Dana, By default, if you do not pay taxes in the first place, you can't have them lowered. Increasing welfare is a different, but related discussion.
Andy -----Original Message----- From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 1:00 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for so in other words Bill Gates got a tax cut but the minimum wage folks didnt. Dana On Thu, 29 May 2003 13:53:32 -0400, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, a minimum wage double-earner family of four doesn't pay federal > income > tax, at least from what I understand it. > > Bill gates is probably in the 9.94 area. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 1:38 PM >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for >> >> This was the best link I could find. It seems that they may have >> abolished >> the marriage tax, which is probably one step toward equity. I would >> however >> be more interested in seeing some categories like -- Bill Gates. And a >> minimum wage double-earner family of four. >> >> Dana >> >> On Thu, 29 May 2003 13:08:56 -0400, John Stanley >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> > it seemed from the link provided on this thread that people following >> > happened: >> > >> > Single, age 60 30k annual income..............11.5% savings >> > Unmarried HOH one child 30k...................27.9% >> > Married 2 children 50K........................42.3% >> > Single 0 Children 50k.........................4.2% >> > Married 2 kids 100k...........................19.3% >> > Single 0 kids 100k............................8.03% >> > Married 2 kids 300k...........................9.94% >> > >> > >> > It seems like those with 2 kids and making 50k a year get the most >> > savings >> > percentage wise. >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 12:58 PM >> > To: CF-Community >> > Subject: RE: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 12:48 PM >> >> To: CF-Community >> >> Subject: RE: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for >> >> >> >> so am I wrong? >> >> >> >> Are most of the workers in this country employed by the wealthy >> > minority? >> >> I >> >> know in my company that is true... >> > >> > Wrong about what? Your statement or your implication? >> > >> > The statement "most people are employed buy the wealthy" is absolutely >> > true. >> > >> > The implication that those people then deserve a largest tax break is >> > questionable at best. >> > >> > Jim Davis >> > >> > >> > >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
