- Joined
- Jan 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,133
- Reaction score
- 798
- Points
- 5,171
- Veterinarian
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
So I heard about this new bit of legislation that is slated to be re-introduced to the 113th congress, and I wanted to hear y'all's opinions on it. This is the AVMA's summary, which may or may not be a dispassionate assessment of the act.
https://www.avma.org/Advocacy/Natio...e-Loan-Repayment-Program-Enhancement-Act.aspx
Basically, under current law, when the USDA wants to fund a vet graduate to go work in an underserved area or field, the funds that are used to pay that vet's loans off are taxed at approximately 40%. The vet doesn't pay these taxes; the program does. The equivalent program in human medicine recently became tax-exempt, and this act proposes doing the same for the veterinary program. The idea is that if the program doesn't have to pay those taxes, it'll have more money to fund more vets to serve those underserved areas.
I'm on the fence about this. While I'm usually for anything that puts vet med on the level with human med (where it deserves to be!), those areas aren't being underserved because there aren't enough vets to serve them. Most of these areas just can't seem to support a vet - not enough business. OTOH, if it passes, it could help some seriously struggling new vets pay off their loans.
What do you guys think? And if you have a strong opinion, write the sponsors and cosponsors and let them know what you think.
https://www.avma.org/Advocacy/Natio...e-Loan-Repayment-Program-Enhancement-Act.aspx
Basically, under current law, when the USDA wants to fund a vet graduate to go work in an underserved area or field, the funds that are used to pay that vet's loans off are taxed at approximately 40%. The vet doesn't pay these taxes; the program does. The equivalent program in human medicine recently became tax-exempt, and this act proposes doing the same for the veterinary program. The idea is that if the program doesn't have to pay those taxes, it'll have more money to fund more vets to serve those underserved areas.
I'm on the fence about this. While I'm usually for anything that puts vet med on the level with human med (where it deserves to be!), those areas aren't being underserved because there aren't enough vets to serve them. Most of these areas just can't seem to support a vet - not enough business. OTOH, if it passes, it could help some seriously struggling new vets pay off their loans.
What do you guys think? And if you have a strong opinion, write the sponsors and cosponsors and let them know what you think.
