Not Joe the Plumber, but SAHM
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 10-16-2008 - 10:49am |
My Open Letter:
Dear Senator Obama,
I am a stay-at-home mom living in the over $250k tax bracket. I want to ask you why you feel my family is not doing it's part to share the wealth in this country. Our family does well but we also pay taxes at the highest marginal rate. We do not have millions or the kind of lifestyle that would get us access to tax loopholes. We only get deductions for home mortgage interests, state taxes paid and charitable contributions. Last year those three deductions were capped because the government limits the deductions at our income level. In the past we have been stuck in AMT which ensures we do not underpay our fair share of taxes.
Because of our family's income level, our children will not qualify for student loans or other aid. Therefore we must save entirely for their college. We save as much as we can. In recent weeks lost 30% of those savings as well as a decent amount of our retirement savings and the few mutual fund investments we have are under water. The only other asset we have is our family home. We only have one. It would be really tough to sell it in this market, we've lost a large chunk of our equity.
We have never received a stimulus check, yet we do our part to donate to charities we believe in, invest in the market and spend to keep the economy going. And we pay our taxes. There is no question that the opportunities in this great country have allowed us to achieve the American Dream. For that I am grateful.
Your proposals will take an additional 12% out of our annual family budget by increasing the marginal tax rate and increasing payroll taxes. We aren't struggling yet but we will be if your tax proposals pass. We will have to stop or severely limit college savings, with one child only 3.5 years from college and the savings down 30%. Last year we paid enough in Federal Taxes to supply 240 individuals with a Bush stimulus check, similar to the stimulus plan you propose if you are elected (I guess that continuation of the same Bush economic polices is good). I have no doubt that some of what we paid went to wasteful government projects and earmark spending that did not help any struggling families. You say $18 billion in earmarks is not a lot of money to you but 12% of my family budget is a lot to me and my children. I do not begrudge what we already give the government, but I will argue that we are doing our share. I argue we are patriotic and we are neighborly.
We are upper middle class, we are not like your friends, Oprah and Warren Buffet. Our priorities are saving for our retirement, our kids college and paying off our house. We can comfortably do those three things now, though we are worried about the economy like everyone else.
I am a registered Democrat and have always believed in social programs for those who need them. I still believe in them. But I do not understand why when you speak that it sounds as though my family is getting something over on this country. That we aren't doing our part. That we don't pay enough tax. That we don't do enough to lift others up. I say we are doing a lot by not asking anything from the government. I say it is the government that is letting the American people down, not us.
If this economy gets worse my husbands job will be at risk. We could lose our home along with the remainder of our savings. The only good news I see coming from the Democrats is that maybe then we can have the government contribute to our children's college education, we'll get a tax cut and might finally see one of those stimulus checks. Then you'd finally get your chance to lift my family up.
Pennsylvania Mom
http://openlettertobarack.blogspot.com/

Pages
Chrissy
mom to Aidan 8/21/03
Grayson Blaine 12/30/07
1. McCain's credit is part of his healthcare plan. Yes, it's giving back credits to everyone-- but it's specifically to buy health insurance. I think it's disingenuous to characterize McCain's healthcare credit as the same thing as all of Obama's credits. McCain's health plan is tax reform also, because, as I have already explained, he is closing a giant loophole in the compensation process.
2. Yes people pay social security and medicare taxes. BUT THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS INCOME TAX. You pay SS and Medicare so when you retire, you get those benefits. It's completely different from income tax.
3. Perhaps the WSJ article should have read "non-income tax payers" so that it would be absolutely crystal clear to people. When I read the article, I knew that's what the guy was talking about. But apparently people need more guidance.
4. When you increase taxes on the highest earning tax payers (who already pay the most tax by the way...I'm not sure why people are all of a sudden thinking that people who make more money don't pay any taxes) and then take the money and give it to people who have no INCOME TAX liability, you are just giving people free money. It's not like he's proposing to DECREASE tax liability for lower earners. He's proposing REFUNDABLE CREDITS, which as I explained in an earlier post, means people get checks even if they owe nothing.
5. Questions for you:
- When you determine who's rich, do you look at income only? Do you look at investment income vs. salary and wages? Do you consider property?
- What do you think is a fair rate to tax high income earners? And when do you think it should apply? 250K in wages for someone who has nothing else? Less? More?
- Why do you disagree with the WSJ article?
- When you determine who's rich, do you look at income only? Do you look at investment income vs. salary and wages? Do you consider property?
- What do you think is a fair rate to tax high income earners? And when do you think it should apply? 250K in wages for someone who has nothing else? Less? More?
- Why do you disagree with the WSJ article?>>
To be honest, I don't care to get into the whole tax debate b/c as I've stated before, it is not one of the issues that is affecting my vote. I only posted the information b/c 1- it has been stated by several posters that low-income earners do not pay taxes and 2- I don't think it's fair to call Obama's tax credits "welfare". I will not be debating the issue, I just wanted to put the information out there and people can choose to take from it what they wish.
Chrissy
mom to Aidan 8/21/03
Grayson Blaine 12/30/07
I read that already and responded to it. The tax benefit is not the only reason workers get benefits from their employers. It's also that its convenient, and that it helps business attract good employees. There are people who believe the current employer based system is not sustainable because it limits choice and not everyone has an employer to provide this. The ideas that workers who now get insurance through their employers suddenly won't have that is partisan speculation, not fact.
From McCain's site: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm
"Approach Supported By Obama’s Own Advisor: This is an approach supported by Barack Obama's own Senior Economic Advisor Jason Furman who wrote that "we could scrap the current deduction altogether and replace it with progressive tax credits that, together with other changes, would ensure that every American has affordable health insurance.""
"Even the liberal leaning Tax Policy Center, agrees that the McCain proposals will result in a "net tax benefit" of more than $1,200 for an average tax payer. A recent Lewin Group study estimated savings of more than $1,400 per American family – almost three times the savings as under the Obama plan."
And:
OBAMA FICTION
The McCain Health Plan Will Damage Employer Provided Insurance For Millions of Americans.
"THE FACTS
The McCain health plan builds on the employer-based system. Employers will have the same incentive to provide health insurance as they do today since they will continue to deduct the cost of health insurance they provide to employees.
" * Millions With Employer Coverage Will Do Better Under The McCain Plan: Millions of American families with employer sponsored coverage in all tax brackets with the same coverage as a "Members of Congress" will now come out ahead with additional funds going into a portable health savings account. Importantly, younger and healthier employees with the McCain health care tax credit will have a bigger incentive to stay with the employers. For example, a 25-year-old employee in the 25 percent tax bracket with a $2,500 tax credit could either purchase a policy in the individual market for the same amount or stay with his employer plan and receive a $5,000 policy with an additional $1,250 to invest in a portable health savings account. Why would people choose fewer benefits for more money?"
Here is the other side, Obama's plan could have a similar affect (this is also from McCain's site but since we are going with partisan spin:
"# Barack Obama's Plan Will Harm Employer Coverage
The Obama plan includes a $179 billion a year employer mandate. The mandate requires employers to either provide "meaningful" coverage or pay a tax towards the government plan. Faced with tough economic conditions and rising health costs this creates a clear incentive for employers to drop coverage and move families into the new government plan. A Lewin Group study which examined a similar employer mandate combined with a national plan, like the Obama plan, concluded that almost 52 million individuals would lose their private employer coverage. To maintain their competitive edge, others employers will follow - spelling the demise of the employer coverage system."
Pennsylvania Mom
http://openlettertobarack.blogspot.com/
Pennsylvania Mom
http://openlettertobarack.blogspot.com/
There's no need to debate income, etc.
Pages