Are President Obama and the Democrats anti Elderly or don't they understand
By bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
United States
May 15, 2012 10:46am CST
I read an article this morning that made a point about taxing the rich and passive income (Dividends and Capital Gains). The authors point was that the passive income will effect a few wealthy but will hurt the senior citizens. As retirement plans change from a defined benefit (you are guaranteed a certain income for life to a defined contribution plan (employer contributes a certain amount to your retirement plan while you are working) retired people are now depending more on dividends and interest for their income.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/gregg-capital-gains-tax/2012/05/14/id/438989?s=al&promo_code=EE50-1
As the author states the tax will hurt seniors because their tax burden will increase at a time when their income is declining. You also have Obama Care being funded by money from Medicare and there by reducing the cost of Obama Care at the same time the cost to seniors will increase. From what I read this cost shifting should show savings in the future as people become healthier and live longer with less government support for Medicare.
It seems that the burden is being placed on the elderly to support the younger generation so they get free health care, reduced costs for college and lower taxes on them as they start out in life.
What is seen as a tax the rich will become a tax the rich and elderly.
1 response
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
15 May 12
You are correct that they will be taxed, but it isn't like they are taxed millions (unless they are getting out many millions which most won't). The reason income is being taken for Medicare is because some people now on Medicare will be moved to Obama care. Why keep the money there if the people that were receiving it were being moving to another program?
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
15 May 12
But they are still being taxed. It is still less money they have to spend in retirement. It makes those living on a budget even tighter. Isn't this the exact opposite of what is being said about the bill? That it will tax only the rich? Oh wait, another broken promise...
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
16 May 12
From everything that has been said this is a tax on the rich. They said the same thing about the Income Tax it is a Tax on only the rich and look where we are today. The bottom half pay no tax or make money on the tax while the top half pay virtually all the income tax.
The problem is that once the tax is in place it is easy to change it slowly to cover more people. President Roosevelt (FDR) claimed to be helping the working people by imposing tax withholding from each pay check to make paying taxes easier. This meant that a small increase in the tax burden would not be noticed as much. In New York State they imposed a modest state sales tax several years ago on a limited number of items. Over the years they have raised the percent and the items covered. This is why an increase in the price of gas is good for the state because they tax it on a percent of the total cost (including the federal tax).
In the case of the dividend tax what is to stop them from imposing the higher rate on millionaires, or lets do the top 5% (those making $180,000 a year or more or lets do the top 10% or the top half since they control most of the wealth. The other thing is to not index the tax like the Alternative Minimum Tax which automatically includes more and more tax payers as the economy grows and as inflation takes hold. One of the main points of the TEA Party is that we do not have a revenue problem we have a spending problem and until we get the spending under control we will not solve the problem no matter how much we Tax the Rich.
