On the Reader

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Snyder Picks & Chooses: Business wins, Retirees Lose

Highly unfair, not-so simple, highly inefficient corporate-style Snyder tax plan goes for the low hanging fruit.

Those communities that have cultured a highly attractive retirement setting, cultural events, great health care, transportation, high grade housing and custodial care/end of life care (were needed), supplied with supporting volunteers and places of worship: these places in Michigan (which surprisingly, in spite of harsh winters, attract numbers of former professionals and retirees many from other states) continue to flourish. Such Michigan retirement locations are at high risk under Rick Snyder's plan to tax public and private pension income. The state income exemption is a key reason sernors chose to stay in Michigan or come from other "pension taxing" locations. This vast source of personal resources, vital to Michigan's economy and healthcare facilities will be shipping out, others are busy cancelling plans to come to Michigan. All no thanks to Snyder's giant tax mistake.

Prudent seniors invest and, if they can, secure at a minimum, in these highly volatile times, a steady, predictable 5% return on their life savings and /or have a pension-based stipend based on decades of loyal and quality public service they must protect. They now face a battery of distinct cuts (cultural programs, libraries, etc.) and new tax increases. The harshest "hit"; Snyder's new pension tax of 4.25%.

Snyder's bifurcated remarks on Channel 7, Detroit Feb. 18th reflect his callous disregard for the prudence, planning ahead, and careful husbandry of personal resources by seniors. These are citizens who have no intention to be a burden to society in their maturity.

Rick Snyder calls them out, making them "losers" saying because they have these savings and have planned well, he has political provocation to see their promised exemption cut off. Those seniors who did not save, could have laid aside, but didn't; those who didn't render public service as a policeman, fireman, judge, or teacher; must pay Michigan income taxes while they must continue to work.

Snyder insists: Pensioners should have their exemption rescinded, to be fair to those without pensions. Snyder is pitting one group of seniors against another.

Snyder fanes to "feel the pain" of those seniors who are still working past normal retirement pay and continue to pay Michigan income taxes on the pittance they earn......that's nonsense. The pensioners are being put in a highly unfair position-Snyder chooses to make them LOSERS in his scheme.

Snyder's million dollar quote to Channel 7, 2/18/11, "I still DON'T WANT TO MINIMIZE" (my new $900 million tax on pensioners is a financial "hit") "It is a burden on people."

AARP calls it: "War on the elderly."

From the Snyder Interview:
Snyder: its typically Senior couple, if they have the average SS, average homestead (have) exemption, they would be making more than over $40K before they pay a dollar of MI income tax. Which again, I still DON'T WANT TO MINIMIZE ( "It is a burden on people.") but the other part we have to remember is, not all seniors have a pension. And if you look at the future trends, a lot fewer people are going to have pensions, and those people who are still working after they become a senior. They are paying income the Michigan tax today so you have a real equity question between the people who worked hard and are fortunate enough to have a pension....(and those who don't have one.)

Egalitarianism is not the "real" Snyder goal, except for as he argues for his pro-tax the pension plan: Tax "Haves" and acknowledge the "no-pension Have-Nots" are still working and paying taxes but do nothing to elevate that burden on them.

In Snyder's increase sales pitch he's off the Tea Party line of defense; "NO NEW TAXES"; leastwise he also upsets the Neo-Libertarian Detroit/MacCen News that despises the thought of "total equality."
How could this paper allow new taxes by whose are advocates coercing "losers"(pensioned seniors) to bear the budget burden, while allowing the less fortunate senior "winners" to go on working and paying and not provide a state income exemption for them move ahead with such a flawed plan?

With the bulk of the make-up to cover an over-generous business tax give-away placed on the seniors and public servants, where's the statewide "shared sacrifice" so touted by Snyder? The "fairness?


Original Post.

No comments:

Post a Comment