Obama's 'no income taxes on seniors' draws critics

[Texacon]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3782922

napi21  (1000+ posts)       Tue Aug-12-08 12:24 PM
Original message
Obama's 'no income taxes on seniors' draws critics 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_el_pr/obama_u... ;_ylt=Anr3iW3LJ3NE6OmpjtPEgiqs0NUE

(snip)
Sounds appealing, right? Maybe to many seniors. But tax policy experts in Washington are giving it bad reviews. They see it as another subsidy for senior citizens, who already get federal help through Social Security and Medicare and often have economic advantages over other demographic groups.

Seniors typically have paid off their mortgages. Many have investments and usually don't pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. The kids are usually grown, so they're not saddled with day care or college costs.

"The odds are the retired folks — they're getting pensions, they're getting Social Security, they have investment assets, they own a house — so ... they're better off than somebody who is 30 or 40 years younger who's trying to buy a house (and) trying to start saving," said Clint Stretch, managing principal of tax policy for Deloitte Tax.

The Obama campaign says the idea would give tax cuts averaging $1,400 to 7 million seniors who are battling inflation with mostly fixed incomes. The campaign also says the plan would relieve millions of older people from having to file complicated tax returns.

I admit I have a bias opinion on this because I'll be 65 in Sept. But having read the entire article, it seems the detractors are missing something. Wether $$ comes from "earned income" or investments, or dividends, it's ALL INCOME! With the cost of medicare rising every year and almost negating what minimal COLA increase in SS, low income seniors need whatever breaks they can get. The most amusing gripe is when they said it was unfair that seniors who have incomes of $48,000 wouldn't pay any tax but any making $50,000 would have to pay thousands is the argument of a fool. Everything has a cut off! Our entire tax structure is based on various levels, and there's always a few who fall just over the line into the next higher level.

Why don't they just say what they mean? 

Summary;

"Yes, I demand we pay for illegals, ne'er do wells, have free drugs, free medical care, free retirement income, free housing, etc ... but why in the hell should I have to pay for it?!  Let someone who makes $50.00 a year more than me pay for it cause THEY are the wealthy ones and can obviously afford it!"

Idiots.

KC

[DumbAss Tanker]

Rather hard to see who would be left paying taxes in Obamaland, since the very rich would be well-advised to go offshore, except those who are seniors.  There are always corporations I suppose, but they will just tariff it back across the whole population as a very regressive if indirect sales tax.

[Texacon]

Rather hard to see who would be left paying taxes in Obamaland, since the very rich would be well-advised to go offshore, except those who are seniors.  There are always corporations I suppose, but they will just tariff it back across the whole population as a very regressive if indirect sales tax.

I've been thinking the same thing.  Obama is buying votes as quickly as he can and the tax base is shrinking rapidly.  Hard to imagine who will be paying for all these write offs.

KC