[Coronita]

Duh, because they weren't able to "put in".

Income taxes for working people are mandatory, not voluntary.

Believe it or not, most low income persons would rather be paying taxes. What does that say for high income fetchers who do everything they can to avoid paying taxes?

Generally, low income persons are not in that position because they chose to be. Typically, they are victims of a terrible social and educational system, artfully designed by, guess who?

There has been much mention of the "burden" of taxes. I think that most of those who speak this word don't know the meaning of the word. High income is certainly not a burden and if its reduction by the final amount of taxes such fetchers usually pay somehow deprives them of food and shelter and medical services, then they're doing something wrong.

Low income persons carry a true burden for themselves and their children and they are kept powerless to do anything about it.

Try giving up your "burden" for theirs, you wouldn't last a week!

 

fosub,

I think the premise here though is that this definition of "low income" rebate check is different from the "low income" you describe. You're talking about "low income" people who for practical purposes don't even pay taxes.

 

This rebate program is giving to people that I would argue was arbitrarily set at $65k/$150k individual/family. Granted $65k income and $150k household income isn't considered "rich", at the same time I don't consider this to be "low income". I think the original poster meant just that. This is a pretty arbitrary rebate. In fact, it was a rebate that was meant to be given to the "middle class" so that they would spend to oblivion. And most americans probably will. 

I don't qualify for this rebate. I'm frankly not pissed that I don't get one. I just think that $150billion the government is giving out would have been better well spent if used for a purpose. For example, education, infrastructure, etc. What's worse, is this government doesn't have the $150billion.

And worse most of it will end up in the pockets our or overseas contituents that sell us all the  stuff consumers buy.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Duh, because they weren't able to "put in".

Income taxes for working people are mandatory, not voluntary.

Believe it or not, most low income persons would rather be paying taxes. What does that say for high income fetchers who do everything they can to avoid paying taxes?

Generally, low income persons are not in that position because they chose to be. Typically, they are victims of a terrible social and educational system, artfully designed by, guess who?

There has been much mention of the "burden" of taxes. I think that most of those who speak this word don't know the meaning of the word. High income is certainly not a burden and if its reduction by the final amount of taxes such fetchers usually pay somehow deprives them of food and shelter and medical services, then they're doing something wrong.

Low income persons carry a true burden for themselves and their children and they are kept powerless to do anything about it.

Try giving up your "burden" for theirs, you wouldn't last a week!

 

fosub,

I think the premise here though is that this definition of "low income" rebate check is different from the "low income" you describe. You're talking about "low income" people who for practical purposes don't even pay taxes.

 

This rebate program is giving to people that I would argue was arbitrarily set at $65k/$150k individual/family. Granted $65k income and $150k household income isn't considered "rich", at the same time I don't consider this to be "low income". I think the original poster meant just that. This is a pretty arbitrary rebate. In fact, it was a rebate that was meant to be given to the "middle class" so that they would spend to oblivion. And most americans probably will. 

I don't qualify for this rebate. I'm frankly not pissed that I don't get one. I just think that $150billion the government is giving out would have been better well spent if used for a purpose. For example, education, infrastructure, etc. What's worse, is this government doesn't have the $150billion.

And worse most of it will end up in the pockets our or overseas contituents that sell us all the  stuff consumers buy.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Duh, because they weren't able to "put in".

Income taxes for working people are mandatory, not voluntary.

Believe it or not, most low income persons would rather be paying taxes. What does that say for high income fetchers who do everything they can to avoid paying taxes?

Generally, low income persons are not in that position because they chose to be. Typically, they are victims of a terrible social and educational system, artfully designed by, guess who?

There has been much mention of the "burden" of taxes. I think that most of those who speak this word don't know the meaning of the word. High income is certainly not a burden and if its reduction by the final amount of taxes such fetchers usually pay somehow deprives them of food and shelter and medical services, then they're doing something wrong.

Low income persons carry a true burden for themselves and their children and they are kept powerless to do anything about it.

Try giving up your "burden" for theirs, you wouldn't last a week!

 

fosub,

I think the premise here though is that this definition of "low income" rebate check is different from the "low income" you describe. You're talking about "low income" people who for practical purposes don't even pay taxes.

 

This rebate program is giving to people that I would argue was arbitrarily set at $65k/$150k individual/family. Granted $65k income and $150k household income isn't considered "rich", at the same time I don't consider this to be "low income". I think the original poster meant just that. This is a pretty arbitrary rebate. In fact, it was a rebate that was meant to be given to the "middle class" so that they would spend to oblivion. And most americans probably will. 

I don't qualify for this rebate. I'm frankly not pissed that I don't get one. I just think that $150billion the government is giving out would have been better well spent if used for a purpose. For example, education, infrastructure, etc. What's worse, is this government doesn't have the $150billion.

And worse most of it will end up in the pockets our or overseas contituents that sell us all the  stuff consumers buy.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Duh, because they weren't able to "put in".

Income taxes for working people are mandatory, not voluntary.

Believe it or not, most low income persons would rather be paying taxes. What does that say for high income fetchers who do everything they can to avoid paying taxes?

Generally, low income persons are not in that position because they chose to be. Typically, they are victims of a terrible social and educational system, artfully designed by, guess who?

There has been much mention of the "burden" of taxes. I think that most of those who speak this word don't know the meaning of the word. High income is certainly not a burden and if its reduction by the final amount of taxes such fetchers usually pay somehow deprives them of food and shelter and medical services, then they're doing something wrong.

Low income persons carry a true burden for themselves and their children and they are kept powerless to do anything about it.

Try giving up your "burden" for theirs, you wouldn't last a week!

 

fosub,

I think the premise here though is that this definition of "low income" rebate check is different from the "low income" you describe. You're talking about "low income" people who for practical purposes don't even pay taxes.

 

This rebate program is giving to people that I would argue was arbitrarily set at $65k/$150k individual/family. Granted $65k income and $150k household income isn't considered "rich", at the same time I don't consider this to be "low income". I think the original poster meant just that. This is a pretty arbitrary rebate. In fact, it was a rebate that was meant to be given to the "middle class" so that they would spend to oblivion. And most americans probably will. 

I don't qualify for this rebate. I'm frankly not pissed that I don't get one. I just think that $150billion the government is giving out would have been better well spent if used for a purpose. For example, education, infrastructure, etc. What's worse, is this government doesn't have the $150billion.

And worse most of it will end up in the pockets our or overseas contituents that sell us all the  stuff consumers buy.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Duh, because they weren't able to "put in".

Income taxes for working people are mandatory, not voluntary.

Believe it or not, most low income persons would rather be paying taxes. What does that say for high income fetchers who do everything they can to avoid paying taxes?

Generally, low income persons are not in that position because they chose to be. Typically, they are victims of a terrible social and educational system, artfully designed by, guess who?

There has been much mention of the "burden" of taxes. I think that most of those who speak this word don't know the meaning of the word. High income is certainly not a burden and if its reduction by the final amount of taxes such fetchers usually pay somehow deprives them of food and shelter and medical services, then they're doing something wrong.

Low income persons carry a true burden for themselves and their children and they are kept powerless to do anything about it.

Try giving up your "burden" for theirs, you wouldn't last a week!

 

fosub,

I think the premise here though is that this definition of "low income" rebate check is different from the "low income" you describe. You're talking about "low income" people who for practical purposes don't even pay taxes.

 

This rebate program is giving to people that I would argue was arbitrarily set at $65k/$150k individual/family. Granted $65k income and $150k household income isn't considered "rich", at the same time I don't consider this to be "low income". I think the original poster meant just that. This is a pretty arbitrary rebate. In fact, it was a rebate that was meant to be given to the "middle class" so that they would spend to oblivion. And most americans probably will. 

I don't qualify for this rebate. I'm frankly not pissed that I don't get one. I just think that $150billion the government is giving out would have been better well spent if used for a purpose. For example, education, infrastructure, etc. What's worse, is this government doesn't have the $150billion.

And worse most of it will end up in the pockets our or overseas contituents that sell us all the  stuff consumers buy.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

This gossip blog from Silicon Valley pretty much sums up why I'm terrified of Hillary and not to different Obama.

 

http://valleywag.com/351653/if-hillary-clinton-ran-the-banks

Hillary Clinton at last night's debate: "I want a moratorium on foreclosure for 90 days and I want to freeze interest rates for 5 years."

Ah, socialism. Why not put a moratorium on people paying their mortgages? That seems easier.

 

Hillary, AKA Robin Woman.

 

 

Though……[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

This gossip blog from Silicon Valley pretty much sums up why I'm terrified of Hillary and not to different Obama.

 

http://valleywag.com/351653/if-hillary-clinton-ran-the-banks

Hillary Clinton at last night's debate: "I want a moratorium on foreclosure for 90 days and I want to freeze interest rates for 5 years."

Ah, socialism. Why not put a moratorium on people paying their mortgages? That seems easier.

 

Hillary, AKA Robin Woman.

 

 

Though……[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

This gossip blog from Silicon Valley pretty much sums up why I'm terrified of Hillary and not to different Obama.

 

http://valleywag.com/351653/if-hillary-clinton-ran-the-banks

Hillary Clinton at last night's debate: "I want a moratorium on foreclosure for 90 days and I want to freeze interest rates for 5 years."

Ah, socialism. Why not put a moratorium on people paying their mortgages? That seems easier.

 

Hillary, AKA Robin Woman.

 

 

Though……[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

This gossip blog from Silicon Valley pretty much sums up why I'm terrified of Hillary and not to different Obama.

 

http://valleywag.com/351653/if-hillary-clinton-ran-the-banks

Hillary Clinton at last night's debate: "I want a moratorium on foreclosure for 90 days and I want to freeze interest rates for 5 years."

Ah, socialism. Why not put a moratorium on people paying their mortgages? That seems easier.

 

Hillary, AKA Robin Woman.

 

 

Though……[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

This gossip blog from Silicon Valley pretty much sums up why I'm terrified of Hillary and not to different Obama.

 

http://valleywag.com/351653/if-hillary-clinton-ran-the-banks

Hillary Clinton at last night's debate: "I want a moratorium on foreclosure for 90 days and I want to freeze interest rates for 5 years."

Ah, socialism. Why not put a moratorium on people paying their mortgages? That seems easier.

 

Hillary, AKA Robin Woman.

 

 

Though……[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

 I really wish they taught the financial basics in High School. Having to learn this stuff as we go is tough..Hopefully we're teaching our daughter as we go so she won't make the same mistakes we've made…she'll make new ones right?

You know. I just had a conversation with a coworker about her 10 year son. Apparently, his teacher is doing really interesting projects.

1) The have math exercises such that students are given $3000 play money, and then are asked to figure out how long it would take to pay it off if they made a monthly payment of $20 with 1.5% interest compounded. Obviously this is to teach the kids a lesson.

2) They have mock elections about which each candidate stand for and watch the debates, with the kids asking parents "why isn't candidate X answering the question on the screen?"

 

I was actually pretty impressed they teach this stuff in school now. And was pretty hopeful about the future of our kids if they're teaching this stuff in schools..because it was never taught in my school, I learned from my parents…..well that is until I found out her son is in a private school.

That has got me thinking a bit.  I think my expenses will go up considerably in the distant future.

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

 I really wish they taught the financial basics in High School. Having to learn this stuff as we go is tough..Hopefully we're teaching our daughter as we go so she won't make the same mistakes we've made…she'll make new ones right?

You know. I just had a conversation with a coworker about her 10 year son. Apparently, his teacher is doing really interesting projects.

1) The have math exercises such that students are given $3000 play money, and then are asked to figure out how long it would take to pay it off if they made a monthly payment of $20 with 1.5% interest compounded. Obviously this is to teach the kids a lesson.

2) They have mock elections about which each candidate stand for and watch the debates, with the kids asking parents "why isn't candidate X answering the question on the screen?"

 

I was actually pretty impressed they teach this stuff in school now. And was pretty hopeful about the future of our kids if they're teaching this stuff in schools..because it was never taught in my school, I learned from my parents…..well that is until I found out her son is in a private school.

That has got me thinking a bit.  I think my expenses will go up considerably in the distant future.

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

 I really wish they taught the financial basics in High School. Having to learn this stuff as we go is tough..Hopefully we're teaching our daughter as we go so she won't make the same mistakes we've made…she'll make new ones right?

You know. I just had a conversation with a coworker about her 10 year son. Apparently, his teacher is doing really interesting projects.

1) The have math exercises such that students are given $3000 play money, and then are asked to figure out how long it would take to pay it off if they made a monthly payment of $20 with 1.5% interest compounded. Obviously this is to teach the kids a lesson.

2) They have mock elections about which each candidate stand for and watch the debates, with the kids asking parents "why isn't candidate X answering the question on the screen?"

 

I was actually pretty impressed they teach this stuff in school now. And was pretty hopeful about the future of our kids if they're teaching this stuff in schools..because it was never taught in my school, I learned from my parents…..well that is until I found out her son is in a private school.

That has got me thinking a bit.  I think my expenses will go up considerably in the distant future.

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

 I really wish they taught the financial basics in High School. Having to learn this stuff as we go is tough..Hopefully we're teaching our daughter as we go so she won't make the same mistakes we've made…she'll make new ones right?

You know. I just had a conversation with a coworker about her 10 year son. Apparently, his teacher is doing really interesting projects.

1) The have math exercises such that students are given $3000 play money, and then are asked to figure out how long it would take to pay it off if they made a monthly payment of $20 with 1.5% interest compounded. Obviously this is to teach the kids a lesson.

2) They have mock elections about which each candidate stand for and watch the debates, with the kids asking parents "why isn't candidate X answering the question on the screen?"

 

I was actually pretty impressed they teach this stuff in school now. And was pretty hopeful about the future of our kids if they're teaching this stuff in schools..because it was never taught in my school, I learned from my parents…..well that is until I found out her son is in a private school.

That has got me thinking a bit.  I think my expenses will go up considerably in the distant future.

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

 I really wish they taught the financial basics in High School. Having to learn this stuff as we go is tough..Hopefully we're teaching our daughter as we go so she won't make the same mistakes we've made…she'll make new ones right?

You know. I just had a conversation with a coworker about her 10 year son. Apparently, his teacher is doing really interesting projects.

1) The have math exercises such that students are given $3000 play money, and then are asked to figure out how long it would take to pay it off if they made a monthly payment of $20 with 1.5% interest compounded. Obviously this is to teach the kids a lesson.

2) They have mock elections about which each candidate stand for and watch the debates, with the kids asking parents "why isn't candidate X answering the question on the screen?"

 

I was actually pretty impressed they teach this stuff in school now. And was pretty hopeful about the future of our kids if they're teaching this stuff in schools..because it was never taught in my school, I learned from my parents…..well that is until I found out her son is in a private school.

That has got me thinking a bit.  I think my expenses will go up considerably in the distant future.

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Author]

Posts