Thank you for your thoughtful responses on this issue of the taxation ban on Social Security for persons under the $100,000 cap for single persons and for couples under the $150,000 cap. You have voiced many of my concerns. I realize that there should be a plan for recovering the loss of revenue, but I think at least the needle has been moved in the right direction and this may force some serious work on the part of legislators in figuring out where that money is going to be found to replace the loss of income.

One of the challenges of exempting a type of income from taxation (rather than a level of income, for example) is that the type of income a person receives is an imperfect measure of the needs of the individual receiving that income. Some of the proposals to exempt Social Security covered all recipients regardless of their income levels. Unfortunately those who have lower life expectancy don't get a chance to earn much from Social Security,

A major concern about the Social Security exemption was the loss of revenue to the state with no plan in place to address the need for revenue when the oil and gas funds decline and the huge flow of federal dollars disappears.

Kathy

On 02/22/2022 2:45 PM Rosa I. Morales via Action <action@mailman.swcp.com> wrote:

Thanks for enhancing the knowledge of some League members.

We can add the fact that historically women had earned considerable less than man, therefore affecting their retirement income (SS and pension).

Should we discuss double taxation?

Let’s add that women keeps living longer than men, therefore their long term living expenses surpass men’s.

Due to their reproductive system, women throughout their lives spend more in medical care.

Also, many studies keep showing that in the US, women continue being the primary adult responsible for most children and elder parents. Men slowly are building parity in these two areas, but not fast enough.

It is important to mention that many women leave their full time jobs, or decrease the amount of hours due to unforeseen family needs. Have you checked the children’s doctor’s offices? They are full of women taking their children on appointments, even when the children are being raised by two parents.

I can go on and on, but no doubt that there is the need to expand the knowledge on how life is lived by large segments of the population that due to their gender, race, status, place where they were born, education, etc. continue living in extremely disadvantaged situations.

As a social worker I can write not only one book, but many about the challenges some individuals, especially women and children continue experiencing, while most decision makers continue being men. It is very unfortunate that their voices continue not being accurately represented at all levels of government and in most powerful organizations.

May we be wise, brave, and patient in accepting the ongoing need to build a bridge and help educate those who continue experiencing the challenges of daily life very differently.

Rosa I. Morales, MSW

Strive to build organizations, systems and communities that embrace ALL PEOPLE.

On Feb 22, 2022, at 1:51 PM, Linda McDowell via Action <action@mailman.swcp.com> wrote:

I agree that a $150,000 is a low cap. Seniors may be in residential care that costs $130,000, paying $30,000 in property taxes,paying medical insurance and copays for medication and medical care, IRS and state taxes, etc.

The state budget should not be a kids vs seniors battle, but should instead benefit

all New Mexicans.

Linda C. McDowell

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 22, 2022, at 10:14 AM, Richard Mason via Action <action@mailman.swcp.com> wrote:

The League position is that our tax system should be progressive. A flat exemption that does not take into consideration people's ability to pay is not progressive. Most low income seniors do no pay taxes on their SS benefits.

Dick Mason

-----Original Message-----
From: Jane Asche via Action <action@mailman.swcp.com>
To: Richard Mason via Action <action@mailman.swcp.com>
Cc: Jane Asche <janeasche@comcast.net>
Sent: Tue, Feb 22, 2022 9:38 am
Subject: Re: [LWVNM Action] The budget as a moral document

Richard,

So do you consider the limit of an income of $100,000 for single people
and $150,000 for couples to be high incomes in today's economy of high
inflation? I do think the income limits for the exemption should be a
little lower. However, for my husband and I (86 and 82 years old), both
retired professionals with investments in lots of higher education
during our careers for our selves and our children, have a combined
retirement income of right around $70,000. It seems whether the limits
are reasonable enough is affected by the health issues retired people
face and often times responsibilities to care for aging parents as new
retirees. In some cases, a retired couple with an income a little below
$150,00 is not a lot.

Jane Asche

On 2/18/2022 9:29 AM, Richard Mason via Action wrote:
> Many over the years have called the budget a moral document - how you
> raise & spend money reflects the values of the society. I am attaching
> the Fiscal Impact Report (FIR) for HB163 - the tax package just passed
> by the Legislature. The whole story is on the first of the 24 pages.
>
> The Income Tax Exemption for Social Security costs the state from 84
> million in the first year to 99.5 million in the 4tth year
> This mainly benefits middle to high income seniors
>
> The Child Tax Credit that goes to families with children doesn't go
> into effect until the second year & then costs the state about 75
> million a year
> I actually heard a legislator say they had to reduce it
> because of the fiscal impact
>
> Conclusion - our Legislature cares more about middle to high income
> seniors than they do about families with children.
> Maybe because old folks like me vote in greater numbers.
>
> Dick Mason
>
> _______________________________________________
> Action mailing list
> Action@mailman.swcp.com
> https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/action
--
Jane A. Asche, Ed.D., Email: janeasche@comcast.net, Cell: 575-649-8154

_______________________________________________
Action mailing list
Action@mailman.swcp.com
https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/action

_______________________________________________
Action mailing list
Action@mailman.swcp.com
https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/action

_______________________________________________
Action mailing list
Action@mailman.swcp.com
https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/action

_______________________________________________
Action mailing list
Action@mailman.swcp.com
https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/action

_______________________________________________
Action mailing list
Action@mailman.swcp.com
https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/action