Click to see

Click to see
Obama countdown

Friday, February 12, 2016

Bernie & Hillary want your pensions-er-PASSIVE INCOME

  Now you may be thinking you are not one of the higher income folks in the United States. 
  Listening to the Democrat "debate" moderated by Clinton Foundation donors, my ears pricked up at the term "passive income."
  I'm not much of a money aficionado myself, having spent a lifetime actually earning an income and now resting on a modest earned pension.
  So, sure, my modest earned pension should not be of interest to the Democrats who claim that only the 1% of upper incomes are in the cross hairs, which includes the 538 billionaires in the United States who seem to be eagerly looking for refuge overseas these days.
  So once they run out of billionaires and people who won the lottery, both literally and figuratively, whose income will they seek?
  Because everyone knows Bernie's & HIllary's plans will soon run out of money as in so many countries such as Greece, Italy, Venezuela......they'll be looking for other sources of incomes, which leads me to the comments made last night.

  CNS records BS's & Hillary's comments:
"I would hope that you would come onboard and say that this is the simple and straightforward thing to do. We're asking the top 1.5 percent, including passive income, to start paying a little bit more so that the elderly and disabled vets in this country can live with security and dignity. I hope you will make a decision soon on this."

"Well, Senator, look, I think we're in vigorous agreement here," Clinton said. "We both want to get more revenue in. I have yet to see a proposal that you're describing that...raising the cap would apply to passive income. That has not been--"

"That's my bill. Check it out," Sanders interrupted.

"Well, that has not been a part of most of the proposals that I've seen," Clinton responded. "I'm interested in making sure we get the maximum amount of revenue from those who can well afford to provide it. So I'm going to come up with the best way forward. We're going to end up in the same place. We're going to get more revenue. I'm going to prioritize those recipients who need the most help first."
  Now note that HIllary says they are in "vigorous agreement" that they need more "revenue," meaning your money and that "passive income" is an obvious "revenue" source.
  For you rubes out there who don't know what "passive income" is (like me), it's this, from Wikipedia:

  • Any type of property income 
  • Earnings from a business that does not require direct involvement from the owner or merchant; 
  • Rent from property; 
  • Interest from a bank account
    Royalties from publishing a book or from licensing a patent or other form of intellectual property, such as computer software product;
  • Earnings from internet advertisements on websites; 
  • Dividend and interest income from owning securities, such as stocks and bonds, is usually referred to as portfolio income, which may or may not be considered a form of passive income. In the United States, portfolio income is considered a different type of income than passive income; 
  • Pensions.
   So you say to yourself, "Fortunately I don't make enough money for the feds to be interested in my pension."
  Here in Ohio a few years ago (well, ok, a lot, it was 1986), they passed a law that you had to wear a seatbelt but there would be no penalty for not wearing it. 
  Originally police could not cite you for not wearing it or stop you for not wearing it or ticketing you for not wearing.  
  Then the law was altered in 1992.
  Now, of course, there's a fine. 
  You'll note from this link that the fine has been raised.
  Graciously, the government allows that they will not add points to your license since not wearing a seat belt is not a moving violation.
  IOW, open that door and watch the laws and regulation change and evolve as more as more immigrants widows & children pour in the door and we anoint them with the oil of free health care, housing, income and pensions which will undoubtedly not be taxed because, well, they weren't born here.
   So don't think your modest pension will be exempt for long from a "passive income" tax.
  Add insult to injury, you'll also note that the description of a "passive income" is "an income received on a regular basis, with little effort required to maintain it. It is closely related to the concept of "unearned income".
  That's just another reminder that the feds think they get to decide who earned their pensions, just like  they get to hand out Social Security to whomever they please.
  At the same time, Social Security recipients who worked all their lives are subsisting on government largesse aka an "entitlement."
   Though admittedly some people haven't earned their Social Security, I did earn my pension and took a lot of effort to get there. 
  So hands off my passive income, you commies. 
  It took a lot of years and effort to earn it. 
  But they need more "revenue" to waste on stupid experiments and the over half million federal employees making over $100,000 a year.

1 comment:

  1. Remember how Democrats used to oppose IRA's and 401K's until they became so popular? Tax deferred savings were a threat to the federal treasury.