I admire Palin for bringing the issues of special needs families into the Presidential race. I would admire her more for creating a proposal, along with John McCain to serve the needs of those families. I admire her less for choosing instead to demagogue the issue in a misleading way.
In other news, the guys at the Financial Times have gone and endorsed the socialist candidate. Obviously they can’t see what is obvious to so many dyed in the wool Republican partisans. I don’t understand why people like that can’t just leave economics to the experts at the RNC.
In still other news, we learn that Sarah Sixpack doesn’t normally blow 150 g’s on a wardrobe. That’s the RNC’s fault. She’s clearly in no way associated with the RNC, and she’ll have you know that she buys her Giucci and Armani at a consignment shop in Alaska, in the most frugal way that you can buy Giucci and Armani. (But seriously folks -this is about as important as John Edwards’ haircut. Politicians spend a lot of money on wardrobes for the simple reason that looks are too important to the simian electorate. It’s just the wonderful cluelessness of this response that makes me want to mention it at all.)
She’s right.
We are in this exact situation right now, where my wife’s parents have set up a trust for my special needs son in the event of their death, and they’re most CERTAINLY having to work with their financial manager in order to best serve him in the event of Obama’s proposed tax plan. Obama wants to distribute the money to his voters, my in-laws want it to go towards my son. The summary of your preferred link:
Obama’s plan would increase taxes on individuals making more than $200,000 and families making $250,000, and it would include the income on interest in special needs trusts. But Obama does not have a plan to raise taxes on special needs trusts in general.
In short: hey, he’s going to raise ALL THE TAXES on those amounts, not just those targeting special needs kids.
Ah, I feel so much better knowing that the fund will be taxed more than if it happened today. After all, we need to spread the wealth around. Who are my in-laws to choose what should happen with the fund?
-
She did propose something on Friday: Transportable funding for special needs kids’ education.
The Obama campaign hasn’t yet disseminated the “it’s bad for education” talking points yet, so there’s not much play in the media. I can tell you, though, it’s good for special needs parents (but, bad for teacher’s unions, therefore evil). I’m lucky enough to live near a fantastic special needs school. Well, they’re not all that numerous, so there have been many cases of people changing jobs & moving their families so that they can be close to this school in order for their kids to get this necessary education; otherwise, if they don’t live in the appropriate school ‘district’, they must pay through the nose for their kids to attend.
Should be a no brainer for any pol seeking to do the right thing for special needs kids: but, alas, we know that pols look out for their ideologies first, their parties second, their careers third, “us”….eh, afterthought.
-
FT is a left leaning outfit. About as predictable as the WSJ endorsing McCain.
Emphasis change:
If such funds were exempted now and wouldn’t be under Obama’s plan, then it would be responsible to claim that he is going to raise taxes on those trusts. In fact, he is not targeting those trusts, and on the vast majority of them, he would be reducing taxes. So, this was pure demagoguery on her part. I’m glad to hear that you are in the exceptional few percent who are able to fund your trusts at a much higher level. I’m sorry that you will pay a slightly higher tax on the interest those trusts will accrue, but glad that you will be making that extra interest and that the child it is meant for will be much better taken care of than most American children with special needs are.
In fact, he is not targeting those trusts, and on the vast majority of them, he would be reducing taxes. So, this was pure demagoguery on her part.
You know those tax breaks that McCain is giving to ‘big oil’? It’s the same deductions available to all businesses (i.e., depreciation, training, etc.), team Obama/press simply decided to single out one industry in order to make a boogey-man.
If we’re going to establish some rules for the game, it would be nice if both teams were allowed to play by them.
He’s also better looking than most American children with special needs. Btw….what does it matter? Was that – and I ask this with a straight face with zero malice involved (you should know that by now) – some sort of “we need to equalize the outcome” sendoff thinly disguised as a gesture of good will?
I mean…..my wife & I waited until we were 30 before we had kids, just to ensure that we’d have a stable home, income, foundation, and such so that our kids would INDEED be better prepared and have more opportunities than if we’d started earlier (meaning that our planning would result in them probably being “much better taken care of than most American children” are.
I would think that would be lauded. I would think that people who privately set aside their own earnings so that their heirs (who have disabilities) would be better taken care of by the family, and therefore (I’m going to capitalize this because it’s the crux of the entire thingie) LESS LIKELY TO RELY ON THE GOV’T….would be a good thing.
I guess my question is: How is this not the preferred approach? Shouldn’t this be the goal of everyone, so that those who can take care of themseleves, do? And those who can not (different than DO not, btw) are thus eligible for relief (such as in the form of relief that Gov. Palin is proposing)?
-
BTW, you know that you can pretty much say whatever & I won’t take umbrage, so don’t worry about “oh, Ricky may think I’m being mean”. Trust me, I won’t. We know each other well enough that we should be able to have a discussion about controversial subjects w/o having to worry about offending the other. So, go ‘head & let ‘er rip. I can accept someone supporting Obama’s tax plan (don’t really understand it, but can accept it) but I’m wondering why there’s even an inkling of resentment – and that’s what I read, an inkling – in my in-laws setting aside a portion of their retirement in order to ensure that my son has the same opportunities as my daughter. And, no, I didn’t misread: I know what the “I’m glad that your son will be better off than the average” really means….so, let’s put the cards on the table. It’s okay, really, lay ‘em out.
The article points out that the income on that interest is already taxed according to the same rules on income tax. So, where Obama increases taxes on interest in such trusts for a tiny minority of people, it decreases taxes on interest in such trusts for the majority.
No… that wasn’t what I was saying at all. What I was saying was that I’m happy this child will have better than most – and that is in part because most don’t have good enough.
I’m proud of you that you were together enough (and protestant enough!) to plan your family carefully and succeed so well with it. I admire that. Greatly. But, I don’t think that what you do should be the standard for everyone. Having children is a natural part of life, and if younger people choose to do it at a riskier time of life – with or without complete awareness of the risks involved – we shouldn’t as a result abandon them.
I think it is a good thing. Neither Obama nor McCain have a plan to adjust the rules for such trusts in order to make them more attractive under the tax code. It would be good if they did.
But, of course, the most emphasis on the issue of special needs children has to go to those who don’t make $250k/year and who therefore aren’t able to create sizable & significant trusts for their special needs children. Those kids are the ones that really need a boost up… from society.
The focus should be on (1) better services for special needs children, and (2) better ways to make those services available to sepcial needs children.
So far as I know, none of the candidates have proposed anything special in those regards, and certainly neither has done anything counterproductive to those priorities.
Palin’s implication that the Obama plan does so is out of line.
I’ve only made it to this part & I’m still laughing to hard to continue:
’m proud of you that you were together enough (and protestant enough!) to plan your famil
LOL!!
Truth be told, it was because I’m too darn cheap.