Is it wrong for senior citizens who don't pay taxes to accept the tax rebate?

[stinkcat_14]

Here is an interesting moral question that was raised in the social justice thread. Is it moral to expect future generations to pay for our current benefits?

Here is my specific question:

I know of several senior citizens who don’t pay taxes, nor are they likely to pay taxes in the future. The government is borrowing money to fund these rebates, so these seniors will be getting money that they will never pay back. In other words, they are burdening the future generation. In this case, is it immoral for them to accept the money? Am I obligated to inform them that taking the money is immoral?

 

[goofyjim]

It is not immoral. If they meet the qualifications of income for the rebate then they are permitted to keep it. If it was so immoral then the greater burden would be on this administration for implementing the plan.

 

[1ke]

No it is not immoral.

 

[stinkcat_14]

No it is not immoral.

Why not? So if I can use my political power to vote myself benefits that future generations will have to pay for, there is nothing morally wrong with that?

 

[Other_Eric]

Why not? So if I can use my political power to vote myself benefits that future generations will have to pay for, there is nothing morally wrong with that?

I don’t think that seniors accepting money that the government has statutorily allotted them is immoral in itself. The government has already borrowed the money, so the fiscal damage has been done. Whether or not the seniors in question accept the money is irrelevant.

It seems to me that the moral burden falls squarely on the shoulders of those politicians who have constructed this mess. Ultimately it was their decision, rather than those seniors, to place financial burdens on future generations.

 

[turtle18]

I don’t have a problem with it and here is why: takes taxes out of many of their Social Security checks. My parents are by no means wealthy but they have to pay taxes on their Social Security check. Well they already paid taxes on that money once. Say my dad made 10,000 in 1970 and paid 1000 in federal taxes and 500 in Social Security to the government that year. Well he already paid the tax on the 10,000 he earned (the 1000) and then the government earmarked 500 to Social Security for him. Fast forward 40 years and now when he receives the 500 payment back, they are taking out $70 for taxes. Well that isn’t right. He already paid the taxes on the initial money he earned. He paid that money into Social Security. So he is being double taxed. I have no clue how this is legal under the Constitution but it is.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I don’t have a problem with it and here is why: takes taxes out of many of their Social Security checks. My parents are by no means wealthy but they have to pay taxes on their Social Security check. Well they already paid taxes on that money once. Say my dad made 10,000 in 1970 and paid 1000 in federal taxes and 500 in Social Security to the government that year. Well he already paid the tax on the 10,000 he earned (the 1000) and then the government earmarked 500 to Social Security for him. Fast forward 40 years and now when he receives the 500 payment back, they are taking out $70 for taxes. Well that isn’t right. He already paid the taxes on the initial money he earned. He paid that money into Social Security. So he is being double taxed. I have no clue how this is legal under the Constitution but it is.

But of course, those whose incomes are small enough don’t pay taxes on their Social Security checks. You only get taxed on Social Security if your income is above a certain amount. Some seniors (as well as others) don’t pay any taxes.

 

[PaulinVA]

Stnkcat - it’s to stimulate the economy.

I bet a lot of seniors could use the money, and will stimulate the economy as they use it.

As to telling seniors it is immoral to take the money - are you serious?

 

[stinkcat_14]

I don’t think that seniors accepting money that the government has statutorily allotted them is immoral in itself. The government has already borrowed the money, so the fiscal damage has been done. Whether or not the seniors in question accept the money is irrelevant.

It seems to me that the moral burden falls squarely on the shoulders of those politicians who have constructed this mess. Ultimately it was their decision, rather than those seniors, to place financial burdens on future generations.

A couple of questions here. What if instead of seniors and tax rebates, we changed the scenario to welfare recipients and welfare payments. Can we say that it is always and everywhere moral to accept welfare payments? If not, what is the difference between these two scenarios?

Also, would members and officers of groups like AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) bear any guilt, since they specifically went after benefits for seniors who don’t file or pay taxes?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Stnkcat - it’s to stimulate the economy.

I bet a lot of seniors could use the money, and will stimulate the economy as they use it.

As to telling seniors it is immoral to take the money - are you serious?

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, is it moral whenever someone or some entity gets money from the goverment? Would this apply to corporate welfare as well? After all, any spending, by individuals, businesses or the government will stimulate the economy.

 

[PaulinVA]

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, is it moral whenever someone or some entity gets money from the goverment?

That is such a wide open question I will not answer it. You have not indicated if I should take fraud into account, what the payments are for, who the entities are.

Would this apply to corporate welfare as well? After all, any spending, by individuals, businesses or the government will stimulate the economy.

I am not familiar with any “corporate welfare” program. Please define. Maybe my company would like to sign up for it until we are profitable.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Another twist to this could be asked like this. Is it moral for the government to continue to make those on Social Security (they paid for it and it was not given voluntarily) to have to continue to pay more and more taxes on property and other necessities of life to provide for education and other things for others?

Our society decided how much and then not to save the monies we gave it. So don’t blame those that are receiving the benefits they were promised.

Putting you faith in the stock market can be misplaced. My mother lost the majority of her retirement fund to the Savings and Loan crash. My husband and I are watching ours go down with the market as it is today. Savings accounts don’t pay much and even government bonds are not a sure thing.

 

[stinkcat_14]

That is such a wide open question I will not answer it. You have not indicated if I should take fraud into account, what the payments are for, who the entities are.

I am not familiar with any “corporate welfare” program. Please define. Maybe my company would like to sign up for it until we are profitable.

Corporate welfare programs include cash payments to businesses, such as the conservation reserve program which pays landowners not to grow crops on their land. It also includes things like regulations that reduce competition such as the regulations on the importation of foreign sugar, which harms consumers but provides higher prices to sugar growers. All of these are situations where a small party gains at the expense of someone else.

For an overview of corporate welfare, see here:

cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230

 

[stinkcat_14]

Another twist to this could be asked like this. Is it moral for the government to continue to make those on Social Security (they paid for it and it was not given voluntarily) to have to continue to pay more and more taxes on property and other necessities of life to provide for education and other things for others?

Why should we necessarily exempt seniors from the property tax. There may be a bit of redistribution involved, but of course there is redistribution going from the current workers to people on social security as well. For example, most people on medicare sign up for part B, 75% of the cost of part B is paid for out of general tax revenue (that is, mainly our income taxes paid by those of us who work for a living). Perhaps we can lower the property tax paid by seniors in exchange for seniors paying the full cost of their health insurance? Sound good to you?

Our society decided how much and then not to save the monies we gave it. So don’t blame those that are receiving the benefits they were promised.

What specific benefits were they promised?

 

[PaulinVA]

Stinkcat, in all Christian charity let me tell you that your question has been answered - it is moral for seniors to accept the tax rebate.

As to getting into a debate with you about your libertarian political and economic views, no thanks. I politely decline.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Stinkcat, in all Christian charity let me tell you that your question has been answered - it is moral for seniors to accept the tax rebate.

By accepting the rebate, wouldn’t they be placing a burden on a future generation? Are you saying that this is moral. or are you making another argument?

As to getting into a debate with you about your libertarian political and economic views, no thanks. I politely decline.

If one is against corporate welfare, that makes one a libertarian?

 

[Other_Eric]

A couple of questions here. What if instead of seniors and tax rebates, we changed the scenario to welfare recipients and welfare payments. Can we say that it is always and everywhere moral to accept welfare payments? If not, what is the difference between these two scenarios?

Also, would members and officers of groups like AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) bear any guilt, since they specifically went after benefits for seniors who don’t file or pay taxes?

I’m not sure that there exists a clear parallel between seniors accepting tax refunds for taxes they have not paid and welfare recipients. A welfare recipient receives his or her allotment precisely because it is judged that such a person is in need of them. We might argue about the criteria used to arrive at such a judgment but that is a prudential, rather than moral, discussion. There are clear rules in place and, for better or for worse, the individual in question is eligible for welfare under them. Absent fraud, there appears to be no moral question here.

In the case of a senior citizen who has paid no taxes, I assume that your objection stems from the idea that such a person has no real need of such a refund as in the case of a fraudulent welfare recipient. Even granting that this is true, it fails to take into account the actual need any of us have to an additional tax refund. It further fails to acknowledge the purpose of the refund, which is to stimulate the economy, a value that exists independent of any individual’s tax contribution.

The moral question, if any exists, would seem to be the sole responsibility of those individuals who crafted and actively worked for the passage of such legislation, not those who had no hand in it and yet receive some benefit. To this end, I would say that the AARP or any lobbying organization that advocates for such imprudent legislation may very well share a portion of the guilt.

The primary issue with the tax refund is one of prudence, not morality. Even then, the question of prudence involves those who are in a position to exercise or ignore that prudence, not that tangential third party who realizes some collateral benefit from possible stupidity.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I’m not sure that there exists a clear parallel between seniors accepting tax refunds for taxes they have not paid and welfare recipients. A welfare recipient receives his or her allotment precisely because it is judged that such a person is in need of them. We might argue about the criteria used to arrive at such a judgment but that is a prudential, rather than moral, discussion. There are clear rules in place and, for better or for worse, the individual in question is eligible for welfare under them. Absent fraud, there appears to be no moral question here.

I appreciate your consistency. My impression is that there are those who seem to judge some welfare recipients as acting immorally when taking welfare benefits, yet these same people often remain silent when a more politically popular group receives benefits.

In the case of a senior citizen who has paid no taxes, I assume that your objection stems from the idea that such a person has no real need of such a refund as in the case of a fraudulent welfare recipient. Even granting that this is true, it fails to take into account the actual need any of us have to an additional tax refund. It further fails to acknowledge the purpose of the refund, which is to stimulate the economy, a value that exists independent of any individual’s tax contribution.

My objection would be more on the lines of an intergenerational equity basis. We are borrowing money to give to one group that another group will have to pay for. That might be defensible if the group receiving the money actually needed it, but of course, older doesn’t not necessarily mean poor. Even older people who pay no taxes are oftentime quite well off, they just have most of their assets in vehicles that minimize their tax liability.

The moral question, if any exists, would seem to be the sole responsibility of those individuals who crafted and actively worked for the passage of such legislation, not those who had no hand in it and yet receive some benefit. To this end, I would say that the AARP or any lobbying organization that advocates for such imprudent legislation may very well share a portion of the guilt.

I would agree with you here.

 

[MarieVeronica]

Here is an interesting moral question that was raised in the social justice thread. Is it moral to expect future generations to pay for our current benefits?

Here is my specific question:

I know of several senior citizens who don’t pay taxes, nor are they likely to pay taxes in the future. The government is borrowing money to fund these rebates, so these seniors will be getting money that they will never pay back. In other words, they are burdening the future generation. In this case, is it immoral for them to accept the money? Am I obligated to inform them that taking the money is immoral?

I have never heard of Senior Citizens who don’t pay taxes (at least, in the U.S.). Are they doing this legally… or illegally? My mother will be 86 in May. She pays taxes… out the wazoo.

What are the circumstances you are speaking of? Are these Seniors in nursing homes, or what? I’m very curious. Thanks, and God bless.

P.S. I don’t mean to undermine your concern. It is a valid concern. I’ve just not been aware of any Senior’s who get out of paying taxes.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I have never heard of Senior Citizens who don’t pay taxes (at least, in the U.S.). Are they doing this legally… or illegally? My mother will be 86 in May. She pays taxes… out the wazoo.

What are the circumstances you are speaking of? Are these Seniors in nursing homes, or what? I’m very curious. Thanks, and God bless.

P.S. I don’t mean to undermine your concern. It is a valid concern. I’ve just not been aware of any Senior’s who get out of paying taxes.

I should have been clearer, what I meant was federal income taxes, since the tax rebate is from the federal government. I know of several seniors who have very little in the way of taxable income and don’t pay any federal or state income taxes. Under our current federal tax law, a married couple over 65 can make about $18,000 per year without paying any federal income tax. At this level, Social Security benefits are untaxed as well. These people are not poor by any stretch of the imagination. They have quite a bit in the 401k, they just make sure they take out very little so they avoid income taxes. Also, their house is paid off, so their cost of living is quite low.

They do get hit with property taxes, and depending where you live that can be significant.