I don't know your income? But I like the sound of your garden! My point is that however you define need, there are people whose income is above it. Right now those people still draw social security. Since we know the system is goign broke wouldnt that be a place to start? I really do have to get some work done though. I will write something longer later about why I figure it's income redistribution from the right to the poor.
Dana Doug White writes: > Widowed, no dependents > retired > Active member of AARP > Mostly prepares meals at home, has a garden producing fresh veggies, and fruit > trees, Peaches, lemons, and ruby red grapefruit. Make my own flour for > breadmaking and, of course blueberry muffins, etc. > still has 5 years left on mortgage at 5.25% (Texas Veteran's Land Board rate) > Also runs hosting service, and am an independent consultant for networks, and > server setups. > > So I should be eliminated? LOL > > ====================================== > 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 4:01 PM > Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > | it would be legislated like anything else. Before you fall over laughing, > | remember I stipulated at the beginning of the discussion that none of this > | was goign to happen due to the power of the AARP voting bloc. I also think > | there is something slightly perverted about a society where we can > | seriously talk about those poor people living paycheck to paycheck on > | 100,000 a year, but poo poo the need of some guy with three kids and 5.50 > | an hour. Let's see, if he works 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year that's > | 11,440. I do believe this guy benefits very little from the Bush tax cut > | since the increase in the child tax credit is based on income over $10,000. > | And unlike me he doesnt have the option of refiling his taxes to use fewer > | deductions, thats just what he makes. > | > | Kevin Schmidt writes: > | > | > So who would get to decide the means? A poor person would always assume the > | > rich have too much and the rich wouldn't know what is needed to get by. > | > Getting by all depends on how you live. I know people that make $100,000 a > | > year and are paycheck to paycheck and I know peopl e making $50,000 that are > | > doing quite well. > | > > | > ----- Original Message ----- > | > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3:07 PM > | > Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > | > > | > > | > > Well, first of all, such a measure has no hope of passage. To discuss the > | > > hypothetical however, I would be in favor of just about any means test as > | > > long as there *was* one. I just don't think it is right to take money > | > from > | > > people who are struggling for survival and give it to people who don't > | > need > | > > it. To stop doing this would not be punishing the rich for being rich, it > | > > would just be *not* giving them money they don't need. While we are at it > | > > maybe we could reform the structure of the tax, and maybe drop the > | > > retirement age so a black man an actual chance of benefiting from the > | > > system he is paying into. Do you honestly think the poor slob working at > | > > the minumum wage needs his money less than Bill Gates? > | > > > | > > Beyond all that though is the fact that the system is gonna go bankrupt if > | > > it continues as is. > | > > > | > > Dana > | > > > | > > Nick McClure writes: > | > > > | > > > $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 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
