<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Even if you love socialistic programs, this still doesn't make sense. Subsidized city transit programs are popular even though some people may never use it in their entire life. This would be like making those individuals pay more for it than the ones riding it every single day.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Actually they ARE probably paying more. Higher income people are the ones less likely to use public transit yet they will pay more city income taxes. Of course city tax structures vary so widely this may not be the case in your community.<br><br>But the child tax credit increase makes perfect sense from a socalistic standpoint now that it was extended to those who pay no federal income taxes. It's welfare at the tax level. It's socalistic at its core. It's a simple transfer of wealth down the income scale. This is supposed to be a tax credit but that is a lie. It's a goverment services rebate to middle and low income familes with children. If it were a rebate then those who pay no federal income tax wouldn't be elegible for the child tax credit increase, but now they are. Trust me no one is rushing out to have a kid to get a $1,000 tax credit when they cost 10 times as much to raise.<br>I have two kids but I won't see a dime of this credit.<br><br>If your love socialist programs shut your mouth about this topic. The point of socialism is that the citizens pay a HUGE chunk of their personal income to the govenment and trust in them to spend it where it thinks it is best spent. This is exactly what the governement is doing in this case. In socalism, in essence you give control over the well being of your life and your children to the state. Socalism is the lazy mans form of government.<br><br>What irks me is everytime tax breaks are proposed all the libs whine about how they are only for the "rich" while first never defining what "rich" means. Hardly anyone thinks they are rich so hardly anyone thinks they will be effected by tax cuts so they all flock like little mindless sheep to the Dems. But the winds they are a chanin'<br><br>The truth is that tax cuts can't help lower incomes because they don't pay much, if any, federal income tax. And all the government can really do is lower a citizens federal income tax.<br><br>So, of course lower incomes won't benefit directly because their benefit is already at almost 100%<br><br><br><br>Dean Davis
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>This plan does not help the POOR -- the cut off tax bracket is above those that really need it. In short the working Poor that make less then 20K a year and being a single parent --- don't see a dime.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Because they don't pay a dime.<br><br>Dean Davis
Heck, I've always been in favor of not paying taxes for services I don't use. so I've never been in a veterans hospital (nor plan to be, since not a veteran), and have never received any welfare payments at all (nor do I plan to), so I'll refuse to pay my part of that. I have never used the interstate highway system in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, North or South Dakota, Tennessee (sorry John ), Kentucky, Oklahoma, or Hawai'i (sorry carp), so I'm willing to pay for what the feds do in PA and in the corridor from PA north to Boston--but no further north (sorry JC, Mrs. JC). And I have no use for recreational waterways cause I don't own a boat, so I'll keep the money that would have gone to the Coast Guard for that. And I'm dead set against enforcement of drug laws, so have no use for the DEA. I'll keep that money too. And I think the war in Iraq was a mistake, as are most wars, so I don't want to pay for any of the Defense Department. I haven't ridden on a train for over a decade and probably never will again, at least in the US--no money for railways from me. The only stuff I get in snail mail is hard-copy spam, so I refuse to pay any more for the psotal service.<br><br>Back in the '60s there was a movement to withhold the portion of people's income tax that was supposedly going to run the Vietnam War. The folks who did that ended up in jail on the (to me) sensible grounds that sovereignty resides in the people through their government, not in individual persons. And what do governments do? Well, among other things, they establish a set of goals and objectives, some of which I object to, some of which I don't object to. On the whole the two things balance out--I mean that what I object to is what someone else likes, and what someone else objects to is what I like.<br><br>I guess some folks can see the whole process as communism. To my mind that's a misapplication of the terms. A communist system has publicly held enterprises whose activities are determined by a command structure. We aren't even close to that in the US. Some folks see the process as fascistic, and that too seems to me a misapplication of the term since fascism has privately held enterprises, but like communism depends on a command structure. Folks, I hate to say it, but what we're missing is a command structure. Even the close relationship between business and government that we suffer from doesn't come close to a command structure.<br><br><br><br>Great wits are sure to madness near allied.--John Dryden, "Absalom and Achitophel"
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
Loc: New Hampshire
" I have never used the interstate highway system in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, North or South Dakota, Tennessee (sorry John ), Kentucky, Oklahoma, or Hawai'i (sorry carp), so I'm willing to pay for what the feds do in PA and in the corridor from PA north to Boston--but no further north (sorry JC, Mrs. JC)."<br><br>just how much are you paying there in taxes in PA to pay for the interstate for the entire country and all the feds running around the country <br><br>btw - thanks PA for picking up the tab for the rest of us! <br><br>
Without having read the entire thread, here's my two pennies...<br><br>Checks for kids is not a tax cut, it's a welfare handout. If they wanted to cut taxes, they should lower the rates. <br><br>I don't have any kids...where is my $400?<br><br>
We're encouraging reproduction here, Bryan. Get with it--your nation needs you.<br><br>This reminds me of the end of Dr. Strangelove, by the way <br><br><br><br>Great wits are sure to madness near allied.--John Dryden, "Absalom and Achitophel"
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.