You start paying Social Security at about $100 of income. I havene't looked it up but I know it's under $1000. EIC is a federal income tax credit and a different matter. I'd say it reaches somewhat above the truly needy level though -- and it fact up to a point it increases with income. And it's based on taxable income, not actual income.
Dana > How do you figure? The truly needed don't pay taxes, in fact they get the > EIC. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3:15 PM > Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > but we already reditribute, only from the needy to the affluent. > > > > Kevin Schmidt writes: > > > > > How do you determine that it matters or not? Maybe you don't think it > > > matters to someone with money in the bank, but they might. Trying to > > > determine what someone needs rather than making it equal across the > board it > > > starting down the path of redistribution of wealth, which is a bad road > to > > > travel down. > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > >From sunny Las Vegas!!!!!!! > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 1:28 PM > > > Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > > > > > > I'd agree with you if I thought everyone would get their 8k. Maybe. > But > > > > since we all know it isn't going to work out that way, why should poor > > > > people subsidize the affluent white elderly? The current system is > just > > > > grotesque. If you are going to cut, cut where it wont hurt, geez. As > for > > > > need, that is to be determined. I proposed a cutoff of 100,000 but it > > > could > > > > be anywhere; that is just my perception of where 8k doesnt matter too > much > > > > any more. The point is there should be SOME point where it cuts off. > > > > > > > > Nick McClure writes: > > > > > > > > > So you determine if a person needs the money before you send it back > to > > > > > them? What gives the government the right to decide that this person > > > needs > > > > > the money or not? > > > > > > > > > > If the person gets the 8K check, then goes and spends it buying > stuff, > > > then > > > > > hasn't that done more for the economy than the government keeping > the > > > money? > > > > > > > > > > The sense is, that the 8k is that person's money, not matter how > much > > > money > > > > > they have, it is still there money. We must tax people equally, I > almost > > > > > have a problem having a staggered tax bracket. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 2:07 PM > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > > > > > > > > my point is I fail to see the sense in sending checks for what, 8k > a > > > year, > > > > > > to multi-millionaires. Sure a means test would be bureaucracy, but > if > > > it > > > > > > saves money would't it be a necessary evil? > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > Heald, Tim writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I advocate not giving out any money. No problems with a budget > when > > > the > > > > > > > budget is $0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: Dana Tierney [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 7:51 PM > > > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what, you advocate indiscrimiately handing out money? That > helps > > > > > > balance > > > > > > > > the budget, fer sure.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 30 May 2003 07:21:50 -0400, Heald, Tim > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A means test? From a small government advocate? > > > > > > > > > Sometimes................ > > > > > > > > > Nevermind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > >> From: Dana Tierney [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > >> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 5:34 PM > > > > > > > > >> To: CF-Community > > > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> yep. I can I can. It's not that I begrudge people their > > > pensions, > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > >> just > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> that hey I was paying this when I was driving a cab gettign > > > robbed > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > >> living in DC to feed my kids and people with many times my > > > income > > > > > > where > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> saying hey we paid in so we are entitled. I paid in too and > I > > > doubt > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > >> will > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> ever see mine. Personally I think social security pensions > > > should > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > >> means test. Maybe $100 000 a year and below. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Dana > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, 29 May 2003 14:52:14 -0500, Doug White > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > | > > > > > > > > >> > | Also, we could make Social Security a progessive not a > > > > > > regressive > > > > > > > > >> tax. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > But > > > > > > > > >> > | that would end the subsidy of the affluent elderly and > > > > > > politically > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> would > > > > > > > > >> > | never happen as those people vote. > > > > > > > > >> > | > > > > > > > > >> > | Dana > > > > > > > > >> > | > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > I paid in to SS (and with employer match) from the > beginning, > > > and > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > >> > now am > > > > > > > > >> > reaping the so-called benefits. Thankfully, there are a > > > couple > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > >> other > > > > > > > > >> > retirement pensions, and investments to help out, plus I > am > > > still > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> working, in a > > > > > > > > >> > way, that is. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > You Betcha we do <grin> and likewise support a very > active > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> effective > > > > > > > > >> > lobby, as well. Can you spell AARP? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
