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

  • Thread starter Thread starter stinkcat_14
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stinkcat_14 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You know I know many seniors being almost one myself. Not one that I know falls under the circumstances you state. Most are working and not collecting SS at all till they are in their 70’s (due to necessity in many cases). Their earnings were enough to make ends meed but little was able to be put aside. They do not receive the max SS due to lower earnings in life. Percentage wise they paid more of their income on the SS tax then the high income earner that receives the max benefits.

As for the house being paid off I know that in my case our taxes are 115% of our original mortgage payment (taxes and escrow) and still going up. Moving is not an option as it would probably cost us even more if we purchased even a smaller house in another state then our place is worth.

I don’t believe the youth are trying to take what we earned nor do I believe that the average senior is trying to take the youth for all they can get. We are all in this life together and need to remember that.

So work toward social justice not social divisions and everyone will win.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I find even the claim of intergenerational equity to be one that is difficult to substantiate morally, even if one points out that the future generation encumbered with this debt never had the opportunity to vote on it. Consider that the Church has yet to recognize any inherent immorality in taxation even in those countries that do not provide their population the vote (the Church is content to confine her criticisms of such governments to other, more palpable abuses of authority). Christ Himself sidestepped the question of unjust taxation under a system that was undeniably reeling with it. Further, the specter of burdens foisted upon one’s offspring, if considered alone, necessarily ignores the possibility that this situation might be preferable to the situation we would leave them if we did not levy this debt against them.

The issue comes back to one of prudence. Any decision that one makes today will have an innumerable amount of consequences, both foreseen and unforeseen, on future generations. In the instant example of the tax refunds, it is plausible to argue that the economic benefits of providing even those seniors who have paid no taxes a refund that they will then, in turn, invest in the market will provide a better future for the next generation then they might have to deal with otherwise. Again, the question boils down to prudence of a particular policy and any moral claim must necessarily be subject to that ethic.
 
Under the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, people may be eligible for the minimum payment of $300 ($600 for married couples) even if they do not normally file a tax return. There also is an additional payment of $300 for people with eligible children younger than 17. However, people must file an income tax return in order to receive the payment.
Click to expand...
People who don’t normally need to file also can use Free File – Economic Stimulus Payment, which is available at IRS.gov. Several Free File software providers are making their products available for the simplified filing of a tax return.
Click to expand...
Welfare, working poor, dependant children and the list goes on. So why pick on the elderly?
 
KathleenElsie said:
Welfare, working poor, dependant children and the list goes on. So why pick on the elderly?
Click to expand...
I “picked on” the elderly, mainly because it made a convenient example which would allow us to discuss the intergenerational fairness of our tax system and provide the fewest compounding factors. When the government borrows money, many people will say that “we are mortgaging our children’s futures” and imply that borrowing money to fund government spending is immoral. This is a cleaner example because of the following:
  1. We are borrowing money to fund the rebate
  2. Seniors who don’t pay taxes are one group who will receive a rebate.
  3. If they are not paying taxes now, there is a good chance that they will not be paying taxes in the future. If I used the working poor, there is the chance that the working poor will pay taxes in the future which muddies the issue of intergenerational fairness.
 
Other Eric,

You raise some interesting points. While the Church has not definitively taught on the morality of tax issues, I am not sure that should totally get us off the hook when it comes to considering the moral issues associated with tax (or other government) policy. After all, when trying to develop tax policy, our politicians attempt to use different measures of fairness, to evaluate them, many of which can oftentimes be quite self serving. So even though the church has not taught definitively on this topic, I think that the moral issues can still be profitably considered.
 
KathleenElsie said:
And just maybe they were tooooo poor to have any income that could be taxed.
Click to expand...
One might think that, but the statistics seem to show a different story. In 2006 there were 3.4 million people over 65 living in poverty. Like I said, many of the people who don’t pay taxes aren’t poor, they just hold their assets in ways that allow them to minimize their tax liability.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
One might think that, but the statistics seem to show a different story. In 2006 there were 3.4 million people over 65 living in poverty. Like I said, many of the people who don’t pay taxes aren’t poor, they just hold their assets in ways that allow them to minimize their tax liability.
Click to expand...
As do many of the high income earners and those that receive money from non-taxable sources and/or are so called “silver spoon” babies. 😉

We have yet to see how many of the baby boom generation will fall into the poverty level as they have just started to retire. Many of them took loans out on their main asset their homes to pay for their children’s education and some did so for other personal reasons so they still will have mortgages to pay. Now the reverse mortgage scam is out there. Believe me the feds will find some way to tax even the poor in the near future. What we mostly see the affluent retirees on TV and in the news.

Oh and yes they will pay the death tax if they are rich enough so they will pay someday.🤷
 
I am one of those Senior Citizens who don’t pay any (federal) taxes today but have been informed (by the IRS) that I will receive $300 as my portion of the Stimulus Package. I paid into Social Security for 47 years - I suppose that is normal - and worked thru the years when only company “pensions” were available. I ended up qualifing for a life time pension that is $215.20 per month and earn Social security of (today) $1094 per month. That is a total income of $15,710.40 per year. Becasue the Social Security portion is not taxable but the pension portion is my “standard deduction” each year negates the need to pay any taxes. I am not complaining - just explaining - the circumstance I have found myself in now. I doubt that my position is unusual. I shall do just what the Stimulus Package hopes will happen. I will spend $300 when I get it thereby doing my small part to “stimulate the economy”. What could be immoral about that? Does anyone feel I am getting something I am not entitled to receive?
 
stinkcat_14 said:
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?
Click to expand...
It is not immoral because it breaks none of the commandments.

These people have been lawfully given money from our government. There is no sin in using what the government has given you.

You may argue the prudential judgment of legislators and their policy in distributing funds collected via taxation, but you cannot attach SIN to those using the money that has been legally given to them by those in legitimate civil authority.

Like it or not, the civil authority has the authority to disburse funds they collect in any way they see fit. We the people have given them that authority.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Other Eric,

You raise some interesting points. While the Church has not definitively taught on the morality of tax issues, I am not sure that should totally get us off the hook when it comes to considering the moral issues associated with tax (or other government) policy. After all, when trying to develop tax policy, our politicians attempt to use different measures of fairness, to evaluate them, many of which can oftentimes be quite self serving. So even though the church has not taught definitively on this topic, I think that the moral issues can still be profitably considered.
Click to expand...
While it is true that the Church has not taught definitively on issues of taxation, what the bishops have recommended stresses progressive taxation rather than strict equality. (1) To assess the morality of any particular tax policy entirely in terms of equality might not be the best argument one could make, outside some clear evidence of extreme injustice. This, however, is a discussion that goes beyond the initial question posed by this thread.

In terms of whether or not our hypothetical tax-exempt senior citizen is morally obliged to accept or reject his refund, it seems to me that there is no sin committed in accepting the money, or even in spending it on himself. It may be that if he feels the refund was ill-gotten that it may be appropriate to donate his money to charity. It is important to understand, however, that this would be an issue of personal morality quite separate from the propriety of accepting the money in the first place.

This latter issue, it seems to me, is a much more nuanced and interesting thread topic. There is certainly more room for moral discussion there than in the question of whether to take the money.

(1) Curran, Charles E. “The Reception of Catholic Social and Economic Teaching in the United States.” Modern Catholic Social Teaching. Ed. Kenneth R. Himes, O.F.M. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2005. p. 481.
 
Brief answer: No.

Take it and if you feel guilty about contributing to the debt of your grandkids, invest in in an educational savings fund for them. That will ease the student loan burden on the federal government by $300 when they go get student loans to pay for an education.

Problem solved. 😃
 
Carrying a heavy debt burden is never enjoyable, although there is the debtor’s age. Debt in old age is another matter entirely, however. It’s harder to make a dent in huge amounts of debt when an individual lives on a set income. Nobody plans for it to take place, but seniors coping with debt have become increasingly common.
 
I just wanted everyone to know that I collect Social Security. I worked for years and years, and all that time, they were taking money out of my paycheck. While I was working, I paid income tax on every dime that was taken out for Social Security.

Since I am not dirt poor (not wealthy either), I now get to pay more incorme tax on the Social Security checks I get. Also, the government takes out over $100 per month for my Medicare Part B premium. When I first started receiving checks, I had a letter showing the total amount that was taken out for Social Security all the while I was working. I did some math, and I determined that I will be well into my seventies before I get one dime of “free” money from the government. If the government had paid interest on all of that money that I paid in, I would be rich!

As for our property taxes, they are outrageous. They go up every year even though our income does not go up. You have to be almost destitute to qualify for any sort of property tax from the government.

Would the young people rather see us older folks dying in the streets after we get kicked out of our houses for lack of income? A better idea would be to shore up the system a little so the young people will have a little something when they get to be our age.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top