2017 changes affecting retirees (subsidized, salary, quality of life)

[BigDog811]

Originally Posted by longneckone

If I were moving to the area finding my own personal physician would be a concern. I never had a problem here until my Doctor of I guess 20 years retired.

Access to major health care facilities was very high on our list when we chose Delaware. Right behind the overall tax structure. Numbers 1a and 1b. That's also one of the reasons we chose central New Castle County rather than going further down state. We're 70. Healthy and active with no chronic health issues...yet. But the clock is ticking. At this age, the next twinge, cramp, or cough may be the thing that winds up getting you. We're on medicare, and have an excellent supplemental plan, including pharmacy, as part of my retirement benefits. We've had no trouble at all finding providers. Keeping up with preventative health care, as well as minor acute problems, including the occasional need for a specialist, has been a breeze here. From what I read on this board and other places there are folks who live down state with more serious or unusual needs who spend a good deal of time on the road getting the care they need. That's not how we want to spend our retirement years.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by rdlr

Mr. Connecticut:
First Issue -
The tax credit reads: UP TO $500.00, not "$500.00"

Second Issue: Our house is valued in the low $200,000 range, and we're in Kent County, Delaware.
Our 2016 Tax Bill Per Year:
$521.28
-$190.15 School Tax Credit = $331.13 Tax Bill for 2016

Our 2017 Tax Bill Per Year:
$531.92
-$195.01 School Tax Credit = $336.91 Tax Bill for 2017

FYI, we don't have any "bigger issues" (such as being pompous)
Our house is paid for and we're living happily ever after, having arrived here in 1939 and 1940.

If i understand what you wrote correctly you could lose $190 a year in tax credits ? That's $15.83 per month and if you'll go bankrupt over that you truly have bigger issues to worry about.

I also find it funny that anyone would oppose "school taxes" since they themselves most likely personally benefited from those taxes and/or their children benefited from those taxes.

You'd be much better off opposing tax cuts for the rich such as the repeal of the estate tax. Which is something you personally will never benefit from. I most likely won't benefit from it either, but I'm still working so maybe I still have a chance to become a millionaire.

[rdlr]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

If i understand what you wrote correctly you could lose $190 a year in tax credits ? That's $15.83 per month and if you'll go bankrupt over that you truly have bigger issues to worry about.

I also find it funny that anyone would oppose "school taxes" since they themselves most likely personally benefited from those taxes and/or their children benefited from those taxes.

You'd be much better off opposing tax cuts for the rich such as the repeal of the estate tax. Which is something you personally will never benefit from. I most likely won't benefit from it either, but I'm still working so maybe I still have a chance to become a millionaire.

No, you didn't understand what I wrote. Who said I opposed school taxes? I actually was pointing out that the school tax credit is not $500 as you indicate, but up to that amount. However, that's irrelevant to you in Connecticut. Actually, it's irrelevant to me, also, as I'm focused on operating my own Delaware based business, not on the school tax credit we receive. If I had the time, my focus would be attempting to lower the self-employment tax in Delaware, which is huge.

[skeddy]

Originally Posted by rothbear

No, I just want the law to apply to everybody, not just a chosen few. It's simple...if you are 65 and have lived here 10 years, then you get it. If not, you don't. Nothing unfair about that. Black and white, no gray. Either you qualify or you don't. Apply the law equally or don't apply it at all. That's the problem here, the laws seem to be applied willy-nilly as to whom they apply instead of equal across the board. So yes the current law is unfair as it makes some people "chosen" and the others not. Like in high school, except this time it involves money.

I'm glad the money doesn't mean much to some people, but without going into finances, let me say that it DOES mean something to us, as I'm sure it means a lot to many others as well. As mentioned before, not everybody who moved here has high SS and pensions, or came from NJ/NY/CT where they sold their house for 3 times what they bought here. Off my soapbox now......I guess I will just have to resign myself to the fact that I will never see a time when we do get it as we all know it will get taken away so the money can go to the rich and powerful.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I find your interpretation of fairness to be circumspect. Taking away benefits from those already receiving them seems less fair to me than delaying when you begin to receive a benefit. Let's apply your line of reasoning to Social Security. Eventually changes will have to be made to benefits for it to remain solvent. If you change the minimum age to receive SS to 70, you're advocating taking away SS benefits to those under 70 already are receiving payments. Same principle you're advocating.

[NJBoy3]

Coming up on our first American trillionaire and our government has everyone convinced we have to eliminate social security and medicare.. Am I missing something.

[longneckone]

Originally Posted by NJBoy3

Coming up on our first American trillionaire and our government has everyone convinced we have to eliminate social security and medicare.. Am I missing something.

Maybe you should take this question to the politics thread. I think Mods may cut this quickly.

[NJBoy3]

Maybe I should have quoted the previous post. My contribution to this thread is over.

[BigDog811]

Originally Posted by nuts2uiam

I respectfully have to disagree. I am also one of the most impacted because I closed on Jan 3, 2013 and I become eligible this coming year. I see no reason to take it away from others. They made the cut fair and square and were receiving it based upon the rules in place at that time in terms of eligibility. I guess that to be very, very fair, they could have rules that anyone who purchased a home from 1/1/13 - 12/31/17 would fall under the 3 year rule and going forward it would be 10 years. However, the cost of monitoring that eligibility would wind up absorbing a good amount of the "savings" for three years that will be gained by the new rules.

Sometimes you are the bug and sometimes you are the windshield.

Disagreement is a good thing in an intelligent conversation. The old adage "Reasonable people often disagree" comes to mind.

I take your points, and understand your position. We'll respectfully agree to disagree.

[EnjoyEveryDay]

Originally Posted by BigDog811

Disagreement is a good thing in an intelligent conversation. The old adage "Reasonable people often disagree" comes to mind.

I take your points, and understand your position. We'll respectfully agree to disagree.

This is an all too rare occurrence on these threads. Kudos!

[synthnut]

Politicians will NOT take money from the rich because they are all friends ......The poor don't have the money , so who will pay the bills ? ....The middle class ALWAYS pays the bills ....We newbies coming into the state are leaving states that are FAR WORSE as far as taxes and added bills that make us move to begin with ...I look at $500 just like anyone else does , but coming from a state that has unfair taxes , and has the middle class paying for everyone , it's not as big a deal to us as it would be to the local folks .... It would not hurt my feelings if they grandfathered in the folks who already have the benefit , and change the law for us newbies .. We don't need anything to drive a wedge between us newbies and the folks that have lived here ...We're already being described as rich people moving into the state that don't mind throwing around $500