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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_el_pr/obama_untaxing_seniors;_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.

I mean, the focus of news on it, instead of on Corporate entities not paying federal income tax . . .

The difference is, the first one is a proposal. The second one is reality.

the "receive assistance from the government" argument is purely "republican", in the spiritual sense of that word. That assistance is bought and paid for out of a lifetime of wages and taxes. It's like saying you're receiving food assisance from the restaurant for paying your tab in advance. What the hell?

Oh why can't we just round up those self-important, self-centered hard haired pinch faced republicans and drop them, their Armadas and Suburbans and botoxed spouses and brats in a deep deep hole somewhere. They wouldn't have to pay taxes, deal with liberals, or worry about them evil tarrists at the malls trying to take away their Ford Earth Destroyer 25000's.

My demographic is the wealthiest in America, even if I personally don't share that wealth.

Letting us off paying taxes is a slap in the face to any young person.

As of Sept. this year, my husband & I will be living off of our social security checks! Fortunately, we have a whopping $100,000 in our collective 401K accounts, and that will be used to pay taxes on our home and any emergencies that might occur. Yes, it's paid for, but it's a very modest home valued at $139,000 according to the most recent comps. Since the RE taxes are $1200 a year, it's not going to take a LONG time to go through that 401K money. It would be a big help to us not having to pay taxes on the $$ we have to withdraw from our 401K accounts! I can't see how it would be a slap in the face of young people????

Than when I was young.


I know how I would feel if I were young and the old folks that had most of the money and property were busy grubbing for another tax break.

It would piss me off big time.

child support and housing and gasoline on $38K a year. I would rather see the younger generation being helped through reduced taxes across the middle and lower levels. I'm in the middle and made too much money (and paid a lot of taxes) to have gotten the 'rebate' this spring.

Isn't that good enough for you?

I would rather see the younger generation being helped through reduced taxes across the middle and lower levels. I'm in the middle and made too much money (and paid a lot of taxes) to have gotten the 'rebate' this spring.

Obama's plan already DOES what you're asking by cutting taxes on those making $250,000/yr or less. What more do you want that could realistically be done?

My problem with your objection to the break for seniors is that his plan seems to have something for everyone except those who are wealthy enough to not really be in NEeD, but you're unhappy with that plan.

I asked you a question about what you did say.

This is an open discussion forum - not a private one way message board. :)

You **pay** for SS all your life. You OWN it.

When these "Washington" experts talk openly and honestly about the fact that in 2004, according to a GAO report, a grand total of 61% of all US-Based Corporations paid - get ready - ZERO in taxes, and that these included the top revenue generating corporations whos profits combined totaled more than 3 trilion -- then these "experts" start honestly talking about that, then I'll give a damn.

the whole argument is laughable. For 2007, with no dependents (only my own one exemption), the over-65 standard deduction and no tax credits, my total tax was $74. That's just over twenty cents a day. I suppose for someone closer to the $50,000 cut-off, the plan would be somewhat more significant, but I personally am underwhelmed.

food, fuel, etc. Is it so horrible that when people reach their older years they're given a tiny, tiny break to make their lives easier? Not to mention being free of the hassle of it all for a couple of years before you kick off. Apparently, rich corporations should pay nothing while lower income seniors foot the bill.

In this country you have to pay a premium for Medicare every month and that only covers a portion of the medical expenses. Most seniors find they must buy supplemental insurance coverage. It's not free by any stretch of the imagination.

My Medicare supplemental policy costs $156 a month.
Yes, the basic Medicare is 'free', although I paid into it for decades before I became eligible for coverage.

But the basic policy is more-or-less just catastrophic coverage.
You have to be hospitalized.
Doesn't pay for an doctor's visits or other medical care.
"Free", my ass.

and signed up for SS. His benefit is $1,400 a month, BUT out of that there's $105 deducted for medicare AND $56 deducted for drug coverage. There are also copays when you use medicare, and quite a few other limitations, so we also have to pay another $100+ per month for "suplemental" health care coverage! THAT is PER PERSON! Add it up! $1,400-$105-$56-$100=$1,139 per month. Do you really believe that's a lot to live on?

already over 40 years ago. They've got subsidized healthcare and only need to pay $150 per month to supplement that medicare plan. And only $100 per month in prescriptions now, with all that government help. So with the monthly SSI check, after rent and utilities and the medical expenses, lots of seniors will have a few hundred dollars left for the month. Maybe even a whole $100 per week for food, groceries and fun. So why should they get any help?

Damn seniors. Getting all the help.
So we don't have to hire those creaky cranky people.

<:sarcasm:>

that I agree with, and both of them sparked angry responses.

The first being his statement about teaching more than one language.