You would have to check with SSA about that, but I believe the rule of thumb is that they take the 10 most productive quarters in calculating the monthly benefit.
====================================== Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For CF hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 ====================================== If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 4:06 PM Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for | so 13800 a year max and 8k is realistic for say a woman that did not work | for several years? | | Dana | | Doug White writes: | | > The max Social security payout monthly is around $1150.00 | > for those who maxed payin over their working careers. | > | > ====================================== | > Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! | > For CF hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com | > ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 | > ====================================== | > If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! | > | > ----- Original Message ----- | > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3:45 PM | > Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for | > | > | > | 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 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
