Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (7) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: bon46 One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 19372  
Subject: q for pixy Date: 1/18/2000 7:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Is it not ironical that our beloved government has decided to tax our ss benefits, if certain criteria is met. SS in my mind is actual a tax placed on ordinary income that all receipents have work hard to obtain during their productive years. It just doesn't seem correct to tax SS benefits. Does any one know what person or persons are responsible for this taxation on SS. Not ready for retirement yet, but like to keep informed of the problems, suggestion about retiree's and their questions. Have a great day- Butch
Print the post Back To Top
Author: aped Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1634 of 19372
Subject: Re: q for pixy Date: 1/18/2000 8:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Any Democrat you happen upon !

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Chipsboss Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1636 of 19372
Subject: Re: q for pixy Date: 1/18/2000 11:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The people responsible for the most recent increase in taxes on social security benefits are President Clinton and the 103rd Congress, first session 1993. This tax increase was placed solely on a small, unpopular minority -- those who had done a really good job of providing themselves with private retirement assets. Evidently a highly successful example of class warfare that subsequent congresses somehow cannot repeal.

http://zeus.townhall.com/taxcom/ent3.html Since 1983, individuals and married taxpayers above certain incomes have had to pay tax on up to 50% of their social security retirement and disability benefits (corresponding to the half of the payroll tax contributions that had been deducted by employers). In the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA93), that percentage was increased to as much as 85% for upper middle income taxpayers. (note: This happened under Clinton and the 103d Congress.)

http://www.unitedseniors.org/99policy/99agenda.html Social Security Benefits Tax ; USA supports eliminating all taxes on Social Security benefits. As a first step, Congress should repeal the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits, which primarily hits middle class retirees, and is unfair, counterproductive, and unnecessary. In addition, Congress should index the income thresholds for inflation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r103query.html search on word or phrase for “taxes on Social Security benefits” leads to these 1993 comments by Mr. Bacchus of Florida:

“The fact is, if you don't pay taxes on your Social Security benefits now, you will not pay taxes on your benefits once the President's plan is enacted. At present, 80 percent of Social Security beneficiaries do not pay income taxes on their benefits . They won't under the President's plan. For example, seniors earning less than $25,000 currently pay no taxes on their Social Security benefits ; under the President's proposal, they still will not pay taxes on those benefits .

“The fact is, the additional tax on Social Security benefits proposed by the Senate--and since endorsed by me with my vote and by the overwhelming majority of the House--applies to only 13 percent of Social Security recipients. These 13 percent are the most affluent by far, with an average net worth of at least $1 million. Taxing them is fair. Clearly, these are not impoverished seniors surviving on meager fixed incomes.”


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bon46 One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1637 of 19372
Subject: Re: q for pixy Date: 1/19/2000 7:11 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I think that the concept of not taxing ss bennies under $25,000. is obsured. I live in Nassau County, in the state of NY. My realestate taxes are over $5300.
If I were retired and on ss at the $25000 level over
21% of my income would go for realestate taxes. In contrast to NY ,I have family in Illinois that pays $260.00 per year for realestate taxes. President Clinton must think that everone resides in Ark. and that $25000 is a good income.WAKE UP CONGRESS.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFPixy Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1641 of 19372
Subject: Re: q for pixy Date: 1/19/2000 9:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Greetings, Butch, and welcome. You wrote:

<<Is it not ironical that our beloved government has decided to tax our ss benefits, if certain criteria is met. SS in my mind is actual a tax placed on ordinary income that all receipents have work hard to obtain during their productive years. It just doesn't seem correct to tax SS benefits. Does any one know what person or persons are responsible for this taxation on SS. Not ready for retirement yet, but like to keep informed of the problems, suggestion about retiree's and their questions. >>

The Congress giveth and the Congress taketh away, often at the same time. The "...persons ... responsible for [the] taxation [of] SS ..." are our duly elected representatives. Both sides of the argument on that issue have valid points to make. Regardless, it is the law of the land, and the only way to change that law for the better or worse is through Congress.

Regards..Pixy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dgthepiper Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1643 of 19372
Subject: Re: q for pixy Date: 1/19/2000 10:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Chipsboss wrote:
Taxing them is fair.


Sounds like something Robin Hood would say!


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Chipsboss Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1653 of 19372
Subject: Re: q for pixy Date: 1/19/2000 6:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
dgthepiper:

You are right that it sounds like Robin Hood; but I didn't say it, I only quoted it. Please don't confuse me with my sources. I quoted people on both sides of the issue. Your excerpt is from 1993 comments by Mr. Bacchus of Florida.

Chips, not at all like Robin Hood, can't handle bow and arrows, and doesn't look good in tights either



Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (7) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement