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