Seniors, tax fairness
I’m wondering if other seniors are upset with Gov. Ricketts over his stand on eliminating taxes on military retirement, as reported in The World-Herald this morning, Jan. 30. His theory is that we need to attract and retain military retirees in our state. Well, governor, what about the thousands of senior citizens that have grown up in Nebraska or have lived here the majority of their lives? Are they not equally important also?
I’m betting that military retirement income is much greater than Social Security. Seniors in this state, in addition to paying taxes on their Social Security, also suffer from high property taxes, high vehicle licensing taxes as well as various other taxes. We would certainly benefit from removing the tax on Social Security. We do have several states surrounding Nebraska that don’t tax their residents Social Security or at the very least do not tax till there is an AGI of $75,000 or more.
In spite of the climate, many of us retirees like living in Nebraska, but the expense of living here is getting overwhelming. I’m sure if you Google the worst states to retire in for taxes, Nebraska will always be towards the top.
Governor, let’s get serious about supporting our seniors who are living here and pay their fair share of taxes.
James Hastings, Papillion
Retired teachers, taxes
I read that Gov. Ricketts wants a bill that exempts military retirement pay from state income taxes. State governments of five of the six neighboring states of Nebraska already exempt veteran retirement pay from state income taxes. Considering the sacrifices that our veterans endure, they definitely deserve this tax break.
l understand that Nebraska is one of only five states that tax the retirement benefits of our teachers. Several times the NSEA has asked our Unicameral to exempt the state’s income tax on teacher retirement pay. Every time, the Unicameral has refused to honor NSEA’s request. Considering the sacrifices that our teachers endure to teach our children, they definitely deserve this tax break, too.
Tom Black, West Point, Neb.
Whether or not you believe there was substantial vote fraud in the November election, and I believe fraud occurred, Sen. Tim Scott, R-South Carolina, offers both believers and skeptics a means to investigate the validity of the fraud charges. His S. 13 would establish a bipartisan congressional commission to intensively scrutinize election rules in several states, specifically practices regarding mailed-in ballots and improper voter registration, and recommend to state legislatures improvements for security and management of voting. Sen. Deb Fischer is a bill co-sponsor.
To avoid Trump voters from feeling disenfranchised and restore their confidence in voting, it is critical that we regain faith and trust in our electoral system. Without the ability to question a substantive concern in our political process, we cannot move forward as a united country.
This commission will issue an initial report documenting discovered incidences of improper and fraudulent voter registration and voting.
A second report will recommend best election practices that local and state governments should adopt.
Congress must pass S. 13 to examine both intentional and unintentional voting fraud in several key electoral states and identify and remedy practices that would perpetuate fraud in future elections. Sen. Ben Sasse should be lobbied to be a bill co-sponsor.
Doug Kagan, Omaha
president, Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom
Honoring a hero
Thanks again for a story about the Sonic shootings that honors a hero and shows the cowardice of the perpetrator.
Robert Koley, Omaha
Social media, law
I disagree with Don Stenberg’s reasoning (Jan. 29 Midlands Voices) for passing LB 621, which would limit social media’s ability to block content in their platforms.
Mr. Stenberg mentions how Christian family planning services are free from distributing any information that they see as unfit. He specifically mentions providing information about abortions. People who provide information should be free from having to distribute any information they see as unfit — for any reason, be it religious, as it would be with the family clinics, or if they in earnest believe it not to be factual or think it could be a danger to an individual of society as a whole.
Saying social medias should be required to post content that they seen as unfit would be similar to saying the family clinics should provide Planned Parenthood pamphlets. After all, they wouldn’t be the speaker, just the distributer of the information. They could be free from any liabilities and could offer a disclaimer that this information is not consistent with the teachings of the Church and would be considered a sin.
But as I previously said, any provider of information should be free from providing information that they see as unfit. Of course the clinics shouldn’t be required to distribute abortion information, and the social media companies shouldn’t be required to distribute information that is proven to be untrue.
Tom Lutz, Papillion
It got out of the way
A strange thing happened a few days ago. Government passed the vaccine all the way down to the people in our little hospital and then got the hell out of the way. Can you believe, the staff at that hospital did a professional job in a professional manner without government telling them how to do it ?