than just about any other right we have.....Start adding up the politicos salaries.....


----------



## mark handler (Dec 2, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Some mom and pops just do not make that kind of money.


Can you say Tax credits and Tax deductions.....

They have had twenty plus years, That excuse is getting real old real fast

Just enforce the code, and stop sweating the stuff you cannot change, nor worry about stuff that does not pertain to you


----------



## JPohling (Dec 2, 2013)

^^ Exactly


----------



## mjesse (Dec 2, 2013)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> That "kind of money" being how much? it is far less then paying an attorney or the plaintiff. 20 years at 500 a year ='s 10k, you can do an awful lot with 10k. Its deductable and your business is now open to all.Can you stay open on only $1,000 profit a year? Why stay in business?


If you're forced to spend your "profit" on your building, it's not profit.

Running a business is a risk. IF there is financial reward (profit) the risk taker has earned his right to keep it. He or she may just want to put a kid through school, or save for retirement, or buy some muscle cars.

If you've never run a business in this country, you might be surprised at the amount of overhead already imposed by various factions of government. It's not at all like running a lemonade stand on your mom's front sidewalk. You actually have to buy the stand, the pitcher, the lemons, the sugar, cups, ice, water, signs, markers, etc. BEFORE you even get to sell a cup.

Business license, 5 types of insurance, workers comp., FICA, taxes, legal fees, et. al. Pretty soon your lemonade costs go up to $5 a cup.

Sally next door is being bankrolled by her great uncle Vladamir, who decides to undercut your price by 20%. Then somebody complains that your stand is 1.5 inches too high, requiring you to rebuild it or face a lawsuit.

Where's the miraculous government bailout, or tax credit for that?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 2, 2013)

> Can you stay open on only $1,000 profit a year?


Yes as long as all your expenses are paid for. This would include taxes, salaries, insurance, rent and a host of other liabilities.


[h=2]Investopedia explains 'Profit'[/h]

            Profit is the money a business makes after accounting for all the expenses. Regardless of whether the business is a couple of kids running a lemonade stand or a publicly traded multinational company, consistently earning profit is every company's goal.

The path toward profitability can be long. For example, online bookseller Amazon.com was founded in 1994 and did not produce its first annual profit until 2003. Many start ups and new businesses fail when the owners run out of capital to sustain the business.


----------



## JPohling (Dec 2, 2013)

should have been paying attention to how high you built that counter


----------



## mark handler (Dec 3, 2013)

mjesse said:
			
		

> If you're forced to spend your "profit" on your building, it's not profit.


If you are force to payout bigger penalties, you have no profit, oh ya except for the 15,000 in tax breaks

after they spend 15k, then they can complain

It is the people that make no effort, that get no sympathy


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 3, 2013)

A business has to spend $10,250.00 to receive a maximum Tax Credit of $5,000.00

A Tax Deduction may only reduce the tax bracket by a small or zero percentage depending on their gross income.

No matter how you look at it ADA improvements are not free to a business or building owner.

http://www.ada.gov/archive/taxpack.pdf

The amount of the tax credit is equal to 50% of

the eligible access expenditures in a year, up to

a maximum expenditure of $10,250. There is no

credit for the first $250 of expenditures. The

maximum tax credit, therefore, is $5,000.

Tax Deduction

The tax deduction, established under Section

190 of the Internal Revenue Code, is now a

maximum of $15,000 per year—a reduction

from the $35,000 that was available through

December 31, 1990. A business (including

active ownership of an apartment building) of

any size may use this deduction for the removal

of architectural or transportation

barriers. The renovations under Section 190

must comply with applicable

accessibility standards.

Small businesses can use these incentives in

combination if the expenditures incurred

qualify under both Section 44 and Section 190.

For example, a small business that spends

$20,000 for access adaptations may take a tax

credit of $5000 (based on $10,250 of expenditures),

and a deduction of $15,000. The

deduction is equal to the difference between

the total expenditures and the amount of the

credit claimed.

EXAMPLE: A small business’ use of both tax credit

and tax deduction

$20,000 cost of access improvements

(rest room, ramp, 3 doors

widened)

– $5,000 maximum credit

$15,000 remaining for deduction


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 3, 2013)

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

Brent


----------



## mark handler (Dec 3, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

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


As is the ignorance shown on this thread


----------



## mark handler (Dec 3, 2013)

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?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 3, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

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


The ADA tax credit applies to 50% of the cost of the improvements

Enlighten me if I am wrong


----------



## mark handler (Dec 3, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> No matter how you look at it ADA improvements are not free to a business


Nor is a lawsuit to comply with the law


----------



## ICE (Dec 3, 2013)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> That "kind of money" being how much? it is far less then paying an attorney or the plaintiff. 20 years at 500 a year ='s 10k, you can do an awful lot with 10k. Its deductable and your business is now open to all.Can you stay open on only $1,000 profit a year? Why stay in business?


I can't speak for the average small business owner just because I have been one, however, there was never any profit.  What there was is a bank account.  On any given day, it might go up or it might go down but I never thought "I've got profit".  What I had was income.  Some months were a damned good income and some were just damned.

Had I been forced to spend ten grand, it wouldn't be profit getting tossed down a rabbit hole.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 3, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

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


The example you posted show s a 20k expenditure and a20k credit/detection and it can be spread over years

Many leases I have seen here in California,  the landlord is responsible for the exterior and the tenant the interior.

Many landlords in a city I am involved with are fixing all their units prior to rerenting them to the small business es.

We are still getting the dive by suit s

I tell the property owners to fix the exterior signage then parking

Non of that costs much

Fix the “Red Flags”: Most businesses believe they cannot afford full ADA compliance, even with the tax breaks available to make ADA repairs. While any failure to be 100% compliant can lead to a lawsuit, businesses should be reminded that there are certain  “red flags” which make any site a prime target:

a. Parking: Perhaps more than any other source of lawsuits, a lack of properly configured and signed van-accessible disabled parking invites further scrutiny. It is a known fact that many attorneys use “scouts” to look for non-compliant properties to sue.

Because so many lawsuits involve allegations of a lack of compliant parking (and little else), one wonders if these scouts would simply have driven on to look for other locations if they had a fully compliant parking area. Making the parking area compliant is often one of the least expensive renovations a business can make. Obviously, be sure a wheelchair accessible path to the front entrance is clearly marked and kept free of obstructions.

b. Entrances: Again, this is a drive-by “Red Flag”; aside from the fact that the entrance should be accessible, it should also look accessible. Be sure there are no impediments to access; have employees check throughout the day to make sure nothing has been set in public paths which could impede access. You can walk around a moving palette, but could a wheelchair? Can you imagine anything more frustrating the needing to use a restroom or attend an important event or meeting and not being able to enter the facility?

c. Restrooms: If you provide restroom facilities to the general public, they need to be fully accessible.

Certainly, the access door is a major red flag, but

there are a host of other compliance issues as well. You could demolish and completely rebuild a restroom for what you might have to pay an attorney just to begin defending an ADA case. Don’t ask whether you can afford it, ask whether you can afford not to do it.

http://www.adalawsuits.com/images/040803_ADA_What_you_need_to_know_about_ADA_lawsuits.pdf


----------



## Msradell (Dec 3, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> As a business owner I can easily accommodate any racial or ethnic person without a significant expenditure of funds. Under ADA this is not possible. Money is not free and easily available and for those who make the statements it is the law and the have had twenty years to comply does not solve the funding problems. A business has to make a profit before it can invest itself back into its facilities. Some mom and pops just do not make that kind of money.


Given your way of thinking, why do you bother painting your place of business, hanging sign or improving equipment?  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.  And by doing changes that allow you to become compliant you get a tax deduction, something you don't get from many items you do to improve your business.

Now if you want to talk about other negative (or positive since you're not really clear what kind of write you think it is) rights imposed by the government, what about restrictions placed in your business by the local and state health boards or other regulatory agencies?  How many of those do you really think are stupid and not really relevant for your business?  Probably quite a few of them if you're like most businesses.  You obviously have to comply with these regulations or your business would be closed down.  Why should it be any different for the ADA requirements?

Maybe and only maybe if your business is over 20 years old and was started before the ADA was passed by Congress and signed by the president you may have an argument for not being in compliance.  If you started your business after that time you certainly have no argument because the cost of complying should've been included in your business plan and projected expenses when you started your business!


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 3, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 3, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> "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 (Dec 3, 2013)

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 (Dec 3, 2013)

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 (Dec 3, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 3, 2013)

Re: "Disabled". An over counted minority



			
				mark handler said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 3, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 3, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 3, 2013)

mjesse said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...


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

Brent


----------



## kilitact (Dec 3, 2013)

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 (Dec 3, 2013)

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 (Dec 3, 2013)

JPohling said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 3, 2013)

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 (Dec 3, 2013)

_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 (Dec 4, 2013)

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 (Dec 4, 2013)

"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 (Dec 4, 2013)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 4, 2013)

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 (Dec 4, 2013)

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 (Dec 4, 2013)

_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 (Dec 4, 2013)

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 (Dec 4, 2013)

> 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 (Dec 4, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 4, 2013)

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


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 4, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 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


Only under the auspice that civilization in the general sense accepts the burden and agrees, whether outright sympathy, "the right thing to do", guilt, or manipulation by propoganda.

Brent


----------

