August 13, 2008

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

By ANDREW TAYLOR

Taylor wrote, “They (tax policy experts in Washington) 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.”

I don’t know who this Taylor author and Stretch guy is, but they are obviously not senior citizens living on a fixed income from the 1980s who has to do without just to may basic survival items, such as gasoline, electricity, groceries, medicine, doctors, house payments, car payments, vehicle and home insurances, life insurances and other necessities of life.

Taylor sounds like someone who would euphonize everyone over 65. He forgets that most of us worked from before daylight until after dark for five to six and seven days a week for well over forth years and we paid our Social Security taxes, income taxes, sales taxes and medicare taxes for well over forth years while raising our families without complaining.

First, Social Security and Medicare isn’t “another subsidy for senior citizens” we paid for it and we paid to take care of Taylor’s grandparents in their senior years when they were not physically able to work the fifty to sixty hours a week like they had all their lives, usually from childhood like I worked on the farm. We don’t “already get federal help through Social Security and Medicare” we worked hard to pay for it and a tax premium is deducted from our Social Security payments monthly before we get anything, and it is our money just as much as it is Taylor’s or the Federal government. We paid over 40 years...he has not!

Second, most seniors have had to mortgage their homes to pay off other debt like high prices prescription drugs, medical and hospital bill that Medicare doesn’t pay for and most people 30 or 40 years younger don't have in the first place, car payments and gasoline so they can get to their doctors, hospitals and grocery store. Taylor says, “Many have investments and usually don't pay taxes on their Social Security benefits.” What investments and savings? He doesn’t know squat, far more than the many he says don’t have investments and do pay taxes on their SS benefits, which they have already paid tax on once when they were working. They still pay sales taxes, property taxes and many other hidden taxes even though we are retired. In the first place why should we seniors pay tax twice on the same earned income?

He also says, “The kids are usually grown, so they're not saddled with day care or college costs.” Oh is that right? Thats news to we senors who care enough about our children and grand children to help them when we can afford to and certainly help when they are in need in emergencies. Yes, our kids are grown but we have many more grand and great grand children than we ever had kids and because of the low paying jobs and high cost of school and college seniors, at least those seniors who care about their families, unlike Taylor, help with school and college costs of their grandchildren.

And finally, Taylor wrote, "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.” Taylor and Stretch need to have to stretch a dollar to buy groceries, a few gallons of gasoline to get to their doctor before they shoot off their ungrateful mouths.

Many senior citizens have no company pension. The few who do have a pension know they typically pay below the standard of living, don’t have any or a very low cost of living increase and aren’t sufficient to pay the typical basic survival bills of many senior citizens. It would be nice if all senior retirees were as well off financially as Taylor and Stretch think we are. They have their heads in the clouds and their hands in we senior's pockets...

If Taylor thinks we citizens are better off than he, at 30 to 40 years younger, let him and Stretch walk in we senior’s shoes for a while before damning us for living long enough to retire. Most of us were never able to “start savings in the first place” and don’t have any savings now thanks to high prices and taxes as well of the cost of raising our own children and putting them through school, little alone paying for their college! I feel sorry for his and Stretch’s parents, grand parents, aunts and uncles if they don’t have the necessary income to maintain a moral survival senior standard of living if they are retired on their own because they need not expect any help from Taylor or Stretch or the Feds who the had rather have we senior’s money to spend than us, or maybe Taylor and Stretch just intend to shove their relatives off into an old age home and forget them…

Dumb statements and dumb article by two dumb people that does nothing but push seniors over to Obama’s side of the field…and I am a McCain supporter!

Al Barrs, Retired

Bascom, Florida

albarrs@wfeca.net

talent scout Location: CO
Reply # 20
Date: Jun 22, 2009 - 12:22 AM EST
Roger Hedgecock quote…
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101760

talent scout, don’t believe anything you read and not much of what you see! To set the record straight, what you read about the so called American Civil War has been and is being written by revisionist authors who are out to make money. Get the real facts! Read the period documents, letters, newspapers and diaries of the people who were there before, during and after The War. To summarize, The War was not fought over “slavery!” Show me evidence that Abraham Lincoln started a national war to free slaves? Didn’t happen! In fact Lincoln wrote in letters that still exist today and other documents that he would not oppose slavery if it would save the Union. He clearly didn’t have a dog in the slavery fight. The war was fought over states rights and double taxation…the same problems that are cropping up today. And, his Emancipation Proclamation was not released to free slaves but to declare them “contraband” and take them out of the South’s economy, which put them in the same class as cotton, mules, cattle, tobacco, etc. So called “freed” slaves were put to hard work building bridges, railroads, roads, etc. by the Union military forces. They weren’t “freed.” And, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in territories and states which the Union had no control…yea that’ll work! Why didn’t he declare slaves free in the Nation? Face it, it was a PR move because the Union was doing badly in the battles up to then. And, finally there were many slaves in northern states, black and white, and there were black slave holders too. And, don't forget the "sweat" shops and factories that used child labor and worked people long hours six and seven days a week for little pay..."white slavery" is was called. Lastly, who do you think rounded up Africans and sold then to ship owners? Who do you think built and owned the ships? There were no ship building facilities in the South, those were in the Northern states and owned by northern business men. Northern business men operated the slave ships, bought and sold the slaves, mostly to South American buyers. Have you checked to learn who the large "plantation" owners were? Most were wealth English born. Most farms in the South were subsistent family farms. These dirt farmers wouldn't have gone to war for rich plantation owners. So, I simply ask you to do you homework and get your own facts before sounding off about a great falsehood perpetrated by people desperate to sell revisionist history books. Get the facts man…

Al

secularsquare...

I appreciate your reading my comment. Unfortunately you illustrate a lack of factual knowledge from the period and failed to recognize or mention the real cause of the so called Civil War. The excuse that The War morphed into a slavery issue is disingenuous at best and has nothing what so ever to do with THE CAUSE OF THE WAR. What might have come later has nothing to do with the start of The War. My Great Grandfather Morgan was 14 years old during The War and his father was off fighting, as were countless other relatives of mine, many whose ancestors had originally fought in the American Revolutionary war that allowed our Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence to be written and adopted by the people. As a small boy I would sit by his rocking chair on our farmhouse front porch and listen to him talk about The War. What he told me did not synchronize with what I was taught in school and read in books later. That started me on my own research of The War period documents, etc. It was he who first told me The War was fought over double-taxation, when the northern states charged southern growers a tax to deliver their cotton to northern textile factories and then charged another tax for the textiles when they again crossed into southern states; states rights, which is self explanatory, if you will read Declaration of Independence, USA Constitution and Bill of Rights. All states had the option of Seceding from the Union for violations of states rights wording. Grandpa also said that because of the invention of the cotton gen slavery was on its way out in the South anyway and would have been severely depleted within 20 years. Most slaves were used only for a few weeks a year to remove the seed from the cotton, not grow and harvest it like many have been taught. The cotton gen removed that need for surplus slaves or free workers. The cost of slaves and keeping them all year did not justify their continued use when the cotton gen was invented. I guess we can agree to disagree, but voluntary slavery as well as involuntary slavery is still slavery, cloak it in whatever cloak you want. Facts are facts, but not hearsay of self serving revisionist historians. Remember it is always the victor who gets to write the history of wars and they are universally wrong since they write it in favor of the side they supported...  

#