Plan would let seniors work to pay taxes

[stephanie]

Dear me...

By JIM FITZGERALD, Associated Press Writer
32 minutes ago

GREENBURGH, N.Y. - Audrey Davison lives alone, gets a $620 Social Security check each month and worries about the sharply rising taxes on her four-bedroom house. Davison, 76, raised her family there and after 43 years, she really doesn't want to leave Greenburgh.

Greenburgh doesn't want her to leave, either.

The town is pushing a program that would let seniors work part-time, for $7 an hour, to help pay off some of their property taxes.

"People shouldn't have to sell their house, move away to a place with less taxes, leave behind their family and friends," said Town Supervisor Paul Feiner.

He envisions retired doctors mentoring schoolchildren, retired accountants helping with the town's finances, retired lawyers offering their services for a discount. But there are plenty of less-skilled jobs that need doing, he said.

"It's not like we're going to see grandma running the snowplow," he said. "There are lots of things people can do for the town and it wouldn't cost us that much to pay them."

The proposal has caused a stir in Greenburgh, a town of 90,000 in Westchester County, which has the nation's third-highest homeowner property taxes. The plan would be unusual if not unique in New York, but similar programs are considered successes in Colorado, Massachusetts, South Carolina and elsewhere.

Davison, who suffers from arthritis and sciatica and needs a walker to get around on her bad days, said she pays about $12,000 a year in property taxes — perhaps $2,000 to the town — and has already taken out a reverse mortgage to pay her bills.

Talking to Feiner last week at the town senior center, she said, "I would work as long as it was a job where I could sit."

"You could be a receptionist!" Feiner said. "You could greet people right here, when they come in."

"That I would love," Davison said.

Scott Parkin, spokesman for the National Council on Aging, said the program sounded interesting, as long as it wasn't limited to menial work. "It's certainly in line with what we stand for, keeping seniors involved in work or volunteering as a part of healthy aging," he said.


Snip:
Feiner is suggesting creating about 25 slots for seniors and letting them work off $500 or so a year. His proposal faces some obstacles. If the wages earned are to be tax-free and directly credited to the property tax bill, the state Legislature would have to approve. In addition, unions would have to be convinced that the program is no threat to their members' job security.

read the rest..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071225/ap_on_re_us/working_off_taxes

[JohnDoe]

Property taxes are the absolute worst taxes there are in the USA, and should be abolished. I would rather see an income tax or even a sales tax before property taxes....precisely because of the reason in the story above....

And this town can do something other than making a 76 year old go to work for $7 bucks an hour.

As example, Maine has a safety net, where one's property tax can not be more than 4% of your annual income, if it is, then they credit you. There is a cap at $80 k for a couple's income to qualify, but it does cover everyone, not just seniors....of which Matt and I are greatful for and did qualify for a rebate on our property taxes which are $1800 dollars a year. Since I am retired and matt did not find a job until about half the year was over this year, it should come to about a thousand dollar rebate for them. YAHOO! This should prevent any senior on a limited income from going broke.

Florida also has some sort of safety net in their property tax structure also....I think that once you buy your home, your property taxes can not go up more than 2% or so a year, so if there is a huge boom in home prices, you won't be stuck paying more in taxes each year compared with the assessed value of your home. This also can help seniors keep their homes.

In massachusetts, the big city near where we lived passed a law that capped what seniors would have to pay in property taxes at $2800 a year.....ours were near $3600 a year when we lived there.

New York needs to do something for these seniors that is more than allowing them to work off $500 of this lady's $12000 a year that she is having to pay. That is utterly ridiculous imo.

As I have said, property taxes are absolutely the worst kind of taxes that there are in the country.....

jd

[nevadamedic]

Property taxes are the absolute worst taxes there are in the USA, and should be abolished. I would rather see an income tax or even a sales tax before property taxes....precisely because of the reason in the story above....

And this town can do something other than making a 76 year old go to work for $7 bucks an hour.

As example, Maine has a safety net, where one's property tax can not be more than 4% of your annual income, if it is, then they credit you. There is a cap at $80 k for a couple's income to qualify, but it does cover everyone, not just seniors....of which Matt and I are greatful for and did qualify for a rebate on our property taxes which are $1800 dollars a year. Since I am retired and matt did not find a job until about half the year was over this year, it should come to about a thousand dollar rebate for them. YAHOO! This should prevent any senior on a limited income from going broke.

Florida also has some sort of safety net in their property tax structure also....I think that once you buy your home, your property taxes can not go up more than 2% or so a year, so if there is a huge boom in home prices, you won't be stuck paying more in taxes each year compared with the assessed value of your home. This also can help seniors keep their homes.

In massachusetts, the big city near where we lived passed a law that capped what seniors would have to pay in property taxes at $2800 a year.....ours were near $3600 a year when we lived there.

New York needs to do something for these seniors that is more than allowing them to work off $500 of this lady's $12000 a year that she is having to pay. That is utterly ridiculous imo.

As I have said, property taxes are absolutely the worst kind of taxes that there are in the country.....

jd

Wow, you might lose your Democratic Decoder Ring for talking bad about any tax or tax increase or wanting to do away with a tax all together.

[JohnDoe]

Wow, you might lose your Democratic Decoder Ring for talking bad about any tax or tax increase or wanting to do away with a tax all together.I'm a moderate, a Blue Dog Democrat, a fiscal conservative.....on all political tests it rates me in the middle...ever so slightly to the right the last time I took one, a centrist for the most part.

Basically a man (a woman) without a home..... :(

jd

[nevadamedic]

I'm a moderate, a Blue Dog Democrat, a fiscal conservative.....on all political tests it rates me in the middle...ever so slightly to the right the last time I took one, a centrist for the most part.

Basically a man (a woman) without a home..... :(

jd

Do you need a home? ;) Well at least the times when your a woman? :)

[red states rule]

Property taxes are the absolute worst taxes there are in the USA, and should be abolished. I would rather see an income tax or even a sales tax before property taxes....precisely because of the reason in the story above....

And this town can do something other than making a 76 year old go to work for $7 bucks an hour.

As example, Maine has a safety net, where one's property tax can not be more than 4% of your annual income, if it is, then they credit you. There is a cap at $80 k for a couple's income to qualify, but it does cover everyone, not just seniors....of which Matt and I are greatful for and did qualify for a rebate on our property taxes which are $1800 dollars a year. Since I am retired and matt did not find a job until about half the year was over this year, it should come to about a thousand dollar rebate for them. YAHOO! This should prevent any senior on a limited income from going broke.

Florida also has some sort of safety net in their property tax structure also....I think that once you buy your home, your property taxes can not go up more than 2% or so a year, so if there is a huge boom in home prices, you won't be stuck paying more in taxes each year compared with the assessed value of your home. This also can help seniors keep their homes.

In massachusetts, the big city near where we lived passed a law that capped what seniors would have to pay in property taxes at $2800 a year.....ours were near $3600 a year when we lived there.

New York needs to do something for these seniors that is more than allowing them to work off $500 of this lady's $12000 a year that she is having to pay. That is utterly ridiculous imo.

As I have said, property taxes are absolutely the worst kind of taxes that there are in the country.....

jd

So when you have to pay the tax - it is unfair? JD, you are paying your fair share when you pay taxes - that is the classic line from libs

Or is it, you only want other people to pay higher taxes - and not ypu?

[JohnDoe]

So when you have to pay the tax - it is unfair? JD, you are paying your fair share when you pay taxes - that is the classic line from libs

Or is it, you only want other people to pay higher taxes - and not ypu?
I want to stop paying the 10 billion a month in Iraq, then all of us can have a tax cut or we can start paying off the national debt that these drunken sailors spent the 6 years in absolute full control of the purse strings.

And I do NOT believe that people that are making ends meet should have to pay more in taxes than they do already....that's the middle class. I do believe that people like the Clinton's, the Gates, the Buffets, the Heinz Kerrys, the Hiltons should NOT GET further tax cuts so that they end up paying less as a percentage of their income than YOU have to pay as a percentage of your income in taxes.... it is immoral....imho.

Do you think that this woman in the article should have to pay more in property tax than she has to pay now, the $12k a year? Do you want to see people that have worked all their lives and paid off their mortgages lose their homes so that you can give the wealthiest in our country even MORE in tax cuts than what they have gotten in tax cuts under Bush? I don't.

jd

[red states rule]

I want to stop paying the 10 billion a month in Iraq, then all of us can have a tax cut or we can start paying off the national debt that these drunken sailors spent the 6 years in absolute full control of the purse strings.

And I do NOT believe that people that are making ends meet should have to pay more in taxes than they do already....that's the middle class. I do believe that people like the Clinton's, the Gates, the Buffets, the Heinz Kerrys, the Hiltons should NOT GET further tax cuts so that they end up paying less as a percentage of their income than YOU have to pay as a percentage of your income in taxes.... it is immoral....imho.

Do you think that this woman in the article should have to pay more in property than she has to pay now, the $12k a year? Do you want to see people that have worked all their lives and paid off their mortgages lose their homes so that you can give the wealthiest in our country even MORE in tax cuts than what they have gotten in tax cuts under Bush? I don't.

jd

JD -the money we are spending in Iraq is keeping us safe - no more attacks on US soil since 9-11. If we are hit again it will cost alot more. 9-11 was a $1 trilion hit in our economy

JD, the people you talk about already pay the majority of taxes. The top 1% pay 36% of Federal income taxes while earning 18% of the money. When you add on state and local taxes, SS taxes and property taxes - they can easily pay more the 50% of their income in taxes. But that does not seem to be enough for you

Since they pay the most in taxes, when tax cuts are passed who the hell do think gets the tax cut?

[actsnoblemartin]

excellent excellent excelent, its high way robbery


Property taxes are the absolute worst taxes there are in the USA, and should be abolished. I would rather see an income tax or even a sales tax before property taxes....precisely because of the reason in the story above....

And this town can do something other than making a 76 year old go to work for $7 bucks an hour.

As example, Maine has a safety net, where one's property tax can not be more than 4% of your annual income, if it is, then they credit you. There is a cap at $80 k for a couple's income to qualify, but it does cover everyone, not just seniors....of which Matt and I are greatful for and did qualify for a rebate on our property taxes which are $1800 dollars a year. Since I am retired and matt did not find a job until about half the year was over this year, it should come to about a thousand dollar rebate for them. YAHOO! This should prevent any senior on a limited income from going broke.

Florida also has some sort of safety net in their property tax structure also....I think that once you buy your home, your property taxes can not go up more than 2% or so a year, so if there is a huge boom in home prices, you won't be stuck paying more in taxes each year compared with the assessed value of your home. This also can help seniors keep their homes.

In massachusetts, the big city near where we lived passed a law that capped what seniors would have to pay in property taxes at $2800 a year.....ours were near $3600 a year when we lived there.

New York needs to do something for these seniors that is more than allowing them to work off $500 of this lady's $12000 a year that she is having to pay. That is utterly ridiculous imo.

As I have said, property taxes are absolutely the worst kind of taxes that there are in the country.....

jd

[red states rule]

excellent excellent excelent, its high way robbery

and she is happy as long as she is not one of the people who have to fork over the money

[PostmodernProphet]

someone needs to point out to this guy that he is an f....ing idiot......typical liberal.....make a lot of noise about wanting to help, then come up with a proposal that accomplishes absolutely nothing to solve the problem......



Feiner is suggesting creating about 25 slots for seniors and letting them work off $500 or so a year




[quote]Davison, who suffers from arthritis and sciatica and needs a walker to get around on her bad days, said she pays about $12,000 a year in property taxes

[red states rule]

[QUOTE=PostmodernProphet;175503]someone needs to point out to this guy that he is an f....ing idiot......typical liberal.....make a lot of noise about wanting to help, then come up with a proposal that accomplishes absolutely nothing to solve the problem......






When do libs ever solve a problem? They would rather have an issue then a solution

The last thing libs want is for the poor to stop being poor

[actsnoblemartin]

well said and very true


[QUOTE=PostmodernProphet;175503]someone needs to point out to this guy that he is an f....ing idiot......typical liberal.....make a lot of noise about wanting to help, then come up with a proposal that accomplishes absolutely nothing to solve the problem......






When do libs ever solve a problem? They would rather have an issue then a solution

The last thing libs want is for the poor to stop being poor

[red states rule]

[QUOTE=actsnoblemartin;175509]well said and very true



Libs love to spend OPM - other peoples money

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I contend that the old women used to earn a high rate of money.
2. But,.........
3. She got old.
4. Anyone who pays out 1 k a month in property taxes, was a high income earner.
5. Now after they earned the money to buy that high end house, now they have to pay through the nose to keep it.
6. Society itself says, she doesn't deserve to have that house, so the taxes will bleed her of it.
7. She will die penniless, like every street bum.
8. That is indeed a sad fact of life, being a rich American or a poor bum American.
9. There is no safety net for the old.
10. An old widow in a castle of a house, or old bum living in a dumpster reality.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Dilloduck]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I contend that the old women used to earn a high rate of money.
2. But,.........
3. She got old.
4. Anyone who pays out 1 k a month in property taxes, was a high income earner.
5. Now after they earned the money to buy that high end house, now they have to pay through the nose to keep it.
6. Society itself says, she doesn't deserve to have that house, so the taxes will bleed her of it.
7. She will die penniless, like every street bum.
8. That is indeed a sad fact of life, being a rich American or a poor bum American.
9. There is no safety net for the old.
10. An old widow in a castle of a house, or old bum living in a dumpster reality.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

There are no safety nets---period.

[JohnDoe]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I contend that the old women used to earn a high rate of money.
2. But,.........
3. She got old.
4. Anyone who pays out 1 k a month in property taxes, was a high income earner.
5. Now after they earned the money to buy that high end house, now they have to pay through the nose to keep it.
6. Society itself says, she doesn't deserve to have that house, so the taxes will bleed her of it.
7. She will die penniless, like every street bum.
8. That is indeed a sad fact of life, being a rich American or a poor bum American.
9. There is no safety net for the old.
10. An old widow in a castle of a house, or old bum living in a dumpster reality.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Your are simply wrong.....to assume such CWN....and here is why....using my husband and me as an example....we bought a home 7 years ago for a modest amount of money in the Northeast....it was $160k at the time when the average home in massachusetts was $275k....so we were not considered rich by any means and bought well below the average cost of a home.

our taxes on the home were $1700 a year when we first bought the home. We had virtually no savings at that time to put down on the home without taking away our safety net savings, and since my hubby was a veteran, we took out a VA loan with no money down.

By the time we sold the home last year, just 7 years or so after we bought it, our property taxes had risen to about $3600 plus a year because of the real estate boom that occurred which made the town assess our home at more than double what we had paid for it.

I can guarantee you, that this is what had happened to the 76 year old woman.... her and her hubby may have only paid $100k for their home 30 plus years agao but now it is valued at a million bucks cuz of the rise in real estate prices over the 30 years of ownership. And just because her house is valued at a million bucks doesn't mean she paid the million for it, she paid the $100 grand, which is what she and the hubby could only afford.

This is what is driving the old folks out of their homes that they have paid off their mortgages in full.

so basically they are rich on paper (house rich)....now the home is worth a million, but what good is that to the woman that paid $100k for it if she wants to stay living in her own home that she has had for decades? This woman had already taken a reverse mortgage out on it to pay the $12k a year in taxes on the newly assessed higher value....

Property taxes are horrible for the elderly and were horrible to even Matt and me when they doubled in just 7 years but it was the same house I had bought just 7 years earlier....

We happened to make out good, because we sold our home right before the real estate market hit the wall....but if we wanted to stay there, the rising property taxes could have pushed us out of that modest home.

jd

[mrg666]

in this country old folk (pensioners) get tax rebate on what is known as council tax (previously rates ).
who said the wellfare state sucks
however they still have to pay the full tv liscence up untill 70 when statiscly a large % will be dead
thats my rant

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,





Your are simply wrong.....to assume such CWN....and here is why....using my husband and me as an example....we bought a home 7 years ago for a modest amount of money in the Northeast....it was $160k at the time when the average home in massachusetts was $275k....so we were not considered rich by any means and bought well below the average cost of a home.

our taxes on the home were $1700 a year when we first bought the home. We had virtually no savings at that time to put down on the home without taking away our safety net savings, and since my hubby was a veteran, we took out a VA loan with no money down.

By the time we sold the home last year, just 7 years or so after we bought it, our property taxes had risen to about $3600 plus a year because of the real estate boom that occurred which made the town assess our home at more than double what we had paid for it.

I can guarantee you, that this is what had happened to the 76 year old woman.... her and her hubby may have only paid $100k for their home 30 plus years agao but now it is valued at a million bucks cuz of the rise in real estate prices over the 30 years of ownership. And just because her house is valued at a million bucks doesn't mean she paid the million for it, she paid the $100 grand, which is what she and the hubby could only afford.

This is what is driving the old folks out of their homes that they have paid off their mortgages in full.

so basically they are rich on paper (house rich)....now the home is worth a million, but what good is that to the woman that paid $100k for it if she wants to stay living in her own home that she has had for decades? This woman had already taken a reverse mortgage out on it to pay the $12k a year in taxes on the newly assessed higher value....

Property taxes are horrible for the elderly and were horrible to even Matt and me when they doubled in just 7 years but it was the same house I had bought just 7 years earlier....

We happened to make out good, because we sold our home right before the real estate market hit the wall....but if we wanted to stay there, the rising property taxes could have pushed us out of that modest home.

jd


1. Oh contraire JohnDoe, I am far from being wrong, or all wrong, or simply wrong.
2. Back when she and her hubby bought that house, they still had to qualify for it, so they had to have a greater income.
2. (a) Those who qualified for the house you bought, qualified for far less, so they bought your house.
2. (b) Which you bought from them.
3. Its always like that, You could no more step back in time, with your present job skills and buy that house she is being ripped off of.
4. Unless you have the earning capability she had, or her husband had at that time.
5. So they planned their future in a big house, thats worth now a million or two, he died, and now she can't afford the taxes.
6. It pays not to be rich in America, because when you get to the ripe age, your toasted.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[JohnDoe]

Sorry bout that,







1. Oh contraire JohnDoe, I am far from being wrong, or all wrong, or simply wrong.
2. Back when she and her hubby bought that house, they still had to qualify for it, so they had to have a greater income.
2. (a) Those who qualified for the house you bought, qualified for far less, so they bought your house.
2. (b) Which you bought from them.
3. Its always like that, You could no more step back in time, with your present job skills and buy that house she is being ripped off of.
4. Unless you have the earning capability she had, or her husband had at that time.
5. So they planned their future in a big house, thats worth now a million or two, he died, and now she can't afford the taxes.
6. It pays not to be rich in America, because when you get to the ripe age, your toasted.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

The house mortgage is paid off that this woman lives in.... this USED TO BE THE KEY to retirement....that if one had their mortgage paid off by the time that they retired, then they should be able to survive old age on much less income....are you saying that this is not true CWN? You would think that one could survive on near nothing if they had no rent/mortgage to pay....

And for your information, my husband and I could never have qualified to buy our house at the price that it sold for just 7 years after we had bought it, with just one real estate boom later....NEVER!

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,





The house mortgage is paid off that this woman lives in.... this USED TO BE THE KEY to retirement....that if one had their mortgage paid off by the time that they retired, then they should be able to survive old age on much less income....are you saying that this is not true CWN? You would think that one could survive on near nothing if they had no rent/mortgage to pay....

And for your information, my husband and I could never have qualified to buy our house at the price that it sold for just 7 years after we had bought it, with just one real estate boom later....NEVER!




1. But thats the first consideration when you retire.
2. Not to have to pay rent or a mortgage.
3. But whats the point of bettering yourself, and buying that castle of a house?
4. If when you get old and half dead you can't afford the taxes?
5. So what is assured is this.
6. When you get old in America, your screwed.
7. Better to not get old here then.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[red states rule]

Your are simply wrong.....to assume such CWN....and here is why....using my husband and me as an example....we bought a home 7 years ago for a modest amount of money in the Northeast....it was $160k at the time when the average home in massachusetts was $275k....so we were not considered rich by any means and bought well below the average cost of a home.

our taxes on the home were $1700 a year when we first bought the home. We had virtually no savings at that time to put down on the home without taking away our safety net savings, and since my hubby was a veteran, we took out a VA loan with no money down.

By the time we sold the home last year, just 7 years or so after we bought it, our property taxes had risen to about $3600 plus a year because of the real estate boom that occurred which made the town assess our home at more than double what we had paid for it.

I can guarantee you, that this is what had happened to the 76 year old woman.... her and her hubby may have only paid $100k for their home 30 plus years agao but now it is valued at a million bucks cuz of the rise in real estate prices over the 30 years of ownership. And just because her house is valued at a million bucks doesn't mean she paid the million for it, she paid the $100 grand, which is what she and the hubby could only afford.

This is what is driving the old folks out of their homes that they have paid off their mortgages in full.

so basically they are rich on paper (house rich)....now the home is worth a million, but what good is that to the woman that paid $100k for it if she wants to stay living in her own home that she has had for decades? This woman had already taken a reverse mortgage out on it to pay the $12k a year in taxes on the newly assessed higher value....

Property taxes are horrible for the elderly and were horrible to even Matt and me when they doubled in just 7 years but it was the same house I had bought just 7 years earlier....

We happened to make out good, because we sold our home right before the real estate market hit the wall....but if we wanted to stay there, the rising property taxes could have pushed us out of that modest home.

jd

JD - again, you see to have a problem when YOU jave to pay the taxes. Dems want to raise taxes on you, retired folks, and anyone who make an income. Redi, Pelosi, and Rangel have a tax increase ready to nal us this that wil tax us until our eyeballs pop

This is what you wanted JD - so enjoy paying your fair share

[actsnoblemartin]

but, working is not bad, if seniors work part time.

aside from dems getting more money, whats the down side?


JD - again, you see to have a problem when YOU jave to pay the taxes. Dems want to raise taxes on you, retired folks, and anyone who make an income. Redi, Pelosi, and Rangel have a tax increase ready to nal us this that wil tax us until our eyeballs pop

This is what you wanted JD - so enjoy paying your fair share

[red states rule]

but, working is not bad, if seniors work part time.

aside from dems getting more money, whats the down side?

If the senior is on SS, there is a cap on how much they can earn. If they go over the cap - they start to lose SS money

and it is the money they paid into the system Martin!

Libs will find a way to screw you everytime

[actsnoblemartin]

your preaching to the quire, libs always wanna keep you poor.


If the senior is on SS, there is a cap on how much they can earn. If they go over the cap - they start to lose SS money

and it is the money they paid into the system Martin!

Libs will find a way to screw you everytime

[red states rule]

your preaching to the quire, libs always wanna keep you poor.

Bingo!

The last thing liberals want to do is actually solve an issue - they would rather make it a campaign issue

[JohnDoe]

JD - again, you see to have a problem when YOU jave to pay the taxes. Dems want to raise taxes on you, retired folks, and anyone who make an income. Redi, Pelosi, and Rangel have a tax increase ready to nal us this that wil tax us until our eyeballs pop

This is what you wanted JD - so enjoy paying your fair share

Good morning rsr!

And YOU my friend ONLY seem to have a problem with the very wealthiest having to pay taxes and no concern at all for the middle class that has to pay taxes, WHY IS THAT?

Why do you NEVER, EVER come to the defense of the middle class and the tax burden they have and are struggling with, and only come to the defense of the wealthiest? Did the wealthiest personally ask you to defend and fight for them? Do they need your help for some reason?

I simply do not understand where you are coming from regarding this....???

Do you want the wealthiest to get more of a tax break so that the middle class can pay MORE in taxes than they are now?

I can understand fighting for a tax cut if we had not overspent our budgets and had some money left over, but to give one group like the wealthiest further tax breaks only puts MORE of the tax burden on to those that are left, the middle class....is THIS what you want?

What is it that you want rsr?

jd

[red states rule]

Good morning rsr!

And YOU my friend ONLY seem to have a problem with the very wealthiest having to pay taxes and no concern at all for the middle class that has to pay taxes, WHY IS THAT?

Why do you NEVER, EVER come to the defense of the middle class and the tax burden they have and are struggling with, and only come to the defense of the wealthiest? Did the wealthiest personally ask you to defend and fight for them? Do they need your help for some reason?

I simply do not understand where you are coming from regarding this....???

Do you want the wealthiest to get more of a tax break so that the middle class can pay MORE in taxes than they are now?

I can understand fighting for a tax cut if we had not overspent our budgets and had some money left over, but to give one group like the wealthiest further tax breaks only puts MORE of the tax burden on to those that are left, the middle class....is THIS what you want?

What is it that you want rsr?

jd

JD -the wealthy are paying the majority of taxes already. You seem to want to skip that part of the debate. All in all, it is not uncommon for them to fork over more then half of their income in taxes

Again, if your Dems would cut out the pork we would be damn close to a balanced budget

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But paying property taxes isn't a real problem for most average low wage earners in Texas.
2. I am sure that the rich old people take hits, and I know for instance that a 500,000 dollar house demands 10k a year in taxes or more.
3. We also have *Homestead* exemptions, where we get a little tax break off the house we live in.
4. Also they have the, *Over 65* exemption here, which reduces your taxes substantially.
5. My mother is 80 now, and she pays *ZERO* taxes on her home.
6. Its an average home, worth about 50k, 2 bedroom one bath, living, dining, kitchen, double garage *detached, 0.28 acres.
7. If you aspire to have a castle type home in America, be prepared to lose it when you get old, thats the lesson here.
8. Especially if you were barren, with no one to pass it on to.
9. The right to own property is dying in America, its sad, but very very true.
10. Americans are not being properly represented, and our rights have been sold down the river.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[JohnDoe]

JD -the wealthy are paying the majority of taxes already. You seem to want to skip that part of the debate. All in all, it is not uncommon for them to fork over more then half of their income in taxes

Again, if your Dems would cut out the pork we would be damn close to a balanced budget

I know the wealthy are paying the most in income taxes rsr....our graduated income tax structure was created to do such early on in our history for a reason....those that were not wealthy do not have the disposable money to pay as much as the wealthiest....and our country did not believe at the time income taxes were created, that it was healthy for our country to strip the middle class out of society completely and only have the rich and the poor as it was in Europe. We as a country believed in the middle class, which is what has made us a great country.

Now granted our Congress has abused this situation with all the over spending they have done and all of the things that they have added and gotten in to that the federal government is now paying for like "Bridges to nowhere" in alaska and I am not saying that these things are okay to do and would like to see them cut this crap out.

But by no means will cutting true pork out of the budget, will our deficit come in to line...not with a war that is costing us 10 BILLION a month and not with spending 33.8 billion a month just for the interest payment on our national debt.


You make mention that the wealthy may fork over 50% of their wealth in taxes. Do you think that the middle class does not fork over 50% of all that they make in taxes? I can assure you that much of the middle class does fork over 50% of what they make too, when you add in what they pay in all taxes like social security taxes, medicare taxes, property taxes, income taxes, state income taxes, state sales taxes, etc....

So let me get back to my question to you:

Do you want the middle class to pay more of their income in taxes so that you can give further tax breaks to the wealthiest? A simple yes or no will do.

jd

[Hagbard Celine]

Morons all. More of our tax money goes toward the military than any other part of the economy. We pay staggeringly more tax money into our military than any other country on Earth. Staggeringly more. I'm talking like 70 percent more. Billions more. And for some reason we've--or rather you guys--have decided that the best thing for our national defense was to invade a country that had nothing to do with 911 and gut it's infrastructure so that it would be easier for terrorist organizations to operate and multiply. :dunno: Okay. I guess that makes sense in bizarro world. Yet you guys have the nerve to complain about social programs. What a joke. Rush has got you guys brainwashed so badly you'll probably never recover.
I agree that these old people shouldn't have to pay property taxes if they don't want to. After all, property taxes go towards the public schools and if you don't have kids in them, you shouldn't have to pay for them.
The answer to our debt woes isn't to take away social programs and plunge the already poverty-stricken masses further into poverty. It's to cut-out our foreign empire. Shutdown the bases we have in Germany, Japan, elsewhere, cut military spending and ramp-up our security here at home. It would also do us good to stop propping-up oil companies, airlines and other bankrupt corporate entities. Let them die if they can't compete naturally in the free market.

[MtnBiker]

Morons all. More of our tax money goes toward the military than any other part of the economy.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/categoryPie07.gif

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/categoryUpDown07.gif

Link (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/categoryPie07.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/category.html&h=336&w=386&sz=16&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=_m6p7F207LTngM:&tbnh=107&tbnw=123&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwashington%2Bpost%2B2007%2Bbudget%26g bv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN)

[Hagbard Celine]

http://img.search.com/thumb/c/ca/WorldMilitarySpending.jpg/350px-WorldMilitarySpending.jpg

:dunno:

What you failed to mention is that the graphs you posted represent "spending by functional category" and "percent changes in spending," respectively. Oh, and you conveniently forgot to post this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/categoryDifference07.gif

Social security is the biggest culprit according to this graph someone made on MS Paint. If only we could cut-off that $500 a month stipend that those parasitic senior citizens are sucking out of the economy every month! If they're going to die they'd better do it and decrease the surplus population!

[JohnDoe]

How convenient that SS spending is included in this but you never see any graphs on how much taxes we pay in SS broken down by tax bracket or the poor, the middle, the wealthy....those on the right only include the income tax as taxes paid and never include total taxes paid which shows the regressivness of the SS taxes, on to those that make under the 90k.... sad :( If SS is a separate tax, SS spending should NOT be included in the expenses that our income taxes are suppose to pay imho.

And also the interest on the debt calculated in the chart only shows the interest we are paying on the money we have borrowed from foreigners etc and NOT the interest we are paying for the SS surplus monies we have borrowed and used to pay for what income taxes were suppose to pay....which NOW puts our total interest on the national debt only second to our national defense.... :(

[MtnBiker]

What you failed to mention is that the graphs you posted represent "spending by functional category" and "percent changes in spending," respectively. Oh, and you conveniently forgot to post this one:

I was responding to your claim that we spend more on military than anyother segement, you are simply wrong in that respect. I made no comment toward the social security spending.

[JohnDoe]

social security and medicare should not be part of the graph imho because they are not paid for out of our income taxes collected, they are paid for out of seperated ss tax and medicare tax....that's all i am saying.

so, out of our income taxes, defense is by far our biggest expense, (which it probably should be), and whatever the heck...''income security'' is our second largest.

what is income security by the way????

and i also contend the our second largest bill out of our income taxes is not ''income security'' and is our interest payment on our total debt, because these charts do not include the interest payment we make on the SS surplus funds that were borrowed/used to pay for things that only income taxes should have paid.

jd

p.s. mtn, this is not directed at you personally.....just my analysis of it all! :)

[MtnBiker]

It is just a graph of the 2007 Federal Budget, how monies are collected is one thing, how it is spent is another. The graph does show a 9% net intrest category.

My point was that military is not the largest category.

[JohnDoe]

It is just a graph of the 2007 Federal Budget, how monies are collected is one thing, how it is spent is another. The graph does show a 9% net intrest category.

My point was that military is not the largest category. but ONLY because SS is put in there mtn, and not kept separate, as it should be imo. because it is a separate tax that is collected from us for that entitlement....is what i am saying. And if it is kept separate, as the tax for it is kept separate from income taxes, then our defense budget IS the largest expense we have out of our income taxes.

[JohnDoe]

and what is income security? do ya know?

[red states rule]

but ONLY because SS is put in there mtn, and not kept separate, as it should be imo. because it is a separate tax that is collected from us for that entitlement....is what i am saying. And if it is kept separate, as the tax for it is kept separate from income taxes, then our defense budget IS the largest expense we have out of our income taxes.

SS is the biggest ripoff in the history of man. Why should I have to finance someone elses retirement? Why should someone else have to finance mine?

If you live long enough to collect JD - you might get a 2% return on your money

BTW, it was not Republicans who started using SS money for purposes other then what it was intended for

SS is now a welfare program since SS money is now paid to folks with "substance abuse issues"

[red states rule]

and what is income security? do ya know?

Why not try planning and funding your own retirement? You only have about 40 years to do so