Jackson Jambalaya

HELL NO... If they want to make it a deduction or write off, I could see letting someone get by with not paying a penny, but NOT a refund of 90% of what they spent. Just another reason why the Democraps and Billy " Wormfarmer" McCoy et al have got to go.

It's an enhanced incentive to restore historic properties. One issue with the existing Mississippi historic tax credit is that (unless one is an insurance company) the owner of the credit can only apply them against MS income taxes, which are, relative to federal and other states) low. That makes the credit of limited value. The owner can sell the credits, but the market for the credit is individuals with high Mississippi income taxes, which is a relatively small group, especially in this economy (read: doctors). Since the effect of this bill is to make credit more valuable, and thus encourage historic preservation (always a challenge in MS), I think it's a good thing.

Whose water is being carried KF on this?

Agree w/ 5:14 AM. Because the change is retroactive there has to be some beneficiaries lurking in the legislative weeds and from a transparency standpoint that goes against the people's grain. I'm fine w/ 5:08 AM's explanation going forward but not the retroactive application. Who knows, this could be to benefit 5:08 AM.

I don't mind people getting a tax credit for restoring historic properties, but only if the tax credit is equal to or less than the tax they owe, and only if the historic property is available to be enjoyed by the public. I don't think my tax dollars should be used for someone to renovate a house they're going to live in and all the public sees is the sign out front. Bill Billingsley

I can't see it being retroactive either. I'm not opposed to it otherwise. This is an opportunity for some of those tax refunds to stay in MS, and if it encourages people to renovate historic properties that quality as such, it further fuels the local economy in the form of labor, materials, and so on.

It's an enhancement to my mind that will encourage money re-spent in MS.

Sounds like a great idea to me. Too many of our historic structures have been demolished (see N. State Street and most of downtown Jackson). Bill, I understand your point but if the alternative to renovating a historic home is to demolish it, wouldn't you rather have it standing?

I agree that this seems to be a worthwhile bill. I looked at the existing law, and the only change seems to be that the credit in excess of the tax liability for the year can now be refunded at 90% instead of carried forward for up to 10 years. In other words, the taxpayer takes a 10% discount for immediate payment, instead of waiting a year or two for the full amount. This sounds like good legislation.

I agree with 8:51. The problem is that it is always less expensive to tear down than to restore renovate a historic building. Moreover, it's more time consuming.
Unless there is some incentive , it just won't happen.
The homeowner goes into the project with greater risks and more unknowns.
Since the community benefits by keeping it's historical architecture, I don't mind the homeowner enjoying the short term benefits.

Sounds like the Hajj or a circular firing squad.

Do legislators have to be morons to get elected or does that just seem to always be the case?

Earned Income Tax Credit for your minor buildings...

6:47, you're right on the money. I guarantee you someone will be getting paid off big time with a retroactive provision.

Maybe the state could publish a list of who has these "retroactive" credits . . . That way, we could see who really stands to gain.

To collect cash for what was designed as a 'tax credit' is nothing more than EITC - tax refunds to those that don't pay taxes. I don't care what 'good thing' has been done, what building restored, what charity helped, or other so claimed 'good for the public'. You shouldn't get back 'taxes' that you haven't paid.

BTW, 5:14, sounds like a David Watkins deal to me.

WHO.WAS.THIS.BILL.WRITTEN.FOR.!!!!Would someone call Watson, bet he knows the name.

Actually, this is being pushed by the MS Dept of Archives & History and the MS Heritage Trust.

It's legit and needs to be done to support historic preservation in MS.

Anon 5:22, just build a monument next to the levee in Neshoba County and be done with it.

That is all the heritage that the rest of the country thinks Mississippi has. The joke's on them.

It's legit and needs to be done to support historic preservation in MS.

Then why does it have a retroactive element in the bill language? Such language is skid grease and does not jive with your explanation.

tax credits have been the law for some years. The credit's not retroactive. The only change in existing law would allow a refund in one year of the credit that exceeds the tax liability, instead of being able to carry the credit forward for up to 10 years. Sheesh! Some of you see a conspirator behind every tree. Go read the exising law.

Retroactive? That means that someone who had these credits never planned to have the state bail them out at the time when they got the credits. Someone is gonna get rich off of this scheme.

For 2/28 at 8:51, are you saying the choice is have the taxpayers pay for renovation or raze the property? I see a third alternative - let the people who are going to live in the house pay for the renovation, just like the rest of us. If we want to give someone a tax break so they'll restore some architectural detail that they'd otherwise leave alone, that's fine, but to give them a tax credit beyond the amount of tax owed isn't right, especially when it's for a house that's being occupied by the person who got the credit. BB