Marion Barry rejects tax increases on $200k earners, rest of council falls in line

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the income tax issue, one justification I have heard from a Councilmember is that the tax increase would not obviate the need for cuts, so if they did increase the tax, "you" (implying each and every voter) would both pay more taxes and get services cut. This, of course, overlooks that the service cuts will impact the poor much more directly and the the tax increase would have hit the better off, as well as the fact that the cuts would at least have been ameliorated somewhat by the tax increase.

I'm sure there are reasonable arguments not to have the tax increase, but that one seemed like pure sleight of hand. The argument came from a CM I like (which is why I mention no name), and really disappointed me.

So, instead of a tax income increase that people were not opposed to, they chose to saddle retirees with a tax increase. Bravo.

The real problem is that the DC council and government are gutless and inefficient. Just yesterday a report came out that shows that DC failed to collect about $100m in property taxes from commercial real estate. The city government is bloated and reeks of largesse. THis is where we need to cut before we start penalizing tax payers for the problems created by the Council.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the income tax issue, one justification I have heard from a Councilmember is that the tax increase would not obviate the need for cuts, so if they did increase the tax, "you" (implying each and every voter) would both pay more taxes and get services cut. This, of course, overlooks that the service cuts will impact the poor much more directly and the the tax increase would have hit the better off, as well as the fact that the cuts would at least have been ameliorated somewhat by the tax increase.

I'm sure there are reasonable arguments not to have the tax increase, but that one seemed like pure sleight of hand. The argument came from a CM I like (which is why I mention no name), and really disappointed me.

So, instead of a tax income increase that people were not opposed to, they chose to saddle retirees with a tax increase. Bravo.

More like they closed a loophole.

[Anonymous]

Couldn't agree more.

[Anonymous]

It is amazing how a freebie becomes an entitlement. I am entitled to make tax free income because .... Insert sob story here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Couldn't agree more.

In the future, I suggest that you either quote the message you agree with, or put in some clarifying wordin. Since there is often another posting interposed between the one being responded to and the response, it may end up looking like you are agreeing with the opposite position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is amazing how a freebie becomes an entitlement. I am entitled to make tax free income because .... Insert sob story here.

This isn't an entitlement.

If you have a 401k and you are investing in it, and then after you retire, the government decides to end the program and specifies that your 401k is now subject as regular income, how would you feel?

[Anonymous]

You can always liquidat your out of state bonds without a penalty on prior earnings. This only affects foresees earnings.

[Anonymous]

I have some bad news for you. Your 401k income does already get taxed when you disburse it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can always liquidat your out of state bonds without a penalty on prior earnings. This only affects foresees earnings.

Foreward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is amazing how a freebie becomes an entitlement. I am entitled to make tax free income because .... Insert sob story here.

This isn't an entitlement.

If you have a 401k and you are investing in it, and then after you retire, the government decides to end the program and specifies that your 401k is now subject as regular income, how would you feel?

Err . . . I'd feel like nothing changes, since distributions from a 401k ARE taxable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is amazing how a freebie becomes an entitlement. I am entitled to make tax free income because .... Insert sob story here.

This isn't an entitlement.

If you have a 401k and you are investing in it, and then after you retire, the government decides to end the program and specifies that your 401k is now subject as regular income, how would you feel?

Err . . . I'd feel like nothing changes, since distributions from a 401k ARE taxable.

From the silence, I gather our curmudgeon poster has now googled 401(k) withdrawals and is now in shock over her unfortunate error in retirement planning.

[Anonymous]

So-called curmudgeon here...the point is, people plan for the retirement years. The District has rules in place that their residents depend on. Those rules have been changed, and there is minimal opportunity to liquidate and invest in DC bonds because DC bonds are not readily available, as they are in the 50 states.

I guess if you cannot grasp this and have no sympathy for retirees are are severely and negatively impacted by this actions, then we can agree to disagree.

I work with scores of seniors throughout the city and they are very upset about this as it impacts their ability to age in place, and no, these are not wealthy Ward 2 or 3 residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So-called curmudgeon here...the point is, people plan for the retirement years. The District has rules in place that their residents depend on. Those rules have been changed, and there is minimal opportunity to liquidate and invest in DC bonds because DC bonds are not readily available, as they are in the 50 states.

I guess if you cannot grasp this and have no sympathy for retirees are are severely and negatively impacted by this actions, then we can agree to disagree.

I work with scores of seniors throughout the city and they are very upset about this as it impacts their ability to age in place, and no, these are not wealthy Ward 2 or 3 residents.

So-called? You scolded someone for writing without quoting the previous poster.

I grasp that some people will have to change their plans. But the fact is that it was an unusual exception, and it is inconvenient but not that difficult to fix. Even here in DC, I can see that over a million dollars worth of bonds has changed hands since the market opened today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So-called? You scolded someone for writing without quoting the previous poster.
...

10:43 here. I was the one who suggested quoting, and just for the record, I think calling that "scolding" is inaccurate. But I am mainly writing to say that I have not otherwise been involved in the discussion, and distinguishing one poster from another is a problem similar to figuring out whose posting someone is referring to.

But, as a matter of fact, I am old enough to be a codger, so you apparently have insight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So-called curmudgeon here...the point is, people plan for the retirement years. The District has rules in place that their residents depend on. Those rules have been changed, and there is minimal opportunity to liquidate and invest in DC bonds because DC bonds are not readily available, as they are in the 50 states.

I guess if you cannot grasp this and have no sympathy for retirees are are severely and negatively impacted by this actions, then we can agree to disagree.

I work with scores of seniors throughout the city and they are very upset about this as it impacts their ability to age in place, and no, these are not wealthy Ward 2 or 3 residents.

You know what? You're right. On a related note, I have planned - down to the last dime - how my salary will be spent next year. I've depended on the tax laws to remain as they are when making those calculations. So any rules changes that increases my taxes will be grossly unfair and shouldn't be permitted.

What's that, you say? I'll have to adjust and adapt? Oh.

Point being, rules change all the time. Sometimes they help you, sometimes they don't.