right, so technically, there is no "no tax" bracket. right? I mean, just over a year ago, when my brother-in-law was living with us, he made a piss-poor amount of money working in a kitchen at a local greasy spoon, his paycheck every week had columns for Social Security, Fed Taxes, etc. at tax time he got a refund check of something like ten bucks.
so I guess I'm still wondering, is that considered paying no taxes? or, if not, what qualifies? will ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 12:22 PM Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > The exemption for Social Security is tiny. $100? something that small, > anyway. > > On Thu, 29 May 2003 12:08:04 -0700, William Bowen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > by not paying taxes do you mean not having to write a check to the > > government at the end of the year? or no tax liablity whatsoever? is > > there a > > "no tax" tax bracket? I know there is a "don't have to file" rule but > > everybody regardless of how much or little one makes pays taxes on their > > income, right? SS, medicaid/medicare, taxes as well, right? > > > > If that is the case, then a tax cut to the lowest bracket would be a tax > > cut > > for those who "pay no taxes," no? > > > > will > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Andy Ousterhout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 11:30 AM > > Subject: RE: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > >> 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] > >> nacho.com> > >> 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 Host with the leader in ColdFusion hosting. Voted #1 ColdFusion host by CF Developers. Offering shared and dedicated hosting options. www.cfxhosting.com/default.cfm?redirect=10481 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
