| Type | Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle | Source | Last Checked |  |
 |
Newsvine is msnbc.com's social-news community where you can discuss stories, publish your own column, and connect with other news lovers.
Grateful is the only word I would use to express my opinion of the Obama proposal. The vast majority of seniors need all the help they can get.
#1 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:08 PM EDTat 67, i feel the idea is excellent, including the fact that my return will be so clean and easy to do.
#2 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:14 PM EDTI do not understand why any seniors are paying taxes on their Social Security income after retirement? SS is something that we pay into all our working lives and we've already been taxed - it's the tax we've been paying to support ourselves (partially) in our old age. Why must the Gov't then turn around and tax us AGAIN on that - it comes from the income we earned ourselves and stored up! We must be the only country in the world to do this to our seniors.
We also get taxed on our UNEMPLOYMENT INCOME when we must live off the state until we find a new job. This is virtually unheard of in other countries.
Is the US cheating its citizens out of money it's already taxed us on? I'd like to find out. We get NOTHING for our taxes - except a war we don't want or need. NOTHING - where is the infrastructure in the cities, the bridges, our roads, and where is the health care and education services that others get for their taxes in other countries??
We get absolutely NOTHING that I can point to as a direct benefit in my life. Perhaps I'm ignorant, but I just don't see the point of getting taxed so much for so little in return.
#3 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:17 PM EDTRegarding those saying this is a great idea, have any of you taken a basic economics course? If so, you would agree that this is bad fiscal policy. Economics 101: Every economic decision comes at a cost. If you agree to give seniors a pass on their taxes, who do you think should bear the cost? Obviously, someone is going to have to pay for this. Do you really think that is fair?
#4 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:26 PM EDTIt's a lot more fair than allowing a very small minority of ultra rich people in this country to have tax breaks the rest of us can't get. It's the very essence of fairness to help out others in distress; you may be there yourself someday. Living on $50,000 in today's America is not much of a life. We're not talking about those who earn over $50,000. The USA is the only advanced western country that doesn't try to help those who need it the most. We're known for our disdain for ordinary people who are struggling.
Absolutely it's fair. THese people have done everything right, paid taxes all their lives, worked hard and been good citizens. We're the only country that treats our older population like crap. The only problem with the article is that it was said that seniors are well-off, and have "assets." Let me tell you, assets are usually in the form of their homes, which most will have to leave and move into an apartment. Investments are usually stocks--which are taxable. The other flaw in their criticism is that they have their pensions---not anymore baby!! THose days are dwingling, and FAST.
Didn't you notice in the article that they people poo-pooing it were corporations and one from Deloitte? Of course they don't like the idea.
Not everyone against this is from corporations. I am greatly concerned about how we (and I say we because the extra money needed for this will come from us the taxpayer) can afford to pick up this bill. Is the government willing to cut back to provide the necessary money this will cost? My family of five can't take much more with the skyrocketing costs of everything these days. There has to be some guarantees before we just go out and with the stroke of a pen, erase some of our tax base.
corewynn You're right. I should not have generalized. Perhaps you and I both can continue to research his plan for specifics. I think factcheck might have it in addition to his website. At least he is trying to do SOMETHING---and taking notice. That's more than anyone else has done in the past. It may not be perfect, but its a start. Thanks for your post. I understand your point
Then I don't know what the answer is. Given the age-ism in this country, you can't get a decent job when you're 50 years old, let alone 60 or 70 - so your opportunities to meet your living obligations dwindle with every passing year! What do you "economists" propose that would be fair and decent for those who are approaching the downside of their economic potential, especially in the face of rising costs in everything? Tough cookies? Learn to love cat food? Kill yourself?
It is a good idea. If the present & McSame administration (please, no!) can urinate $10B a month on an illegal war of choice, driving the deficit & inflation ever higher, why not help the persons on a fixed income, who are suffering because of the Republican gross mismanagement of the economy?
#5 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:38 PM EDTAbsolutely this is a good idea - the US must be the only country to TAX ITS SENIORS as well as its UNEMPLOYED. We have contributed to social security all our lives from our paychecks and when we retire or become unemployed, the Government turns around and TAXES us AGAIN on this meager income.
What are we actually getting in return for our taxes? Nothing but an unwanted and unnecessary war in Iraq. There is nothing else that I know of that directly benefits me in my every day life.
This country was founded on the famous cry, "No taxation without representation!" Well, what about a little more for our tax dollars - health care, higher education, work/life help for families, etc. The other developed nations get PLENTY for their TAXES. We complain about "high taxes" and get relatively little for our pains.
#6 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:38 PM EDTI think this is a good idea. The cost of healthcare/drugs are wiping out the seniors alone then food is second. We need to help those who built this country. It is a role model for our society and youth that we don't toss the Seniors out as garbage. We help every other country in the world, why not help our own Senior Community especially those who need it the most (those below 50K).
#7 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:40 PM EDTAs a disabled senior, I can use all the help I can get. I don't have any savings, I don't own my home, 25 more years of payments. I've had to cancel doctor's appointments because I can't afford the co-pay. The same with prescriptions, I can't afford the co-pay. I don't know where the people get the idea that seniors are swimming in money and savings. I have a pension for my disability, which is taxable, and receive $96 in social security. YOU try living on what I get. Tax relief would allow me to pay my bills, visits to the doctor, get my prescriptions, and maybe buy groceries that are not junk.
#8 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:40 PM EDTAs long as there is a mechanism in place to be sure that only seniors truly in need of such a tax break get it, and the method of calculating their income is not riddled with loopholes that allow wealthy seniors to hedge their bets and sponge off the system.
#9 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:42 PM EDTi think its a wounderful idea but they also need to give all who draw social security an or ssi a bigger cost of living raise each year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#10 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:45 PM EDTThe seniors need a break. My husband has been a meat cutter for 40 years and between social security and pension (alot do not have pension) we will have a modest income. The cost of healthcare, drugs, needed as you age, medicare and even supplement insurance does not cover the rising costs. You are talking about less than $50,000 a year, come on, I did read what McCain's income is from serving and along with everything else he gets as income, he couldn't relate to how many seniors struggle to make ends meet.
#11 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:46 PM EDTWhy should a senior making 50,000 dollars with no dependents and a paid off mortgage pay less in taxes than me if I have a wife and child and make $50,000 dollars a year while trying to keep up with mortgage rates? I am all for taking care of our parents but I am tired of seniors getting more and more benefits at the expense of America's youth. How about you take that money and put it into more serious funding for college for kids these days? Or more funding for roads so I don't have to worry about a bridge collapsing on the way to work? Or better healthcare for families with children? I don't see why it should go to a group that already gets massive tax benefits and a social security payout that I will never see.
#12 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:09 PM EDTBecause just by virtue of the years they have worked and paid years beyond what you have paid. That's why.
You are the essence of what is wrong with society today. "What's in it for me?" You are selfish in your views. I'm sure that a vast number of seniors were your age once, working hard, raising families and paying taxes. I don't think that they ever envisioned themselves as needing tax relief to "make ends meet". You seem like the sort of person that will be crying the most to be taken care of when you become a senior as you are the center of your own universe. Get in the game with everyone else...so selfish
Because the baby boomers are getting old and they left us with nothing blew all there money on themselves and want to take more from the young. Remember its the Me me me me generation that wants us us us us to pay for a lap of luxury for them. So on top of bleeding the social security dry they want to have tax breaks have us young people pay for their universal health care. Not to mention there next move is to raise the death tax and inheritance tax.
Those who object are often life long government employees or politicians with big pensions. The average senior cannot live on social security alone and those that are able have some kind of part time job to eke out an existence. Even if there is no mortgage real estate taxes are a large portion of income. States like Florida, prone to hurricanes have large premiums for insurance. Seniors in areas
with no public transportation need cars, so it's either a car note or car repairs for a older car.
Most seniors are on medication with large co-pays. Medicare doesn't pay entirely for meds.
AARP should be ashamed to criticize Obama's plan. This year's dues will go to buying a few gallons of gas.
#13 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:12 PM EDTI have often wondered how it could be legal for us to pay taxes on the income that Social Security taxes are deducted from, and yet have to pay taxes again on the benefits. Whose idea was that? Not someone who was trying to live on their Social Security benefits. That is double taxation. I will get less than $650 per month. How can I afford to live on that, much less that minus taxes? It seems like your Social Security contributions are a loan from you to the government. (Or, if you will, a savings account with the government as the bank.) Instead of the government paying you interest for the use of your money, at the time they give it back to you, they want you to pay them! How is that fair? Granted, you didn't pay taxes on the employer match portion of your Social Security, but maybe that should be the interest you get for letting them use your money for 40 years!
#14 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:57 PM EDTI knew it! I knew it!
the bureaucrats wouldn't like it!
Wasn't earlier this year that congress voted itself a raise.
Add to that crooked lobbyist donations!
How could anybody be against it???
There is no income tax if all you get is social security!
Maybe some senior is working at a fast foods place for $6/hour!
#15 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:57 PM EDTI knew it! I knew it!
the bureaucrats wouldn't like it!
Wasn't earlier this year that congress voted itself a raise.
Add to that crooked lobbyist donations!
How could anybody be against it???
There is no income tax if all you get is social security!
Maybe some senior is working at a fast foods place for $6/hour!
#16 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:59 PM EDTlets hope he will be our next PRESIDENT and give our senior's a break
#17 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:06 PM EDTThere are a whole lot of seniors out there with no pension and living on social security. Just try paying for health insurance if you not 65 and eligible for medicare, no COBRA because your company completely closed so this option was removed, had to retire early to survive because no one wants to hire you at 63 and your unemployment benefit has run out, prescriptions when the cost in the USA is outrageous and that very expensive independent health insurance doesn't cover this cost, a mortgage, home and car insurance, real estate taxes, home and car repairs, etc. Not everyone raising a family over the years was able to build up a saving account or invest in a 401K, not to mention how much was lost in a meager 401K with all of the stock market losses over the last couple of years. Our country gives so much away to others while not taking care of their own citizens, young and old, struggling to survive.
#18 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:16 PM EDTIt appears to me that there should not be a absolute cutoff, but more of a sliding scale between those who receive under $50,000 and those who receive an amount over $50,000.
#19 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:19 PM EDTyes i am 61 and had breast cancer my husband is 65 and he is sick he worked all his life we get a lot lets than 5000 dollars a year and we owe the irs more than we make form 03 when i had breast cancer obama is for the people like me who cant pay their light bill and gas bills please vote obama
#20 - Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:23 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
Many Senior citizens all over America are going to bed hungry at night. Why wouldn't we do any thing we can to help them live with dignity