Rep. Garrett with Julia Perry, Antonio Nadera, Erin Novak and Shannon Casey, all students from the Fifth District who are taking classes and interning at various organizations in Washington, D.C. this semester. We had a lively discussion about issues facing young people in the U.S. and the experiences they’ve had here in our nation’s capital.
Rep. Garrett: America’s Current Economic Path is Unfair to Future Generations
Apr 1, 2014
Ridgewood NJ, Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), senior member of the House Budget Committee and Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, issued the following statement regarding the introduction of the House Budget Committee’s Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution:
“Our fiscal situation is dire. Each of our children and grandchildren are on the hook for nearly $56,000 of our $17.5 trillion dollar debt. It’s time for us to put an end to the overspending and borrowing of more and more money each year. Today, the House Budget Committee puts forth a budget that recognizes that the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. Rather than continuing on the road to debt and decline, we instead offer a path forward that focuses on economic growth, expands opportunity, and restores fairness. Years of foolish overspending have brought us to this point, but America’s current economic path is no laughing matter.”
Agreed, it’s called “generational theft”. A hard working 35 year old who earns a salary can pay up to 40% of their income in federal taxes, but some 65% year old who only earns dividends pays only 20% ? Older people own more stocks, real estate and have more accumulated savings, so why should a worker be subsidizing a coupon clipper ?
Ahhhh that 65 year old paid up to 40% of their income in taxes when they were 35 years old and helped support people who were 65 when they were 35. Now you want to pay more taxes AGAIN? Talk about being self centered and greedy #1!
Yes, but that 65 year old is part of the generation responsible for the fiscal mess we are in by voting for people who don’t know how to stay within a budget. The 35 year old, much less responsible, and the 18 year old, not at all. The question is who should have to pay for it. My vote is that the generation that caused the problem should have to pay for the results they caused. Your generation voted for this progressive nightmare, you should have to pay for its aftermath.
investment money has already been taxed , the taxes on dividend and capital gains is a double tax
Clearly you don’t know what you are taking about….todays 35 year old was 30 years old when they voted for Obama, the President who has increased the National Debt more than ALL of the Presidents before him. We got what we wanted and voted for, and if you don’t like it you better work to change the way you and others vote. Clearly you are one of those young people who were fooled into thinking you could expected a check from Obama and now your finding out your getting the bill….(Healthcare, Social Security, Medicade, Medicare, etc)
Come again #2 ? A salaried worker in their 30s will – at most – get 70% of their expected SS benefits when they retire at age 67, or more likely 70. They don’t get a defined benefit pension, so they have to save for their own retirement through a defined contribution IRA or employer based 401k. When today’s 65 year old was 35, they paid their income tax rate on dividends, not 20%. Stop revising history to your benefit !
James, you should watch Stan Druckenmiller’s presentation to NYU students on YouTube – he’s made +30% annual returns over his career and actually knows a thing or two about generational theft.
#6 said A salaried worker in their 30s will – at most – get 70% of their expected SS benefits when they retire at age 67, or more likely 70. They don’t get a defined benefit pension, so they have to save for their own retirement through a defined contribution IRA or employer based 401k. When today’s 65 year old was 35, they paid their income tax rate on dividends, not 20%. Stop revising history to your benefit !
Maybe only Warren Buffet paid 20% on his dividends when he was 35 because he did NOT have earned income. Every other 35 year old, 30 years ago and today, who works for a living pays income taxes on his or hers earned income in various brackets (15%, 28% 35%). Nearly 3/4 of Americans did not have investments in stocks 35 years ago and the same is true today, only about 50% have investments that pay dividends, so stop trying to rewrite history. Social Security was NOT designed to be your only retirement tool, but like most people you look at it like the government should take care of you from cradle to grave. Try reading and learning before you open your mouth and make yourself look like a fool.
once again money used to invest has already been taxed , capital gains and dividend taxes are double taxation .
#10 said……most dividend paying stocks are held by 65 year old coupon clippers, not salaried 35 year olds ! So why does the coupon clipper only pay 20% vs 40% at the top bracket for someone who only earns a salary ? Why do you hate people spying taxes on earned income so much ? You probably hate the BoE, too ?.
You are clearly talking about an area you know NOTHING about. First, dividends are NOT earned income. Second, increasing the tax rate on dividends will reduce the revenue to the Federal Government and hurt the US economy. What the hell does the BOE have to do with any of this.
once again money used to invest has already been taxed , capital gains and dividend taxes are double taxation .
And lets not forget, those dividends are benefitting everyone.
Even union pension funds! (the ones that are smart enough to invest their money)
So while left wing politicians bad-mouth dividends, their union constituents benefit from them! Are you surprised?
thank you
#13 – You are clearly talking about private sector unions, because public sector pension funds are run by the government. Yes, the same governemnt that fails to pay an agreed share, and even raids the funds to give tax rebates to tax payers who complain about the state of the pension fund. The raiding has been done, now the bill has come due. Why should the people who paid while the government was taking be the ones to repay the money? You profitted from it, and you complain about it. It would be funny if it wasn’t so hypocritical.