Hummmm.... let me think...... Would I rather get $300 back or pay $1000 or
more in taxes every year (increasing exponentially). You cuts the $300
refund, but the real issue is the fact that the taxes were not raised
either. Just take that $300 refund, increase it each year with the cost of
living, calculate the interest (compounded) and see if it adds up to a
little more. Griping about the $300 refund is like saying I only get $27 per
hour. What can you do with $27..... You have to look at the big picture, not
just ONE check. You can have a trend of relieving the tax burden on people
and businesses or a trend of increasing the burden. My wife has a Flower
Shop and the taxes are driving her under. She has to work like a dog,
because she had to let all go, except our daughter, because she was not
making enough to pay all the taxes you have to pay to be allowed to have an
employee. I see you like the burden of taxes and complain if the trend is
towards reduced taxes and that's no Bu****, hehehe

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:29:27 -0500, "FamilySailor" wrote:

Hummmm.... let me think...... Would I rather get $300 back or pay $1000 or
more in taxes every year (increasing exponentially). You cuts the $300
refund, but the real issue is the fact that the taxes were not raised
either. Just take that $300 refund, increase it each year with the cost of
living, calculate the interest (compounded) and see if it adds up to a
little more. Griping about the $300 refund is like saying I only get $27 per
hour. What can you do with $27..... You have to look at the big picture, not
just ONE check. You can have a trend of relieving the tax burden on people
and businesses or a trend of increasing the burden. My wife has a Flower
Shop and the taxes are driving her under. She has to work like a dog,
because she had to let all go, except our daughter, because she was not
making enough to pay all the taxes you have to pay to be allowed to have an
employee. I see you like the burden of taxes and complain if the trend is
towards reduced taxes and that's no Bu****, hehehe

Actually I think the "big picture" is that the Government is borrowing
money to pay you that $300 and "not raise" your taxes. They send
those $300 checks out as if they are doing you a great favor and to
buy votes. The only problem is that *you* will be expected to pay
that back. The only money the government has is *our* money, after
all.

Actually I think the "big picture" is that the Government is borrowing
money to pay you that $300 and "not raise" your taxes. They send
those $300 checks out as if they are doing you a great favor and to
buy votes. The only problem is that *you* will be expected to pay
that back. The only money the government has is *our* money, after
all.

Actually Tax laws were set under previous administrations and were not
intending to borrow but to take and keep our money. The current
administration would not let them keep what they tried to take, duh

Now they are withhold less, duhhhh
Man! rotflmao.... "Big Picture" ROTFLMAO!!!

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:51:08 -0500, "FamilySailor" wrote:

Actually I think the "big picture" is that the Government is borrowing
money to pay you that $300 and "not raise" your taxes. They send
those $300 checks out as if they are doing you a great favor and to
buy votes. The only problem is that *you* will be expected to pay
that back. The only money the government has is *our* money, after
all.

Actually Tax laws were set under previous administrations and were not
intending to borrow but to take and keep our money. The current
administration would not let them keep what they tried to take, duh

Now they are withhold less, duhhhh
Man! rotflmao.... "Big Picture" ROTFLMAO!!!

I confess I have no idea what you just said. My basic point, if it
went over your head, is that sending rebates to taxpayers when the
Federal government is operating at a deficit is simply borrowing money
*from* you to buy your vote. *You* will have to pay back the loan.
If that is too complex for you, I can understand your support for the
the "fiscally concersative" Republicans.

I confess I have no idea what you just said.

Do I look surprised? hehehehe

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 15:28:25 -0500, "FamilySailor" wrote:

I confess I have no idea what you just said.

Do I look surprised? hehehehe

I can't tell. Confused, yes.

Actually both sides and the whole screwed up process has us all corn-fused.
It ain't cut and dry and it can't be fixed. both sides make decisions based
on what is better for their party and not necessarily the good of the
people. I was just trolling and hoping to get a bite. hehehe
_______________/)__________




I know my wife and I are being taxed out of business and having to work
ourselves to death, because we can't afford to have employees, what with the
fed. taxes, soc. taxes and unemployment taxes we have to pay on top of the
wages just to be allowed to employ someone; not to mention our income tax,
gasoline tax, license fees, tax on anything we buy, school tax, county tax,
phone tax, fees on long distance and electric and internet and on and on. I
had to get a second job, just so we hopefuly can pay the taxes we owe to run
our own flower shop (this is my 3rd week at the job and it added even more
of a burden on my wife, who is running the shop alone now) and that is no
lie. You know the amount of taxes an all the withhold from your paycheck,
well you are paying half and your employer pays the other half, so if you
run you own business multiply that by (2) and you match what is withheld
from each employee also.

Ahhh... the American dream....... to support government programs.......