Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
This is for those who might be interested: snippet on the news tonight that Congress is considering reducing the income taxes on Social Security benefits of individuals earning over $34K. A little research shows that House Ways and Means Committee will consider tomorrow, 7/19/00, HR_____, the "Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
The House Ways and Means Committee will consider a bill to repeal a 1993 tax increase in which income tax was imposed on 85 percent - up from 50 percent - of Social Security benefits of recipients earning over $34,000 for individuals, $44,000 for married couples. That bill would cost an estimated $44.6 billion over five years. according to MSNBC.

This makes it clear that the proposed new law doesn't create a new tax break. Instead, it repeals a fairly recent tax increase on Social Security benefits. The government has long told us that it never intended Social Security to be a complete retirement package and that we should look into providing ourselves with corporate or union pensions and private investments, including IRA's and 401k's. (I took that advice and am watching to see if my prudence now costs me my social security benefit, since I don't need it.) The proposed tax reduction on social security benefits would increase my after-income-tax standard of living by about 2%, so it's not significant to me personally one way or the other. Still, I'd like to see that tax repeal become law.

Clinton complains that the Republican tax cuts are broad, not "targeted". I think his beef about broad tax cuts is they that go mostly to those who are already burdened paying the highest income taxes and tend to vote Republican. Clinton also calls the proposed tax cuts "reckless". Evidently this is because he believes that our wise masters in Washington are far better qualified to dispose of our money than we are ourselves. Clinton and his kind oppose any tax reform that rewards productivity rather than neediness.

the grizzled Chips
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<Clinton complains that the Republican tax cuts are broad, not "targeted". I think his beef about broad tax cuts is they that go mostly to those who are already burdened paying the highest income taxes and tend to vote Republican. Clinton also calls the proposed tax cuts "reckless". >


Chips:

Our dear president is standing on "principle". He will not budge on his opposition to giving the money back to the people who paid it....unless they agree to his medicare "reform" plans which will require more tax dollars from "somewhere". What a leader!


BRG (glad that there is a two term limit; I wish that applied to ALL members of congress too)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is for those who might be interested: snippet on the news tonight that Congress is considering reducing the income taxes on Social Security benefits of individuals earning over $34K.

I think you're going to see a lot of these bills between now and when the Fools on the Hill, a/k/a Congress, goes home to get re-elected. It's an election year, and a particularly nasty one, so both sides are trolling for votes with bills that they know have no chance of being enacted. Don't get too excited about these things as they come up; the chance that there will actually be any change this year is slim, IMFFHO.

TMF ExRO
Phil Marti
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Chipsboss wrote:

Clinton complains that the Republican tax cuts are broad, not "targeted". I think his beef about broad tax cuts is they that go mostly to those who are already burdened paying the highest income taxes and tend to vote Republican. Clinton also calls the proposed tax cuts "reckless". Evidently this is because he believes that our wise masters in Washington are far better qualified to dispose of our money than we are ourselves. Clinton and his kind oppose any tax reform that rewards productivity rather than neediness.

Well said chipsboss. I'm not that fond of a some of the Republican legistlation, but you got it right about Clinton and his kind. Chips you have a perceptive boss.

Regards,
fingfool

Print the post Back To Top