LOL! Bwahahahahaha! My turn to call BS! You actually believe that crap? Foodservice, construction, social services, teachers, the list can go on and on of people who are very hardworking and have a high "productive" level, but will _never_ be rich. My mother was a teacher who ended up divorced and supporting two kids and a house. I can distinctly remember going out shopping and while we were sitting outside the store she said to me, "I want you too look at this number in my checkbook. That's it." The balance in the checkbook was $11.
Heck, most of the service industry is made up of the hardest working people you will ever meet and they're the working poor. Now if by productive, you mean people who maneuver themselves into a position that they benefit while others work, then sure. Yeah. That's what the system favors. But hey, I'm a white-collar tech worker that is firmly in the middle-income bracket. -Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:36 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > It favors the porductive. > > Tim Heald MCP/CCFD > Information Systems Specialist > Overseas Security Advisory Council > U.S. Department of State > (202) 663-0130 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kevin Graeme [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 10:19 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > 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 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
