Are you poor?

[Packratt]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (m5lange1,)
Agreed Pacrat, especialy with your point #3.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by
3. There are some people who live in poverty because of things beyond their control even though that person might insist it is their choice. (the mentally ill homeless person)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I respect your opinions Pakrat.

The title of this poll is "Are you poor?".

Not: "Do you understand the true nature of poverty and do you fit that definition?"

Not: "After we all decide by committee what we mean by poor do you qualify?"

To me the question "Are you poor? asks how you see yourself, not how you compare to an arbitrary, or defined standard. (shrug) I could be wrong.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Thank you, I try to respect the opinions of others here as well, though there is more effort required to acheive that end for some than for most.

I agree with you though, and apologise for going off the topic.

With regards to the question, I view myself and my family as currently existing in a state of poverty, for whatever that is worth for anyone to hear.

I'll drop the rest, again, my apologies.

LOL!

So if we follow m5's reasoning, we are to assume that there is no meaning to the term "poor" despite all of the bluster that relies on some specific, and as of yet unstated, meaning. So with no meaning in the primary term of the question, how can the question have any meaning at all?

Given that there were a number of degrees of wealth presented as options, it seems highly unlikely that this is a matter of pure subjectivity without any reference to wealth at all. If it were merely the subjective "feeling" rather than any connection to reality or objectivity, then it would be perfectly sensible for someone who fits the last category to say that he is poor.. yet this flies in the face of our ability to observe reality.

[m5lange1]

Lighten up LB. It is an opinion poll.

m5, so all is meaningless? Why not simply address the issue instead of ignoring the refutations?

[syracusa]

Packratt,

Just wanted to say "good luck" to you - I trully wish you to have better times coming your (and your family's) way. Granted that you sound very intelligent and articulate, this is very likely to happen. . "Free market" reality aside, it doesn't really hurt to keep hoping, believing and doing your best.

It does take that strike of luck too...but sometimes luck DOES show up.

Again, good luck from the heart!

[Colleptic]

[color=blue]“This type of people love that specific occupation so much that they are willing to accept the relative poverty that comes with it (often grudgingly!!!).”[/color] Very grudgingly for that matter! (wink)

[color=blue]“I am yet to find one that would act all "Mother Teresa-ish" about it and just refuse the money”[/color], there are a few, but you are correct in a sense. Many artists, such as me, make art that specifically will not generate income or money. The moment an individual’s art encompasses the notion of making money for a market, for survival, is the moment it is no longer art (some exceptions there, if the art’s comment/idea is about selling out and money etc). I choose to get money elsewhere, maybe one day as a Professor or Director.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
BTW nothing is gained by blind ideology such as is exemplified in the false and quite frankly absurd description of the free market (which exists no where currently anyway) as "exploitive."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Explain this again? No where is the “free market” exploitive?

Ok Lightbearer, you talk of [color=red]reality[/color], define that please, then write a book and explain it to the various schools of philosophers that are debating and have been debating reality for millennia (jk, if so, start another thread).

I do understand what you are saying, regarding your debate with Packratt. You dodged around so much though; I am not clear whether you believe that poverty exists on this planet (not the notion of what it means to be poor)?

In some ways Packratt is correct. Some people who work their asses off and will never catch a break, get lucky or are not born with the business sense, athletic prowess or social hierarchy to make better of their lives in the “specific” society they live in. I think that is the point Packratt was making and I think that is the prison he was referring too? Lightbearer, I think you need to read between the lines a bit here. You attributed the known definition to Packratt’s metaphorical prison. His prison is one that he is trapped in, in which he is trying to escape from, can he, I think so…

Colleptic,

I must question your, let us say rather peculiar, characterizations..

I never dodged ANYWHERE.. in fact it is quite ironic that I would be accused of that given that I was the one who kept returning to the question at hand despite teh red herrings, the obfuscations, the avoidance of clarification, and the outright ignoring of the crucial issues.

I cannot answer your question for the very reason that I have cited repeatedly here: thus far nothing meaninful has been offered as to what constitutes "poverty" in this usage. Let us stop the smoke and mirrors, as well as the hand waving and actually refer to something meaninful, in a manner which we can all understand and verify and I will gladly continue to offer meaningful responses. Until the subject is made clear, it is impossible to offer anything meaningful.

Your question and the implications in it, concerning reality is misplaced at best. There really is no question about the existence of reality in philosophy, or in any area which engages in critical thought. It is only in the non-critical thought arena that the question arises. Where questions arise are in the specific nature of specific aspects of reality. The claims and positions here have been that reality does not exist, else the word has been used in ways that necessitate it being meaningless.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Some people who work their asses off and will never catch a break, get lucky or are not born with the business sense, athletic prowess or social hierarchy to make better of their lives in the “specific” society they live in. I think that is the point Packratt was making and I think that is the prison he was referring too? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Then obviously it is not a prison, nor shares any meaningful similarities to a prison. However, the statements made do not reflect this modest statement that you have offered. I am not inclined to try to read minds, so I have simply taken PR at his words.

As for your suggestion of "reading between the lines" I would point out that what you suggest is equivocation, a logical fallacy. So in essence you are suggesting that we pretend that a fatally flawed argument is sound.. sorry, but I am not one to abandon reality and reason for illusion and certain falsehood. Such behavior does not get us anywhere nor give us anything useful. What is so terrible about employing reason and allowing reality to be the final arbitrar of truth anyway? Why shouldn't we operate on the only common ground available to us?

[m5lange1]

From LB
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
LOL!

So if we follow m5's reasoning, we are to assume that there is no meaning to the term "poor" despite all of the bluster that relies on some specific, and as of yet unstated, meaning. So with no meaning in the primary term of the question, how can the question have any meaning at all?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

From M5
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Lighten up LB. It is an opinion poll. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

From LB
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
m5, so all is meaningless? Why not simply address the issue instead of ignoring the refutations? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


Bob: "Hey are you ok?"

Tom: "First do you not think we should establish what we mean by ok?"

Bob "huh?"

Tom: "If we are to assume that there is no meaning to the term "ok" despite all of the bluster that relies on some specific, and as of yet unstated, meaning. So with no meaning in the primary term of the question, how can the question have any meaning at all?"

Bob: "Nevermind"

Tom: To Bob's back as he walks away."Why not simply address the issue instead of ignoring the refutations?"


Taking from LB's quote above:

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
So if we follow m5's reasoning, we are to assume that there is no meaning to the term "poor"<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

As I thought I was clearly stating.... I think the very simple question "Are you poor?" presupposes the reader's own perception of what poor is.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
m5, so all is meaningless? Why not simply address the issue instead of ignoring the refutations? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


I did address the issue: Which is "Are you poor?" not "Are you attending to LBs refutations?".

As for ignoring refutations... Why shouldn't I? It is an O-P-I-N-I-O-N. Not some declaration on the floor of the senate. If you wish to refute it go ahead. To somehow suggest that people are not addressing an issue just because they are not attending to your refutations is not germain to whether or not I B-E-L-I-E-V-E- I am poor.

PS could someone please tell me how to get the "Originally posted by..." to take on my qoutes.... I lack computer moxie.

m5,

Yet again after I have addressed the points you raise, you simply ignore that fact and go off on bizarre and unrelated tangents, ending in the restatement without any support, of your own preconceived conclusion/assumptions.

The term "poor" has been used in fairly specific senses (contrary to your bizarre implications) but those specific senses have not been clarified such that anyone can understand how any other is using the term. The problems are amplified by the use of "poverty" in specific senses as well, but in different specific senses from those in which "poor" has been used.

To follow your suggestion that we all merely assume that we know what others mean by the term necessitates that we fail to communicate, but maintain a pretense of communication. Contrary to what is necessitated by your suggestion Bill gates uttering the statement "I am poor" and myself uttering the statement "I am poor" are not utterances with identical meanings despite the fact that they are identical utterances.

I have already refuted the claim that all is opinion, and that there is no reality or objectivity, but let us once again look at the facts in hopes of some progress.

Were it the case that this were an issue of pure subjective opinion, without any connection to reality, then necessarily there would not be any reference to real world, verifiable and comparable characteristics in the choices of the poll. Were this merely the trivial unrelated opinion, then it would be true for Bill Gates to claim to be poor, despite the fact that this flies in the face of even the most liberal interpretation of the word.

Finally, I ask YET AGAIN, that you drop the personal animosity, the personal attacks, and the continued employment of mischaracterizations, strawmen, and other intellectually dishonest tactics. There is no reason for such animosity and fear. I have not offered you any insult. I have not attacked you in any manner. I have not commented upon you as a person at all. I have merely pointed out what is necessitated by your proclamations and dictates. I have simply engaged you in honest civil intellectual discussion.

[m5lange1]

LB I bet you are a sparkling conversationalist.

Can anyone ever ask you "Are you comfortable?" "Are you happy?"

Can anyone ever tell you they are glad or depressed?

I know you think this is a personal attack and a tangent but I really do wonder.

[m5lange1]

BTW what part of

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
As I thought I was clearly stating.... I think the very simple question "Are you poor?" presupposes the reader's own perception of what poor is.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

do you not understand? Is it the word "think?". Do you believe I am stating that OPINION as an absolute because I say it is what I think?

Do you have difficulty understading that a person may ask the question "Are you poor?" not seeking to know their status but their pesonal view of their status?

I cannot decide if you are on this site just to see how much you can bait people of if you somehow believe yourself to be an omnipotent seer of the truth and us other poor slobs are dependant on mortal perception.

In any case I have seen at least two occasions where people have just said let us agree to disagree. You, naturally will have none of it. That involves your arch enemy (opinions that do not fit your logic).

Anyway, Sorry everyone else I tend to respond too much to this guy. He is probably tickeld to death to hook a fish that likes his bait so well.

Again my apologies.

m5,

Again I would ask for honesty, without it no understanding can occur.

What you continue to ignore or avoid, and what I continue to point out is that you are making claims, supposedly factual claims, about the world around us. Such claims are subject to verifiability by any reasonable person. I understand that you are getting upset that those claims do not match reality, but nonetheless this does not mean that your only response ought to be attacking me as a person. When your claims do not match reality, simply abandon these false beliefs. This is what it means to learn, to acquire knowledge.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
do you not understand? Is it the word "think?". Do you believe I am stating that OPINION as an absolute because I say it is what I think?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

What part of "evidence" do you fail to understand? I demonstrated that there is no reason, no evidence, to support your claims. I believe that you have stated absolutes despite your pretense to the contrary. In this medium more than most others we have only the words offered from which to draw, and it is upon those words you have chosen to present that I have commented. If you intended some meaning other than that which the words you used mean, then you cannot fault me for taking your words at face value. I do not read minds, nor is reading minds a reasonable expectation of those with whom you discuss issues.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I cannot decide if you are on this site just to see how much you can bait people of if you somehow believe yourself to be an omnipotent seer of the truth and us other poor slobs are dependant on mortal perception.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Perhaps you could simply take my statements AT THEIR MEANING, rather than introducing all of this animosity, anger, fear, and personal attacks. I have baited NO ONE. I have not stated any superiority to anyone. Unlike what has been necessitated by your own statements concerning yourself, I have not stated nor implied that I am omniscient. I have never relied upon myself as a resource, but instead turned to reality and reason, both of which are easily verifiable.

YET AGAIN, let me point out that the individual does not matter at all in intellectual discussion. All that matters is what is said and what is verifiable. Truth is what matters, not all of this pettiness upon which you continue to focus.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
In any case I have seen at least two occasions where people have just said let us agree to disagree. You, naturally will have none of it. That involves your arch enemy (opinions that do not fit your logic).<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

LOL! There is no such thing as "your" logic or "my" logic. The very notion is absurd. Reason is simply the tool which allows us to verify and increase our understanding of reality. It is accessible to any willing to discover it, rather than to emote blindly. Yes I have responded to absurd claims and pot shots followed by "but we just disagree," dismissing reality and reason as less than mere opinion. So if your beef is that I have cut through nonsense and pretense, then certainly you are correct, but of course this is not what you actually said, instead you created another mischaracterization in order to attack me as a person. Why the obsession with falseness and animosity? Why not simply stick to the issues and leave off all of this pettiness?

Do not second guess the mental states for those you do not know, do not understand, and whom you have expressed a direct animosity, you will find that just as you are here, you will most often be mistaken in the extreme.

[castille]

I recall a certain quote I heard:

"Isn't it funny how every student preaching on how the rich should give to the poor, are not poor themselves? They're mostly middle class pampered kids, who get their knowledge from World Vision ads."

[m5lange1]

LB here is honesty.

Fact: You have told me in this forum and others not to take our exchanges so personally.

Fact: You have also been the only one to complain about personal attacks.

Want evidence? Read it in this forum and our other exchange in "Forced schools"

Yes I find (OPINOION HERE) your posts to be pompous, condecending and fanatically critical of even the most trivial points.

I would take that personally if it were only your posts to me but it is pretty much the same where ever anyone disagrees with you. So (FACT STATEMENT) I do not take it personally. Are you going to be so pompous as to sy I cannot make factual statements about my own feelings?

If instead you want to call me a liar (or veil it in a cloak such as "intellectual dishonesty") I promise not to take it personally. It will remain the truth.

While you have attacked opinions...
(Yea I know... "No, totally false, I have never done anything of the kind.")
See evidence above, you only accused me of taking you out of context when I cut and pasted your quotes in "Forced Schools" anyway.
...I have attacked your 'you cannot possibly have that opinion' snobbery.

I have not chosen to take your sligts...
("What slights? I have done no such thing".)
(see evidence above)
...as personal

Neither of us has called names. We do not even know each other. I find your tone offensive as you appear to find my reasoning inadequate.
All we bandy here are words LB, not people.

If you choose to take it personally... peachy.

I want to say again, so that you will understand (lots of luck here), when I am stating an opinion I feel no obligation to address your refutations.

Maybe that is what you take personally. I know one of your common complaints to myself and others is that your arguments are ignored.
(see evidence in various posts around the site)

Frankly I find your refutations to be dry, dull reading, argumentative as opposed to substantial and antagonitic for the sake of antagonism.
("Again I ask where is your evidence?")
(See above)

[m5lange1]

Also:

As long as you wish us to stick to the issue:
I am honest enough to admit our exchange has strayed so far from the issue as to qualify as a hijacking.
and have apoligized for it.
Still I am a repeat offender.
Sorry again.

I really am trying to quit.

I am M5 and I am a respondaholic :(

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Want evidence? Read it in this forum and our other exchange in "Forced schools"

Yes I find (OPINOION HERE) your posts to be pompous, condecending and fanatically critical of even the most trivial points.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

In both places, both threads I have asked for evidence and in both instances none has been offered.

Fine, so you hold an opinion which has no connection to reality. All of the elements you claim to be a part of my posts require direct intention none of which can be found. So certainly while opinions can be purely subjective, when they speak of elements of reality they can be compared to the facts. In this case such a comparison does not reflect favorably on the false belief.

Your pretense that you have not actually personally attacked me lacks any believability. Look to your "opinion" stated above and notice that you do not address ANY issue at all, but in place of honest civil intellectual discussion you employ ad hominem attacks and pettiness. These are objective facts which are verified by the record.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
If instead you want to call me a liar (or veil it in a cloak such as "intellectual dishonesty") I promise not to take it personally. It will remain the truth.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

There is a great deal of difference between calling you a liar, which I have not done, and noting the use of intellectually dishonest tactics, such as ad hominem, strawman tactics, mischaracterization and the like. I have specifically cited instances of these tactics you have employed in place of any reasoned discussion, so again this is clearly objective and verifiable fact.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
..I have attacked your 'you cannot possibly have that opinion' snobbery.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

LOL!!! Yes you have attacked me as a person, but you could not possibly have attacked any snobbery in me for none exists. Damn reality keeps getting in the way of your insults.. :)

Did you type the line that you have not called names, with a straight face? Do you actually believe this despite the record? Is this all part of the 'truth has no meaning' position?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I have not chosen to take your sligts...
("What slights? I have done no such thing".)
(see evidence above)
...as personal<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

As there was no evidence "above" or anywhere else, I am still waiting for you to provide any evidence of any of the claims you have made. It is worth pointing out again that repeating your claim does not itself count as evidence.

Cite a "slight." Offer objective facts, rather than emoting.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Frankly I find your refutations to be dry, dull reading, argumentative as opposed to substantial and antagonitic for the sake of antagonism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I understand that you have found reality to be unnerving, you have made that clear on several occassions, even denying that it can exist at the same time pretending that it is somehow plural as well, but none of that counts as evidence for an antagonism for which there exists no evidence. Yet again you presume your own omniscience in pretending to know my mental states, ironically in direct contradiction to ALL of the available evidence.

You are correct in the admission that you have derailed this discussion. I asked for a clarification, and you ran off on bizarre garden paths.. Speaks volumes...

[m5lange1]

From LB
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Again I would ask for honesty<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

From me
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Frankly I find your refutations to be dry, dull reading, argumentative as opposed to substantial and antagonitic for the sake of antagonism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Can't have it both ways bud. Don't ask for honesty unless you are ready to hear it.

********************************************************
Ok so you are not attacking my opinions.....

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
What you continue to ignore or avoid, and what I continue to point out is that you are making claims, supposedly factual claims, about the world around us. Such claims are subject to verifiability by any reasonable person. I understand that you are getting upset that those claims do not match reality,<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Fine, so you hold an opinion which has no connection to reality.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

*********************************************************************
Ok no snobbery exists in you.....



</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Yes I have responded to absurd claims and pot shots followed by "but we just disagree," dismissing reality and reason as less than mere opinion.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

****************************************************************
Ok you are above double standards.....


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by M5lange1
I have not chosen to take your sligts...
("What slights? I have done no such thing".)
(see evidence above)
...as personal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As there was no evidence "above" or anywhere else, I am still waiting for you to provide any evidence of any of the claims you have made. It is worth pointing out again that repeating your claim does not itself count as evidence. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Did you type the line that you have not called names, with a straight face? Do you actually believe this despite the record?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

To which I say. "As there was no evidence "in the record" or anywhere else, I am still waiting for you to provide any evidence of the claims you have made. It is worth pointing out again that repeating your claim does not itself count as evidence."

**************************************************************************
And I am sure you recognize flaws in yourself as quickly as you do in others.....

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You are correct in the admission that you have derailed this discussion.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Just me huh?
*****************************************************************************
Edited in the ****** lines.

Now I stronlgy suspect you are as fanatical in getting the last word as in othr areas of your arguments so after your next post what do you say that we give these good people there forum back. I am sure we can continue this pissing contest on another forum later.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Ok no snobbery exists in you.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Were the quotes preceeding this remark, presumably sarcastic remark, supposed to support the baseless claim that I am a snob? Because I pointed out that in fact your claims do not match reality, cited actual evidence and explained the logical errors in the arguments provided? That your claims did not match reality, verifiable by any reasonable person, somehow makes me a snob?

I have repeatedly pointed out that the individual does not matter, and I have stressed that I do not place myself above any other, and yet despite these efforts and the complete lack of any supporting evidence, you insist on maintaining your personal attacks? Why?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

And I am sure you recognize flaws in yourself as quickly as you do in others.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Absolutely. I hold myself to a far higher standard than I would ever judge another (which does not make me better than any other, but only says that I am far more critical of myself than any other). But this is but another red herring, as the issue was the lack of evidence for your claims about me.

I do not know for certain why you insist on continuing personal attacks. I am perfectly happy to discuss the issue, though that you seem to expect that I ought to simply pretend that your insults, name calling, ad hominems, mischaracterizations, and strawmen do not exist, is an unrealistic hope, for I respect truth in all things, including baseless accusations about my nature.

As with all other exchanges, the issue remains evidence for your claims, or rather the complete absence of any actual evidence.

Does this simply go back to your claim that truth has nothing to do with reality?

[Mia]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mozart1220,)
I have a friend who barely knows where his next meal is coming from, his apartment is a room and a toilet, and he often has no heat. He DOES however, have an e-mail adress and checks his mail at the public library.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I went to the public library before I could get my own computer - anyone can.

[Mia]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,)
Keep in mind that if we lived in a purely capitalistic society, the government wouldn't be taking 20-30% of your money before you even had the check in your hand, nor would they be taking an extra 15-20% of your money after the check was in your hand. I'm in the lowest income tax bracket, and I pay about 35% of my income to taxes. I could afford a hell of a lot more if we got a real tax cut, and you could probably afford better health care as well.

Of course, Bush is only interested in cutting taxes for the wealthy, and the Democrats, as much as they whine about his tax cut only benefitting the wealthy, won't propose a tax cut that would help the poor.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

35% is far from the lowest tax bracket.