A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Rachel Maddow

Posted: Mar 22, 2011

For those of you who watched Rachel Maddow last night when she was slamming the Repbulican governors about their budget cuts, she mentioned the governor of Michigan wanted to "raise taxes on seniors" or something like that. Uh, she failed to mention that 90% to 95% of seniors pay zero tax. Isn't that important to mention?!

Here's a very short explanation about how my state taxes seniors. Michigan exempts social security payments and ALL public pensions from the state income tax. We also exempt private pensions, up to a limit of more than $90,000 per year for a married couple. We give senior citizens an exemption for interest, dividends and capital gains, up to a limit that exceeds $20,000 for a married couple.

These provisions make Michigan one of the most generous states in the country toward retirement income. More than 90% of Michigan senior citizens pay no income tax. Also, seniors are eligible for an enhanced Homestead Property Tax Credit. This means that Michigan’s senior citizens make net payments of less than zero in the state income tax.

The revenue loss from these exclusions is pushing toward $1 billion per year. As our population gets older, the revenue losses get larger every year.

My personal experience - my parents haven't filed a tax form for many, many years (they have no tax liability, according to the state). The many aunts and uncles of mine who have retired from the Big 3 (GM, Ford and Chrysler) pay zero taxes on the first $90,000 they bring home. That's $7500 tax-free income each month. That's probably the reason some seniors are upset. Is it fair? Personally, I don't think so. We are 1 of 10 states with this exemption, along with Alabama, Hawaii, Illinois, Kanasa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississipii, New York, and Pennsylvania.

(getting off my soap box now)

;

Well, in my state seniors do pay taxes on Social Security $ - For What It's Worth

[ In Reply To ..]
I was shocked to hear that last week when I was asking a friend about SS. I had no idea they took taxes out of it.

In my state, they tax SS as income. - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
Seniors have a property tax rebate up to a certain limit, but over that limit they pay the full amount of property tax.

There is a Homestead Act to lower taxes but it's not just for seniors. It's for everyone who owns a certain amount of property.

We also have the "right to breathe, right to work, right to have emergency services," (that's what I call them) and another piddling $5 tax, besides school, township or town, and county taxes. If you earn over $5K, you pay.

People in the state were supposed to get relief from their property taxes if the casinos were allowed to be built. It's been 4(?) years now and not a penny from the casino revenue has been seen by anyone as far as I know.

I do know that seniors get help from the state for their prescriptions. The lottery pays for that.

Link - no1joe

[ In Reply To ..]
I posted a link to the entire segment. Since she's pointing out the hypocrisy where certain segments of the population are getting tax increases as well as cuts in key programs while another segment of the population (the smaller and richer and corporate one) is getting preferential treatment with tax breaks, the fact that seniors might be getting a sweet deal now doesn't really matter. Anything above next to nothing is still an increase. She's right. Basically, the elderly are getting tax increases (even if that is an increase from a baseline of near 0) on fixed incomes while the rich and corporations are getting tax breaks in order to create jobs (that's the theory, right, because I haven't seen it happen). Keeping in mind that seniors are retired and won't land any of these jobs being created, leaving them with just a tax increase, I'd have my granny panties in a bunch too if I was retired. Now, don't get me wrong, if there were tax hikes going on across the board, the seniors would probably still be very unhappy and vocal about it; however, Ms. Maddow wouldn't have anything to say. She's further pointing out the hypocrisy by those in Wisconsin screaming that they're are broke but yet can find money to pay relatives and mistresses (the mistress at $12,000/year more than the previous holder of the position that her married senator boyfriend supposedly helped her land). Rachel tends to think that none of this is about budget. Some of us tend to agree.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#42204444

I am also one of those who agree with Rachel on this - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

just me - icedT

[ In Reply To ..]
I'm one who believes that the state budgets absolutely need to be balanced, and the cuts are going to hurt a lot of people. Everyone wants to see the budget balanced but, when it comes to the actual cuts, they want everyone else to take a hit and leave them alone. Sure, there is a lot of political garbage being thrown back and forth, but to say that there is no budget problem is not being honest. The numbers are there, and they are not pretty - at least in my state they are ugly. Honestly, I don't follow other states as much, since I want to concentrate on my elected officials here, and they keep me very busy.

My point was that I think Rachel was just throwing mud and hoping it would stick. Sure, you can say that the seniors are getting a tax increase. They are. But most people don't know that very, very few Michigan seniors pay even a dime in taxes. I think that's an important fact to know in order to balance things out. The one-liners are just not fair, and I think it's a cheap shot when only half of the story is being told.

I can only speak for myself and my extended family, but I know that my aunts and uncles who are collecting those pensions are nowhere near being poor. They would be considered "rich" according to some numbers that I hear thrown around (in the millions). So, if the millionaires are not supposed to get the tax breaks (Democrat thinking?), then why are Democrats fighting to keep the seniors tax-free? It makes me scratch my head and wonder where they draw the line on the rich and their taxes. It just sounds like they only want to tax the rich when it doesn't affect them.

As to relatives and mistresses, shouldn't we all agree that it's not a Democrat or Republican or Independent thing? It should make any American angry. Does it really matter to you if it's one party or the other? Please don't tell me that you don't believe that Democrats don't do this.

Both parties do this and this kind of activity should be called out on both sides. This is one of those times when we need to get past the "Democrat versus Republican" thing (even though I'm not a Republican), and meet in the middle as Americans.

I couldn't agree with you more - no1joe

[ In Reply To ..]
about the Dem v. Pub thing (even though I'm not a Democrat). However, I do lean left (among a family of conservatives), and watching what has been going on lately actually has me ticked off on behalf of people (and people I care about) whose policital views couldn't be any further than mine. Many people who casted their votes based on fixing a deficit and creating jobs did not sign up for what these politicians are doing while they are repaying their contributors (collective bargaining, tax breaks for the rich, tax increases on low income and seniors, education cuts, etc., etc.). The deceitfulness in their hidden agenda and the hypocrisy with which it is being carried out is outrageous and shouldn't be tolerated by those who casted their vote to get them elected because they are not being fairly represented. And this goes beyond a politician promising the world and not being able to deliver. Most of us have come to expect that even though it's not right, unfortunately. A hidden agenda equals lying by omission and the voters are the ones who ultimately lose, even if that vote wasn't my own. And then to top it all off, what are we doing while all this is going on? Squabble. We're polarized to the point that we can't see how silly we're being, and someone out there must be benefiting from all of the fighting and distraction among the masses or it wouldn't be so encouraged by the media. I agree that we should meet in the middle.

And the mistress bit... of course I know that isn't just a Republican thing (feel free to insert Clinton joke here). I just pointed it out because favoritism at the taxpayers' expense does not work to fix a budget, and when it comes from those who are screaming about being in debt, it's downright ridiculous.

Beautifully stated. - Moderation In All Things

[ In Reply To ..]
Let's look at everything, but not start at those who are most needy. We can do that without throwing stones at those who see it differently than we do. There are no perfect politicians, but most have not stooped to the level that some have recently as they represented only the interests of their largest contributors at the expense of people who don't have the money to fight back. Then to call it balancing the budget when they have taken those "savings" from the poor and given them to the rich, that's just plain mean-spirited and wrong, no matter what party does it. In this case it was a few Republican Governors. Next time it may be a Democratic politician, and it will be wrong when that happens too.

I am neither Republican nor Democrat but am - Indy

[ In Reply To ..]
conservative, if that means upholding the Constitution, getting back to individual responsibility, keeping federal powers limited and holding Presidents (I don't care what their "party" is) accountable when they do not follow the Constitution and attempt to abuse their power, etc.

You said..."Many people who casted their votes based on fixing a deficit and creating jobs did not sign up for what these politicians are doing"...to that I say, that is exactly what Obama did...and he has not fixed the deficit, unemployment still high, deficit skyrocketing every day and still he wants to spend, and even when he knew that the majority of the US (all parties and Independents included in that) did not want Obamacare, he and the majority pushed it through anyway. He epitomized what you are slamming Republicans for...but what he pushed through you are in agreement with, so he gets a pass. I am sorry, but that sounds like hypocrisy to me.

You said: "The deceitfulness in their hidden agenda and the hypocrisy with which it is being carried out is outrageous.." and I could not agree more. His deceitfulness and hypocrisy know no bounds, and he has trampled on the US Constitution more than Walker trampled on the state constitution of Wisconsin (if he did, jury still out on that one), but since his hidden agenda you agree with, you see no problem.

You said: " A hidden agenda equals lying by omission and the voters are the ones who ultimately lose.." Again, I agree! Obama did lie by omission when he said I am going to give you health care and did not add whether you like it or not. You are right, a majority of voters did lose the day they passed Obamacare; however, our displeasure at that was heard resoundingly at midterms.

So if it is deceitfulness and hidden agendas, etc., that bother you, I am left to wonder why you want to pillory Republicans and not Obama who has done the same things on a grander scale...?

I don't want to start a fight...just wondering.

Same reason why some of these - people ignore

[ In Reply To ..]
things like Obama passing a huge stimulus bill that did nothing but pay off unions. It didn't create jobs nor did it help the economy. Talk about a pay off to your campaign contributors. Also...the same people who ridicule Bush endlessly for going to war....even though congress voted to go as well....and I haven't heard much from them about Obama doing what he is in Libya without even consulting congress at all....COME ON PEOPLE!!! Are some of you THAT one-sided that you are willing to let THAT slide without comment?

These people continually praise Obama and yet he has kept few...if any...promises he made during his campaign.

Stimulus - Truthseeker

[ In Reply To ..]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmWjlA9FlAo&feature=player_embedded

That's great. I'm glad it helped them. - was it worth the trillions

[ In Reply To ..]
in debt? Not so sure about that one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOG0rFOkgGE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y64oEDCxVfU

Yay for ice cream - Truthseeker

[ In Reply To ..]
Poster stated it did not create jobs and only helped unions. The ice cream shop is not union and it created a job, several in fact, and gave business to other companies needed to help start the ice cream shop and continues to give business to companies to keep it going.

Small businesses are needed in this country. The corporations are sitting on tons of money and refuse to hire people in this country and if they do throw a job here and they are low-paying.

People need to realize unlike the time of Henry Ford when he came to the realization that he needed to pay his workers enough to buy his product. The US citizens are not needed by corporations anymore. They have billions in India, billions in China that can buy their products now. They have all the jobs, they will be the consumers. They dont care if their fellow Americans who helped them become the rich people they are today turn into what China and India were before the jobs arrived. They care about their money, their millions arent enough they want billions, their billions arent enough they want trillions.

I wonder where those street signs were made and which company got business. I cant seem to find anything.

Oh and not all the stimulus money was used for what it was supposed to. My county executive (R) who repeatedly bashes the Obama and the stimulus was just touting his budget surplus and how great he is at his job and patting himself on the back. Of course the only reason he has that surplus is because he squirreled away that stimulus money instead of using it for needed road projects or bridges, closing clinics (thus people LOSING their jobs), etc. I do blame Obama for not having tighter rein on what it could be used SPECIFICALLY for.

I agree. I guess he had to learn the hard way that they can't be trusted - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Well...and now we are in the age of unions - that have driven the cost

[ In Reply To ..]
of products and services so high (cars for one) that ONLY the people who make them can afford them. Don't think that is what Henry had in mind.

Are cars cheaper now? - Truthseeker

[ In Reply To ..]
When the car companies moved the auto jobs out of the country "because of unions" and to countries with slave labor did the cost of the cars drop because the cost to play their employees (slaves) dropped. NOPE.

Went into the pockets of the CEOs. Did ya see the CEO of Ford just got a $56.5 million dollar stock award bonus..and the Executive Chairman just got $42.4 million...AWESOME!!

Not the OP but I think it's a matter of not seeing things the same way as you do - Agreeing to disagree pleasantly

[ In Reply To ..]
I read the words that you've written and they seem harsh to me. I accept that those are your thoughts and you have a right to them. When I read what you've written, I just don't agree with you. I'm not praising President Obama or any other politician. I also don't see him in as negative a light. He isn't perfect, but we've had a lot worse. I don't see things the way you see them at all. I think it sounds more political than factual. That's my opinion.

What part did you disagree with? - Indy

[ In Reply To ..]
that Obama trampled on the Constitution? Here are the facts: (1) he appointed all those "czars" without congressional consent. The Constitution prohibits him from doing that. (2) He instructed the Justice Department specifically not to defend DOMA in court anymore because he does not agree with the law. In other words, he ordered the Justice Department of the United States NOT to defend a federal law that is on the books. The Constitution does not give him the authority to do that. (3) He sent our military into a combat situation (bombing Libya) without congressional consent, and that is most certainly trampling on the Constitution as it clearly states the President cannot do that without Congress signing off on it. Anything any Republican has done pales in comparison to that.

All of that is fact, not my opinion. It is not political, easily looked up and verified for yourself without taking my word for it. The Constitution and what powers it gives the executive branch is easily found.

What I find interesting about this response is that you did not find the OP's words harsh, just mine...it is basically the same thing I was saying to her about her stance against the Republicans while giving Obama a pass for the same actions. You call me out as harsh, but give her a pass because you agree with her. ;-)

Similar Messages:

Apr 29, 2012
patronizing male chauvanist representative of Romney on Meet the Press as he condescending stated that women REALLY do not make less then men . ... rachel for congress! ...

Feb 25, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGmxquSfDu8 The whole thiing is interesting but at about 7 minutes she talks specificallly about her comments on the Wisconsin budget. ...

Aug 25, 2011
David Letterman and Rachel Maddow. Very good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ79YorBp9s ...

Nov 10, 2010
I am sure the naysayers will want to watch so they can do some worthy bashing. Looking forward to your comments. ...

Mar 06, 2014
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-5-2014/rachel-maddow Rachel will have a special documentary tonight on MSNBC about why we went to war in Iraq. ...

Jan 15, 2010
Funnry stuff! http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-14-2010/haiti-earthquake-reactions ...

Mar 01, 2013
Totally unbiased -- of course! LOL! She was on Comedy Central Thurs. Night RACHEL MADDOW: It's weird to see Antonin Scalia in person. It’s weird. JON STEWART, HOST: Does he, you know, I only read some of the transcripts of what he was saying. And he was saying certain thing like, “We've got to get rid of this because it's one of the last vestiges of racial preferences,” the Voting Rights Act I guess. MADDOW: He said that, he said when Congress re-upped the Vot ...

Oct 26, 2016
His father used the N-word with Donald Trump standing right next to him, and nodded approvingly agreeing with his father about not renting to black people. see link ...

Apr 05, 2010
She hits a home run on this one . . . http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#36155851 ...

Apr 02, 2011
And yes, as someone who has lived in Michigan forever, Mackinac is pronounced "mack-a-naw" :-) http://www.freep.com/article/20110402/NEWS06/104020331/Think-tank-receives-death-threats-over-request-e-mails Think tank receives death threats over request for e-mails A Michigan free-market think tank at the center of a controversy over Freedom of Information Act requests to university labor studies departments received death and bomb threats Thursday night and early Friday. Employees at the M ...

Mar 17, 2015
link ...

Mar 15, 2011
Gov. Snyder v. Rachel Maddow By Tom Gantert | March 12, 2011 Talk show host Rachel Maddow recently made Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder the focus of an on-air attack on his policies during a seven-minute tirade on her MSNBC show. Maddow suggested that Snyder was fabricating a budget crisis to get his agenda through. Mackinac Center for Public Policy fiscal policy experts Michael LaFaive and James Hohman commented on a half dozen of the statements made by Maddow: Maddow: “Rick Sn ...

Oct 03, 2012
nm ...

Oct 22, 2009
By Chris Ariens on Oct 21, 2009 12:58 PM Here's a curious turn in the White House vs. Fox News fight. On Monday, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow were among several people who attended an off-the-record briefing with Pres. Obama at the White House. Sources tell us other attendees at the two-and-a-half hour chat included Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Gwen Ifill of PBS and Gloria Borger of CNN. Perhaps not surprisingly, no one fr ...

Jan 29, 2010
For anyone else interested in some very intriguing facts, watch this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ ...

May 23, 2017
The nasty lefty and Stephen Colbert talk current events (1st link). Watch the nasty lefty Rachel talking with Stephen Colbert. Spoiler alert: She still has faith in Republican morals (2nd link) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAxWOT3-IMQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVFj8zkiRc ...

May 20, 2010
Open mouth, insert foot . . . (he struck me as a little Stepford-like) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-tells-maddow-th_n_582872.html ...

Feb 05, 2013
You have to hear the whole thing! I'm shocked! And for the people months ago who said that it wasn't legal to kill American people, that it was a bunch of bull...read below - this ALSO from MSNBC!!! The Times has now been exonerated, as are others who tried to get the memo under FOIA. >>>> A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders& ...

Dec 31, 2009
Show just started here and I'm curious as to what they are going to talk about. We shall see. ...

Mar 15, 2017
x ...

Mar 16, 2017
While these despicable creatures work to take down a duly elected President of the United States, Putin marvels - and laughs to himself. He doesn't even have to pay them...they do the work of the KGB for free. ...