emdawgz1: I am sure if you actually went out and counted people that boutique employees would outnumber the Walmart employees. But my comment was more in line that you're sample was very biased. Also I am sure that it is not just poor people who go shopping at Walmart or other such stores.


depends on a lot of things, if something costs me 480$ then profit =4520*5= 22600 and 500*20=10000.

Ian, i'll try again.

Just beacuse i have a 0 INCOME TAX liability doesnt mean i cant get a tax cut. If more of my money is exempted from other taxes i get a tax cut!!! The Bush tax plan is not about cutting taxes for working folks. It is about exempting wealthy people from paying their fair share! Thus the concern about exemting other taxes!

Anthony i think youre reaching but here goes.
Last month. Walmart employed 1.4 million associates. and had net sales of 18.953 Billion dollars. To say nothing about Costco, Best buy, and others. or the small companies that service these large employers.
I dont think all the boutique stores combined come close to that figure. and my point is that working folks, the majority of US citizens shop at places like walmart. If the government gets involved in any economic incentive programs. It should benefit this group and not the special interest groups that the bush administration is so enamored with.

BTW how was my sample biased???

I'm trying really hard to understand your point of view, but I just don't understand what this means. The problem with your system is that you are giving people money they didn't earn. This is bad because the economy is based on everyone producing some type of goods or services. Simply handing a bunch of people some money and telling them to buy stuff stimulates the economy for a very short period of time. Once the money is gone you have the same problem all over again. Once again, the money has to be earned to make the system work.

emdawgz1: I agree with you that tax cuts that affect directly only a part of the population are not faire, (even if they end up through the trickle effect benefiting every one else, since as the name says, the trickle effect means that the next person on the chain does not get as much benefit as the person before him)

you said


all I said is that the guys that shop at Walmart and Best Buy and Home Depot. Does not represent the whole pop. Even at that, how do you know the people doing the shopping are poor, or they are not doing it for someone else. A contractor that might be doing a remodel that is worth more then your house, probably buys his 2x4s and stuff from Home Depot

A lot of this depends on what you look at to define "paying your fair share". A guy making 30k pays 10% tax, $3,000. A guy making 100k pays 35% tax, $35,000. He is grossing 3 times as much but paying over 10 times as much tax. Is that fair? If you feel the 100k guy isn't paying his fair share then you are looking at what the govenment lets him keep (65k vs 27k)but the goverment is not the one supplying the wages. If they were equals in all respects you might be right but my guess is that the 100k guy has more education or experience or works harder than the 30k guy. Yes it can happen that his dad gave him the job but this is the exception to the rule.
Right now 40% of the people pay no FEDERAL income tax, if trends continue we may be in position where Bill Gates and Sam Waltons kids are the only ones paying taxes.
What will you do if they all move to Luxembourg?