On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 8:05:57 AM UTC-10, graham wrote:
> On 2018-11-23 6:58 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
> > On 11/23/2018 5:50 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> >> On 11/22/2018 11:44 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
> >>> But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support
> >>> a family of four with a
> >>> stay-at-home mom.Â* That is rarely possible any more unless the
> >>> primary wage earner is in a
> >>> profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc.Â* it
> >>> isn't possible for the typical
> >>> office worker.
> >>
> >> Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg.Â* I believe that
> >> once two wage earning couples became the norm that housing costs
> >> started to rise.Â* If no one could afford the higher prices the
> >> prices would be forced to stay low.
> >>
> >> nancy
> >>
> >
> >
> > I think tax increasesÂ* of all sorts was one of the major factors
> > mandating a two income household.
>
> So what cuts would you like to see to enable a cut in taxes?

There's cuts that one would like to see and then there's cuts that are easy and therefore likely i.e., in Social Security benefits, and Medicare benefits.

On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 3:57:16 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 8:05:57 AM UTC-10, graham wrote:
> > On 2018-11-23 6:58 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
> > > On 11/23/2018 5:50 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> > >> On 11/22/2018 11:44 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
> > >>> But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support
> > >>> a family of four with a
> > >>> stay-at-home mom.Â* That is rarely possible any more unless the
> > >>> primary wage earner is in a
> > >>> profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc.Â* it
> > >>> isn't possible for the typical
> > >>> office worker.
> > >>
> > >> Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg.Â* I believe that
> > >> once two wage earning couples became the norm that housing costs
> > >> started to rise.Â* If no one could afford the higher prices the
> > >> prices would be forced to stay low.
> > >>
> > >> nancy
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > I think tax increasesÂ* of all sorts was one of the major factors
> > > mandating a two income household.
> >
> > So what cuts would you like to see to enable a cut in taxes?
>
> There's cuts that one would like to see and then there's cuts that are easy and therefore likely i.e., in Social Security benefits, and Medicare benefits.

Social Security and Medicare are the third rail of tax cuts. Given what
a large proportion of active voters are over 60, most politicians are
reluctant to touch either.

Defense contractors could certainly use a haircut, and I'm sure there
we could find little economies spread throughout the budget.

Personally, I don't think taxes are all that high, especially considering
all the loopholes.

Cindy Hamilton

On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 11:07:40 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 3:57:16 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 8:05:57 AM UTC-10, graham wrote:
> > > On 2018-11-23 6:58 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
> > > > On 11/23/2018 5:50 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> > > >> On 11/22/2018 11:44 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
> > > >>> But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support
> > > >>> a family of four with a
> > > >>> stay-at-home mom.Â* That is rarely possible any more unless the
> > > >>> primary wage earner is in a
> > > >>> profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc.Â* it
> > > >>> isn't possible for the typical
> > > >>> office worker.
> > > >>
> > > >> Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg.Â* I believe that
> > > >> once two wage earning couples became the norm that housing costs
> > > >> started to rise.Â* If no one could afford the higher prices the
> > > >> prices would be forced to stay low.
> > > >>
> > > >> nancy
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think tax increasesÂ* of all sorts was one of the major factors
> > > > mandating a two income household.
> > >
> > > So what cuts would you like to see to enable a cut in taxes?
> >
> > There's cuts that one would like to see and then there's cuts that are easy and therefore likely i.e., in Social Security benefits, and Medicare benefits.
>
> Social Security and Medicare are the third rail of tax cuts. Given what
> a large proportion of active voters are over 60, most politicians are
> reluctant to touch either.
>
> Defense contractors could certainly use a haircut, and I'm sure there
> we could find little economies spread throughout the budget.
>
> Personally, I don't think taxes are all that high, especially considering
> all the loopholes.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

The American way is to take stuff away from the poor and the powerless. You might consider the boomers to be rich and powerful but I don't. There's not much use in trying to figure out which of us is right - only time will tell.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 13:54:11 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 11:07:40 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 3:57:16 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>> >
>> > There's cuts that one would like to see and then there's cuts that are easy and therefore likely i.e., in Social Security benefits, and Medicare benefits.
>>
>> Social Security and Medicare are the third rail of tax cuts. Given what
>> a large proportion of active voters are over 60, most politicians are
>> reluctant to touch either.
>>
>> Defense contractors could certainly use a haircut, and I'm sure there
>> we could find little economies spread throughout the budget.
>>
>> Personally, I don't think taxes are all that high, especially considering
>> all the loopholes.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
>The American way is to take stuff away from the poor and the powerless. You might consider the boomers to be rich and powerful but I don't. There's not much use in trying to figure out which of us is right - only time will tell.

Besides, what good can come from a discussion with a "self-absorbed
twit"?

On 2018-11-23 1:57 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
> On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 8:05:57 AM UTC-10, graham wrote:
>> On 2018-11-23 6:58 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>> On 11/23/2018 5:50 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2018 11:44 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>>>>> But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support
>>>>> a family of four with a
>>>>> stay-at-home mom.Â* That is rarely possible any more unless the
>>>>> primary wage earner is in a
>>>>> profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc.Â* it
>>>>> isn't possible for the typical
>>>>> office worker.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg.Â* I believe that
>>>> once two wage earning couples became the norm that housing costs
>>>> started to rise.Â* If no one could afford the higher prices the
>>>> prices would be forced to stay low.
>>>>
>>>> nancy
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think tax increasesÂ* of all sorts was one of the major factors
>>> mandating a two income household.
>>
>> So what cuts would you like to see to enable a cut in taxes?
>
> There's cuts that one would like to see and then there's cuts that are easy and therefore likely i.e., in Social Security benefits, and Medicare benefits.
>
Hmmm! Must be nice to be wealthy enough not to have to worry about
health insurance or from where the next meal or shelter is coming from.

On 2018-11-23 4:09 PM, graham wrote:
> On 2018-11-23 1:57 p.m., dsi1 wrote:

>> There's cuts that one would like to see and then there's cuts that are
>> easy and therefore likely i.e., in Social Security benefits, and
>> Medicare benefits.
>>
> Hmmm! Must be nice to be wealthy enough not to have to worry about
> health insurance or from where the next meal or shelter is coming from.

No matter what safety nets we have there will always be people abusing
them and people still falling through them. I was listening to a program
on CBC this morning about the cuts that are coming to social programs.
The guy was upset because he prefers to do volunteer work with charities
than with companies. It's nice of him to do volunteer work. By its very
nature, being volunteer, it does not pay. It is not a substitute for a
paying job. It is something you do in addition to your job.

On 2018-11-23 3:34 p.m., Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2018-11-23 4:09 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 2018-11-23 1:57 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
>
>>> There's cuts that one would like to see and then there's cuts that
>>> are easy and therefore likely i.e., in Social Security benefits, and
>>> Medicare benefits.
>>>
>> Hmmm! Must be nice to be wealthy enough not to have to worry about
>> health insurance or from where the next meal or shelter is coming from.
>
> No matter what safety nets we have there will always be people abusing
> them and people still falling through them. I was listening to a program
> on CBC this morning about the cuts that are coming to social programs.
> The guy was upset because he prefers to do volunteer work with charities
> than with companies.Â* It's nice of him to do volunteer work. By its very
> nature, being volunteer, it does not pay. It is not a substitute for a
> paying job. It is something you do in addition to your job.

There will always be a small percentage of people ripping off the
welfare system just as there will always be a percentage of wealthy
people ripping off the tax system.