🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:13:03 GMT, "Gerry Carter"
<gerrycarter@home.com> wrote:


>
>First of all, the individual you are talking about is a taxpayer as well,
>and will pay more in a year than some will in a lifetime.  They are as
>entitled to benefit from what is often touted as a universal program as
>anyone, particulalry since they are footing so much of the bill.  It is not
>a gift to them; it is a return to them of a portion of their gift to the
>rest of us.
>
Just to let you know, I think that if one pays into a system, one
should be allowed to receive their payments from the government.

>Nonetheless, the amount paid to such people is small, as they are few in
>number and this is not my point anyway;  my point is that the number I have
>most often seen tossed around in these newsgroups as defining rich and a
>loss of entitlement to a say in anything to do with taxation is $60k.
>Quibble about the number, and the definition might get raised as high as
>$80k.  This is still far from rich, and only qualifies as comfortable in
>today's economy.

I said in the above what I said so that you would realize that I do
not believe in discrimination, whether they are rich or not.

You say that if a household has $80k coming in that it is really only
comfortable. I have to tell you that you are not living in the real
world at all or you live in California. In most of this country, the
US, if a household is bringing in anything over $30k, they have no
bitch. I do consider a household that is making $80k as rich comparing
them to most who are struggling to bring in $30k or less. Get off of
your high horse and learn how people are truly living in this country
and you will learn that what you said above is truly way out of whack.

Spirit Explorer


If you are looking for a great present...try giving some Chuck Wagaon Sourdough Starter!
We also have recipes and other links of interest.
             http://www.zianet.com/witchy/