They may not need it, however when you start putting caps on what people can earn, or get back, you start removing the motivation to work harder beyond the point of where they aren't going to see any return.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3:30 PM Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > that's right, I forgot you need an SUV. That'a a low blow though; let's go > at it this way. I don't actually know how much the average Social Security > check is, but let's say 8k. Isn't there *some* point beyond which people > simply don't need it? Define it by local cost of living, family size, > adjusted gross income, or whatever. > > Dana > > Kevin Schmidt writes: > > > Your want may be someone elses need. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 2:58 PM > > Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > > > I can believe it. Especially if you are in SF NY or DC. But it's about > > > twice MY family income so I dont think we are honestly talking NEED at > > that > > > point do you? Wasn't Social Security originally supposed to be insurance? > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > William Bowen writes: > > > > > > > > $100,000 doesn't go as far as sounds like. > > > > > > > > boy, ain't *that* the truth... > > > > > > > > ^_^ > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Nick McClure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 11:41 AM > > > > Subject: RE: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > > > > > > > > > $100,000 doesn't go as far as sounds like. > > > > > > > > > > My point is that government can not adequately determine what a person > > > > > needs, it isn't the same on every state or city. > > > > > > > > > > What a person needs to survive in Lexington KY, is much different than > > > > what > > > > > a person needs in New York City. > > > > > > > > > > So do you have a cost of living scale for each city? This type of > > system > > > > > would punish the rich for being rich, which is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 2:29 PM > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > 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
