What is this 8K number you keep throwing around? Tim
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dana Tierney [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 5:10 PM > To: CF-Community > 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 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
