Posted on Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 2:07 p.m.
Retiree: Gov. Snyder's plan to tax pensions is reasonable
By Letters to the Editor
I am a 71-year-old retiree. Our income includes retirement benefits earned as a result 28 years of military service and 14 years as a public school teacher. As you know, I pay no state income taxes on this income.
Governor Snyder’s proposal to tax public employee retirement benefits seems reasonable to me. At a time of severe economic crisis, Michigan can no longer afford be one of the few states that exclude retired public employees from the tax roles.
Peter J. Buley Ann Arbor
Comments
gigantorlives
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 10:49 p.m.
Thank god your military pension is exempt from the "tax plan" or else you might be singing a different tune. Thank you for your service to our country, as I thank those who teach our children!
gigantorlives
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 10:37 p.m.
Then lets tax social security if we really want "shared sacrifice" GO RICK!!!
gigantorlives
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 10:43 p.m.
Note, nearly 50% of states do tax social security. What do you think is next on Snyder's agenda to balance MI budget?? Or, do you really think we will get Tax dollars from newly created jobs in a state with a school system under a total attack by government leadership? Sounds like where I want to raise my family.
zip the cat
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 5:34 p.m.
I am all for it pay what you should. Butt it doesent apply to me as I am before the cut off date. Ha Ha Ha Thanks Rick
Ace Ventura
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 3:41 a.m.
This opinion article is a real laugher. I was laughing so hard it took me nine hours to catch my breath and respond. He's 71 so he won't have his pension taxed under Ricks latest scam.
Matt Cooper
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 3:39 a.m.
So, I'm wondering if the good Mr. Buley also thinks, since this is suposedly a shared burden, that Snyder ought to also raise taxes on businesses and large corporations instead of giving them huge tax breaks.
Matt Cooper
Tue, Apr 26, 2011 : 12:02 p.m.
Grye: raising taxes on the elderly and the poor, while giving record breaking tax breaks to big business has never, and I mean EVER, been shown or proven to create jobs. The conservatives have been chanting this same mantra for decades and yet it still isn't true, and no matter how many times you say it, it ain't gonna come true.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 2:20 p.m.
"If you require businesses to pay more taxes, this decreases the amount of money available to grow the business and create jobs." The same can be said for taxing individuals. Money they are sending to the gov't is money that is not being used purchasing goods and services that create jobs. But its not like that money, whatever it's source, does not create jobs. It does, whether going to teachers and cops or to workers in the Newport News Shipyards, tax revenue spent by the government creates jobs. Next myth? Good Night and Good Luck
grye
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 1:44 p.m.
We rely on businesses to expand and create jobs to boost the economy. If you require businesses to pay more taxes, this decreases the amount of money available to grow the business and create jobs. I would interested to hear how you would structure our taxes to allow business to grow and create jobs. Or maybe your idea is to tax the rich and businesses and jobs will be made available through Cracker Jacks box prizes.
rcastentman
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 2:10 a.m.
Note: the writer is 71 years old and won't pay any income tax on his retirement income - ever. I sincerely hope he's not speaking for those us who will pay this tax. It's real easy say a tax is "reasonable" when it doesn't impact you one bit.
johnnya2
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 1:57 a.m.
So I enter into an agreement with you while working, THEN you decide to change the rules midstream? Sounds like abait and switch to me. Get them to take a lower pay for assured medical benefits and untaxed pensions and THEN saying sorry too bad so sad. Pretty typical of a business mentality. Contracts and agreements mean nothing. Of course I will make the argument that republicans make when I point out that many billionaires say a higher income tax would help the country. Go ahead Mr Buley, you are free to pay more. Make the check payable to the Department of Treasury State of Michigan.
Basic Bob
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 9:57 a.m.
@johnnya2, If you have that agreement, then you should take it to court. I bet you didn't get it in writing.
Marshall Applewhite
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 4:34 a.m.
I believe I've asked this question to you before, but when were senior citizens ever guaranteed a lifetime of tax free pension income?
Harold
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 1:20 a.m.
For 40 years, those of use under 67 paid income taxes so that our parents could enjoy their retirement income tax-free. Now Snyder will tax us more, so our children don't have to do the same.
snoopdog
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 1:13 a.m.
Thank you Peter J. Buley, you are a patriot my good fellow ! Good Day
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 12:40 a.m.
Mr. Buley is correct. Everyone should have to sacrifice. So let's all sacrifice. Let's raise the state income tax by 1%. My family is on the very high end of the income scale and it could cost us about $17 per week. Most Michiganders would pay substantially less. So having asked the elderly and the poor to sacrifice, is it not reasonable that we ALL sacrifice and pay a small sum of money to help our state out of this fiscal crisis. Good Night and Good Luck
jcj
Sat, Apr 30, 2011 : 12:31 p.m.
BTW Isn't it ironic that many of those making $90,000-$150,000 plead poverty at tax time, but the rest of the year do everything they can to show people how well off they are!
jcj
Sat, Apr 30, 2011 : 12:28 p.m.
ERMG It is seldom that we agree. But I do agree with you on this one. If my household had ever made close to $90,000 taxable income I would have felt like we were on the higher end of the income scale. The reason most people that make that kind of money think they are not making enough is they over extended themselves. Buying a house with 5 bedrooms when they had 1 child and having a boat, cottage, and many other toys. Not to mention going out to eat and spending $100 for two on a meal and drinks. I consider myself middle class and our taxable income was never over about $40,000. But I do not owe anyone a dime. Zero, Zilch, Nada! The problem is that most middle income retirees over 80 do not get much of a pension compared to someone that retired in the last 10 years at 55. If pensions are taxed I will make my contribution not with a smile but with the realization that it will help turn the tide.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 3:03 p.m.
Interesting. Statistics and logic be damned. In my book, the 50th percentile is "middle" and that some set percentage above and below that mid-point is the "middle class". I wonder what his is? The national median household income in 2008 was $50,300. 20% of all household had income above $100,000. I guess, the middle class extends into the top 20% of households? So it must extend into the bottom 20%, too? If so, a family earning $25,000 is middle class, as well. Of course, a family of four is considered to be in poverty if it earns less than $22,000 Sources: <a href="http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0689.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0689.pdf</a> <a href="http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml" rel='nofollow'>http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml</a> So I guess one is "middle class" so long as one is not in poverty. Good Night and Good Luck
Mike Martin
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 2:41 p.m.
According to Leonard Beeghley (a sociologist often recognized in studies of income and class in the US) – "A household income of roughly $95,000 would be typical of a dual-earner middle class household while $60,000 would be typical of a dual-earner working class household and $18,000 typical impoverished household." That's a citation from wiki on the "middle class" So, yes, hate to break it to you, but that income is squarely middle class. Definitely not "very high end". Obama's $250,000 is generally accepted in the range of affluent in the US and there is huge population at that level and above. $90,000 doesn't even get near that.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 4:18 a.m.
92nd percentile = middle class? Interesting definition of "middle". I guess that means the 8th percentile is middle class too? For the record, the 8th percentile earns somewhere in the neighborhood of $7000 per year. Yes, we are all one big happy middle class. Good Night and Good Luck
Mike Martin
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 4 a.m.
Yes $88,000 is a typical middle class income. What would you call it "upper class"?! That's a super inflated sense of where that income fits into the continuum of household income. I pay one of my employees almost exactly that figure and I would never presume to tell him that puts him in the "very high" end of the income scale. Silly really. Distinctly middle class and many people in that earnings group don't feel like they can afford more taxes. One of the reasons Obama often sites the $250,000 figure. At that level we only start to get into the "very high end".
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 2:58 a.m.
@Mike: Taxable Income of $88,000 After deductions, etc..... And, BTW, if the household income were $88,000, it would be in the 92nd percentile. Source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States" rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States</a> Are you saying that the 92nd percentile is middle class? Good Night and Good Luck
Mike Martin
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 2:45 a.m.
Ahhh $17 a week is 1% of $1,700 weekly meaning a yearly income of $88,400. That's squarely middle class not "on the very high end" by any means.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 1:28 a.m.
@1bit: No. I'd tax all retirement income, including my military retirement. @snoopdog: So you're all for someone else sharing the sacrifice. I expected as much. Good Night and Good Luck
snoopdog
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 1:15 a.m.
Hey Ed, do you mind kicking in my 17 bucks a week, probably less in my case ? Since you are on the high end, you can afford it ! Good Day
1bit
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 1 a.m.
and exempt all retirement income, including 401k's?
Mr. Ed
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 11:03 p.m.
Everyone is permitted to have an opinion but that does not make it right.
MB111
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 7:59 p.m.
Apparently Mr. Buley did not get the memo that self interest is paramount in our state. He deserves kudos for breaking from the norm.
Marshall Applewhite
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 6:17 p.m.
I agree entirely with this, and frankly don't understand how pensioners can be too upset about it. They've been getting a free ride for years, just because no elected leader was willing to risk placing their re-election campaign in jeopardy. Now that we have elected leaders who care more about the state and less about their campaigns, necessary measures will actually be taken to return this state to fiscal sanity.
Harold
Mon, Apr 25, 2011 : 1:42 p.m.
How old are you, Marshall?
Marshall Applewhite
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 10:08 p.m.
@ronaldduck Do you honestly think Snyder cares if he's reelected? By putting the union's feet to the fire, he certainly isn't going against his core beliefs for the sake of buying votes.
ronaldduck
Sun, Apr 24, 2011 : 9:27 p.m.
Now that we have elected leaders who care more about the state and less about their campaigns, HA HA good one.