I agree that many, many people have kids that can't financially support them by generally accepted "modern" standards. However, shit happens and many people already with kids get put into a position of financial stress. Divorce, death, tornado, whatever.
No people aren't "trapped" in the sense of jackbooted thugs are going to kick in your door if you make more than a certain amount. However, as Dana very succinctly pointed out, the system is designed to keep poor people paying a higher percentage of their income towards taxes and thus keep them poor. I don't know what a good solution is, but it's undeniable that the system favors the rich. -Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 6:59 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > Thank god that guy is there so that I can do as well as I do. > Seriously. Lets stop pretending that we don't have different > classes in the US, or that a lower class isn't a necessary > evil. The thing about the U.S. that makes it better than > other times and places is that you are not TRAPPED in your > class. Through hard work, education, and sometimes luck, you > can change your class. > > BTW do you really know someone with 3 kids who makes $5.50? > Do you really think we should have to assist him because he > was irresponsible, bringing life into the world he can't afford? > > Tim > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dana Tierney [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 6:05 PM > > To: CF-Community > > 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 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
