Bill Overview
Title: Remotely Piloted Aircraft Crews Tax Relief Act
Description: This bill extends the tax exclusion of the combat zone compensation of enlisted personnel and commissioned offices to include individuals operating a remotely piloted aircraft in a combat zone or providing certain intelligence with respect to such aircraft.
Sponsors: Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals operating remotely piloted aircraft or providing related intelligence
Estimated Size: 15000
- The bill focuses on those involved in operating remotely piloted aircraft in combat zones.
- The legislation impacts individuals both in the military and possibly contractors working with military-related operations involving drones.
- The global number of individuals in these roles is not extremely large compared to the full military force.
Reasoning
- This policy specifically targets US military personnel and potentially some contractors involved in the operation of remotely piloted aircraft in combat zones.
- The population impacted is relatively small, estimated at around 15,000 individuals in the US.
- This group is somewhat specialized, limiting the variation in demographics but allowing a focused improvement in their financial situation through tax relief.
- The budget allows for significant financial support per individual, given the moderate size of the targeted group.
- Some individuals in related roles but not directly targeted by the policy, or those outside the US, will not experience any changes.
Simulated Interviews
Drone Pilot (Texas)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The tax relief would be a welcome financial support, given the stresses and demands of operating drones in combat zones.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Intelligence Analyst (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Extra financial relief benefits morale and retention, potentially broadening career opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Maintenance Technician (Nevada)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although the policy is beneficial for my colleagues in direct operations, it doesn't affect me directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Drone Software Developer (Florida)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is not directly applicable to software roles but indicates a broader awareness of drone-related work contributions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Data Analyst (Virginia)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I would appreciate any financial relief due to the demanding nature of my work, although my role is indirect.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Officer in Charge - Drone Squadron (New Mexico)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This tax relief is a tangible acknowledgment of the risks and complexity of drone operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Drone Operator (Arizona)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any financial improvement helps balance work with personal life, which is complex for part-timers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Drone Control Instructor (Nebraska)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm not flying drones in combat, improved terms for my students underline the importance of our role.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Military Drone Pilot Trainee (North Carolina)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes the future seem more secure financially once I graduate and deploy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Policy Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From an analytical perspective, this is a logical financial support for those shouldering technological demands in combat.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $75000000)
Year 2: $51000000 (Low: $30600000, High: $76500000)
Year 3: $52020000 (Low: $31212000, High: $78030000)
Year 5: $54000800 (Low: $32400480, High: $81001200)
Year 10: $59163041 (Low: $35497824, High: $88744561)
Year 100: $114674017 (Low: $68804410, High: $172011025)
Key Considerations
- Many of the affected individuals are not taxed heavily in an already preferential tax system for military members.
- The cost to government revenue is minimal when compared to larger tax policies.
- Combat pay exclusions enhance morale and provide direct financial relief to personnel in stressful roles.