Hire an Ex-Felon and Get a Tax Credit In Illinois.....

[MMC]

Why does an ex-felon have more right to a job? Under this law, it appears the official policy of Illinois now is that a person with a felony conviction more deserves a job than someone who doesn't. Apparently there is concerns that only 40% of adults have felony convictions and this policy is to promote more felonies as a necessary job qualification.

Heya Joko. :2wave: Not really.....they are only raising the Tax write off from 600 to 1500. Moreover.....its not like ex cons have access to all types of Jobs. Sure some businesses will hire them and some people can get hired by individual owners. But for the most part, places like Mickey Ds, Burger King, Taco Hell. They see that box marked felon. 9 times out of ten.....that application is kept in the Pile to prove they have been offering jobs. Use to just throw them away.

 

[joko104]

Heya Joko. :2wave: Not really.....they are only raising the Tax write off from 600 to 1500. Moreover.....its not like ex cons have access to all types of Jobs. Sure some businesses will hire them and some people can get hired by individual owners. But for the most part, places like Mickey Ds, Burger King, Taco Hell. They see that box marked felon. 9 times out of ten.....that application is kept in the Pile to prove they have been offering jobs. Use to just throw them away.

Since there is a shortage of entry level jobs and a tax credit and a payment equals the same thing, it is state of Illinois paying $1500 to not hire someone without a felony conviction. It does come down to that however you look at it. Two identical applications - the state will pay $1500 to hire the one with a felony.

 

[MMC]

Since there is a shortage of entry level jobs and a tax credit and a payment equals the same thing, it is state of Illinois paying $1500 to not hire someone without a felony conviction. It does come down to that however you look at it. Two identical applications - the state will pay $1500 to hire the one with a felony.

Problem again is.....9 times out of ten the Ex con has no training or any experience. Which that 1500 dollars wont get him the job.

Truthfully if someone has turned their whole life around and now has kids and a family. Is not some young single guy out trying to find his niche while feeling his wheaties. Then the records should be sealed. None should know other than those involved in the case and or state. Or they should pass a law that anything over 25 years and no trouble. Then that blackmark should be removed from the record.

Also how do you get past the point now that they are discriminated against when applying for any job?

 

[joko104]

Problem again is.....9 times out of ten the Ex con has no training or any experience. Which that 1500 dollars wont get him the job.

Truthfully if someone has turned their whole life around and now has kids and a family. Is not some young single guy out trying to find his niche while feeling his wheaties. Then the records should be sealed. None should know other than those involved in the case and or state. Or they should pass a law that anything over 25 years and no trouble. Then that blackmark should be removed from the record.

Also how do you get past the point now that they are discriminated against when applying for any job?

I don't know that a person can escape from their past by having the government erase it on paper. But that's not the direction I'm looking at it from. When there is a shortage of jobs, what advantage you give to one person becomes a disadvantage to another person. It really is that simple.

I don't have a problem with certain types of criminal records being sealed and the conviction not required to be divulged. That is a different question entirely. Doing that would make the playing field "fair" between people with a felony conviction and people without one. It is an entirely different matter to pay (which is what a "tax credit" is) employers to prefer people with a felony record over people who don't.

I also see a terrible precedent to the overall concept. What about paying employers $1500 to hire African-Americans rather than Latinos? Or $1500 to hire women instead of men? Or $1500 to hire gays over straights? Or in other states the opposite? Paying $1500 to hire a white person?

It is one thing to erase a person's criminal record to give the person a fresh start. It is another thing to reward a criminal record and penalize those who don't have one.

 

[Kal'Stang]

It is one thing to erase a person's criminal record to give the person a fresh start. It is another thing to reward a criminal record and penalize those who don't have one.

Except if you erase an ex-cons criminal record then they can legally buy a gun. This avoids that while still trying to lower recidivism rates.

Personally I would rather they just erase the criminal record.

 

[joko104]

Except if you erase an ex-cons criminal record then they can legally buy a gun. This avoids that while still trying to lower recidivism rates.

Personally I would rather they just erase the criminal record.

As it is a fundamental right, I think once anyone has completed their jail sentence, they should both be able to buy a gun and vote. If the person is too dangerous to own a gun, then the person shouldn't be released from prison anyway. That seems obvious enough. Personally, I think people in prison should be allowed to vote.

 

[Kal'Stang]

As it is a fundamental right, I think once anyone has completed their jail sentence, they should both be able to buy a gun and vote. If the person is too dangerous to own a gun, then the person shouldn't be released from prison anyway. That seems obvious enough. Personally, I think people in prison should be allowed to vote.

I believe that to. But I was talking about politicians. And Illinois isn't exactly well known for thier Pro-Second Amendment stance.

 

[MMC]

I don't know that a person can escape from their past by having the government erase it on paper. But that's not the direction I'm looking at it from. When there is a shortage of jobs, what advantage you give to one person becomes a disadvantage to another person. It really is that simple.

I don't have a problem with certain types of criminal records being sealed and the conviction not required to be divulged. That is a different question entirely. Doing that would make the playing field "fair" between people with a felony conviction and people without one. It is an entirely different matter to pay (which is what a "tax credit" is) employers to prefer people with a felony record over people who don't.

I also see a terrible precedent to the overall concept. What about paying employers $1500 to hire African-Americans rather than Latinos? Or $1500 to hire women instead of men? Or $1500 to hire gays over straights? Or in other states the opposite? Paying $1500 to hire a white person?

It is one thing to erase a person's criminal record to give the person a fresh start. It is another thing to reward a criminal record and penalize those who don't have one.

Well, I can see what you are saying with hiring one over another. But aren't they really doing that now. Like with Police and Fire Jobs. Have to have minorities for the Job. Even if none really apply. Or Jobs that require a College Degree. Despite someone having actual experience.

They even do it with politicians and a job that are suppose to serve the people. Making sure like here in Jesse Jackson Juniors District that the Politician must be black.