(Note: this informative letter was sent in by one of our readers, Ellen Rogers, a retired CPA)
Senior citizens are likely to be the real “cash cow” for an Obama administration.
Having analyzed as best I could from information provided, it appears to me
Obama’s revenue plan is actually designed to “soak the senior citizen” (not
corporations as Obama has stated).
It is a well-known fact (and this is also stated in AARP Magazine,
September/October edition, page 51) that people over age 55 own 77% of all
financial assets in America. By the year 2011, America’s over-50 years old
population will surpass the 100 million mark.
I believe we senior citizens are Obama’s “cash cow” because Obama proposes:
1) a 28% tax on the entire gain on the sale of all personal residences
(most seniors eventually downsize).
2) an increase in dividend taxes (most people receiving dividends are
senior citizens);
3) increasing capital gain tax to 39.6% (capital gain tax for 2008 and 2009
will be zero or very low, depending upon total income of the taxpayer);
4) a tax on anyone owning a home containing more than 2,400 square feet
(most such homes are owned by senior citizens);
5) re-instating the estate tax (final reduction in what our heirs could
receive from us).
Obama’s stated corporate tax increase won’t work because America
already has the second highest tax rate in the world and corporations have
defenses not available to individuals. Corporate options for
overcoming increased taxes include:
a) laying off employees (a certainty);
b) raising prices (another certainty); and/or
c) leaving America (many corporations already contemplate such a move if
Obama is elected).
Why would anyone, especially senior citizens, vote for Obama who has openly
and unashamedly expressed his intention to redistribute their wealth?
Younger people who vote for Obama will ignorantly and unknowingly vote for
the man who plans to drastically reduce what they might otherwise inherit
from seniors.
Obama knows he can’t obtain sufficient revenue from corporations to
cover his spending proposals. He’s planning on draining wealth from
senior citizens. Wise seniors and young people will vote for John McCain
who has pledged “NO NEW TAXES,” and who believes we should pass assets to
our own chosen heirs.
Ellen Platt Rogers, CPA (retired)
Coeur d’Alene, ID
Ellen, I truly wish this information could be carried in the Florida newspapers. I’ve heard the senior citizens there are wrongly being told that McCain will cut their benefits.
Comment by mary — November 2, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
The problem is never taxes, it’s spending. So I cheerfully ignore what any candidate will say on the taxes front as it’s all B.S. Both McCain and Obama have paid lip service to cutting spending and “programs that don’t work.” But, honestly, there are few if any Federal programs that truly “work.” I don’t see either hopeful addressing the kind of serious cuts necessary to help boost the economy, cuts that look toward private sector institutions over federal control.
I believe in the American people. I believe the people have the solutions and government can only get in the way. Of the two, only McCain seems to be willing to push government away, but I have my doubts.
My favorite Obama quote:
Comment by Dan — November 2, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
This is pretty straightforward, seniors have most of the money. Why? Life experience teaches that debt and instant gratification are costly errors. Over time the obverse creates real wealth. Key words – “over time”. We get older, some of us learn these lessons and get wealthier. We become targets for the “Rob Peter to pay Paul” scum in Congress and the White House.
Obama knows no amount of taxation will do, he is an open Marxist. Confiscation comes soon. Listen to his comments regards trhe coal industry now linked on Drudge.
The good news – he loses Tuesday. The better news, we wake up as a nation and start getting active, really active and at all levels of government.
Ellen thanks for your thoughts, well done.
Comment by Pariah — November 2, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
Mary,
Please thank Ellen Rogers for her thoughtful letter.
Even more important than drastically reducing an inheritance, the Obama spread-the-wealth-around plan stifles incentive to save and invest early in life. Why would anyone, particularly someone starting out in a life of earning, have any incentive to excel for greater profit if s/he knows the government is simply going to arbitrarily take a large chunk away? It makes a mockery of long-term financial planning, planning that should be encouraged rather than discouraged long before a person reaches peak earning years.
Comment by Bill — November 2, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Sadly, nay tragically, Obama will probably prevail on Tuesday. I have already voted and that is the best I can do. People today tend to believe the sound bite rather than look for the truth. And the Republican party really “blew it” with McCain as the nominee. and then he discarded whatever chance he had by picking Palin as VP. First, that was simply patronizing to women. Second, he is 72 years old with a history of cancer. (Point of information, so am I…but I’m not running for president) The VP pick was vastly more important in this case than in past elections. The most common comment about Palin wasn’t about her being a woman, but about her inexperience vis a vis Mc Cains age. Now, Obama has virtually no experience either. But somehow that isn’t truly resonating with the voters. I personally gave this great thought and decided that no matter how much he smiles or how nice his suits are, I don’t believe Obama. The Rev. Wright thing was blatant. Please, this man attended that church for 20 years and never heard this?? Deaf is he? And frankly, his wife is worse. As a nation, we are facing tough times and Obamas promised change isn’t going to be pleasant. But it seems, too many want something for nothing, which has always been the Democratic mantra. Voters like the govt. they support, are always reactive instead of pro-active. Think times are bad now….hang in there, you haven’t seen anything yet.
And, I would remind the Bush bashers (and I’m not thrilled with him) that the sub prime fiasco was instigated and encouraged during the Clinton administration. Something Hillary with all of her “experience” failed to mention.
As the saying goes…hang on tight, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Comment by Diogenes — November 2, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
Palin is the reason McCain will win. It energized the conservatives who had little reason for enery and it gave the PUMA types a real reason to vote. And McCain will win. America simply isn’t ever going to go for the hard, hard left.
Comment by Pariah — November 2, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Diogenes, I agree with you on Obama, when you said “Now, Obama has virtually no experience either. But somehow that isn’t truly resonating with the voters.” The only way this could happen is with the major media outlets in his/someone’s pocket. Actually, I believe Obama is in someone’s pocket.
John McCain will win on Tuesday and Gov. Palin was an impressive choice for VP. She is far more accomplished in her fairly short political career than Obama in his equally short time. She is smart, straightforward, courageous and conservative. All reasons the far left is terrified of her and wants to kill her political future. But their personal attacks are growing shrill and regular folks are seeing her character and ability shining through.
Gov. Palin’s run for VP has proven one thing beyond the shadow of a doubt: Sexism is alive and well in the U.S.of A.
Comment by mary — November 2, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
Mary, I sincerely hope you are correct and I will welcome you telling me that “I told you so”. But I fear this election will bring about a great tragedy with the result. I don’t doubt that sexism is alive and well….I am after all, a female who lived through much of the worst of negative womens rights. That being said, I do not believe in picking simply for gender. When women fought for equality, our mantra was choose the most qualified based on qualifications not gender. I believe affirmative action is insulting. Choosing qualification means choosing a male if he is the best. We wanted an even playing field. It is much better now, but far from even. So, I repeat, at this very serious juncture in our history, McCains VP pick was crucial. Never mind sexism, affirmative action or any other of the descriptions. You play to your strength and McCains situation dictated that a strong moderate middle aged male would be the best choice. What is more important, gender or the fate of our country? Let me give an example. At this time, our biggest problem lies with the muslim world and the middle east. Need I remind you how they treat women. I can just see President Palin having a peace summit with Arab leaders. Right or wrong, they wouldn’t give her the time of day. And even if an Arab leader was so inclined, he would not have the backing of his people should he appear to “cave” to a woman. Check out Condi Rices record. A truly brilliant and capable woman. The Arab world ignores her. I repeat, I hope you are correct…I fear that I am.
Comment by Diogenes — November 2, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
Thanks, Diogenes, for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I agree with almost all of your views, but I don’t support Gov. Palin just because she is a woman. If I did, that would be sexist too. I like her because she was basically plucked from “real life” and hasn’t been jaded or bought by special interests or big money.
That being said, I also admire Sec. of State Rice and would have supported her as VP also, but she is too connected to the Bush admin. to be successful this time.
Comment by mary — November 2, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
Palin should be the reason McCain wins but she might be the reason he loses. She has what all politicians in Washington truly fear, integrity. As such she has not been well received by either side of the aisle. There are many R’s who would rather not have a “Palin” snooping around their DC haunts. Palin IS the reason the citizens should want McCain to prevail. They should insist on having someone with her character in a pivotal position in Washington. Her eyes would be our eyes, not those of a career politician.
Comment by Wallypog — November 3, 2008 @ 9:41 am