Here’s a sob story about a college%educated professional who can’t support his four kids without the enchanted government child support

[colfax_m]

We are not talking about SS. We are talking about federal income tax.

And the retirees who are getting SS now? They paid in for 40 years while the generation ahead of them collected.

Now thanks to the anti-elderly socialists, they are demeaned as takers while the affluent professionals ar the ones being excused from paying taxes.

Warning: you will be old one day, and you won’t like having to pay taxes on your modest income while families are getting $10,000 a year - either direct handout or a credit against their taxes.

Those who paid into SS for 40 years had plenty of money left over after they paid for the generation ahead of them. The leftover funded the government. Their income taxes were lower as a result.

Now SS no longer covers them so our income tax does. Our income taxes are higher as a result.

It's essentially wealth redistribution.

 

[Lisa558]

Those who paid into SS for 40 years had plenty of money left over after they paid for the generation ahead of them. The leftover funded the government. Their income taxes were lower as a result.

Now SS no longer covers them so our income tax does. Our income taxes are higher as a result.

It's essentially wealth redistribution.

Income taxes are LOWER now, for you, than they were 30 and 40 years ago! And on top of that, if you have kids, you have thousands and thousands of dollars of credits to lower your tax even further.

Damn but you liberals want to hand out money to everyone who refuses to get a job, and then gripe about the old people who were responsible job-holders paying taxes for decades, and have finally earned some leisure time.

It is an attitude common among the left, and socialists. Old people have no more value to the state, so f them.

 

[colfax_m]

Income taxes are LOWER now, for you, than they were 30 and 40 years ago! And on top of that, if you have kids, you have thousands and thousands of dollars of credits to lower your tax even further.

Damn but you liberals want to hand out money to everyone who refuses to get a job, and then gripe about the old people who were responsible job-holders paying taxes for decades, and have finally earned some leisure time.

It is an attitude common among the left, and socialists. Old people have no more value to the state, so f them.

Actually the average effective income tax hasn't changed at all, unless you're a rich person. It doesn't change the fact that the previous generous produced massive amounts of unfunded entitlements that few people really think are likely to be sustained for our generation. Calling them responsible is pretty ridiculous. Our fiscal situation is anything but sound and it's because of decades of the mantra about trickle down economics which was nothing but a lie.

But hey, keep being upset because the child tax credit (at a time when raising kids has gotten monstrously expensive) went 50%. That's what's going to get us. Families.

 

[Lisa558]

Actually the average effective income tax hasn't changed at all, unless you're a rich person. It doesn't change the fact that the previous generous produced massive amounts of unfunded entitlements that few people really think are likely to be sustained for our generation. Calling them responsible is pretty ridiculous. Our fiscal situation is anything but sound and it's because of decades of the mantra about trickle down economics which was nothing but a lie.

But hey, keep being upset because the child tax credit (at a time when raising kids has gotten monstrously expensive) went 50%. That's what's going to get us. Families.

What’s going to get us is liberals’ insistence on printing money to give out to families so irresponsible that they had multiple kids they couldn’t afford, drive inflation, and bring down the markets and the retirement funds of retirees and near-retirees.

Too bad your sense of entitlement for families who expect handouts and your disdain for older people - in fact, disdain for anyone who has no children - is bringing this economy down.

It‘s the typical mindset of a Marxist: Families need money, since they had four and five kids they can’t support, so we will print money and give it to them. If it causes massive inflation and other problems on non-families, who cares?

 

[colfax_m]

What’s going to get us is liberals’ insistence on printing money to give out to families so irresponsible that they had multiple kids they couldn’t afford, drive inflation, and bring down the markets and the retirement funds of retirees and near-retirees.

Too bad your sense of entitlement for families who expect handouts and your disdain for older people - in fact, disdain for anyone who has no children - is bringing this economy down.

It‘s the typical mindset of a Marxist: Families need money, since they had four and five kids they can’t support, so we will print money and give it to them. If it causes massive inflation and other problems on non-families, who cares?

Because instead we are supposed to be printing money to give out to retirees who passed entitlements for themselves and didn't fund them, building up trillions upon trillions of debt. Or maybe we should be printing money for rich billionaires because we expect it'll trickle down.

Sorry, but your entire argument is basically a refutation of conservative fiscal and monetary policy except you're mad that it's families that are benefiting because Democrats are the ones providing the benefits to them. When it was Republicans providing benefits to families (or the wealthy, or retirees), it was awesome.

 

[evenflow1969]

There’s a little irony in your scenario here.

Guess who is paying for the retirees social security check? It’s straight up taking money from the engineer and giving it to the old people.

Lol, you are talking to a person that thinks giving the middle class a tax break hurts the middle class. Just call her shortbus and call it a day.

 

[Lisa558]

Because instead we are supposed to be printing money to give out to retirees who passed entitlements for themselves and didn't fund them, building up trillions upon trillions of debt. Or maybe we should be printing money for rich billionaires because we expect it'll trickle down.

Sorry, but your entire argument is basically a refutation of conservative fiscal and monetary policy except you're mad that it's families that are benefiting because Democrats are the ones providing the benefits to them. When it was Republicans providing benefits to families (or the wealthy, or retirees), it was awesome.

The retirees of today had an agreement that if they paid into Social Security for 40 years, they would get some basic living stipend.

The entitled, irresponsible families you are defending are all of a sudden getting an unexpected windfall - and they did nothing to deserve it other than to have kids they can’t afford. While a couple with three kids, among the half who never paid tax, has found themselves with a bonus payment of $900 a month, the retirees averaged an increase of $70 a month.

You’re just upset because it’s being pointed out that the massive welfare expansion to families comes at a BIG price to those who have to pay the costs for it. You leftists like to pretend that all the handouts only help people, and hurt nobody.

There’s no free lunch, and the unexpected and unearned windfall that a middle class family is getting has caused prices to go up to the point where Granny must choose between groceries and rent.

 

[struth]

God has all the power to create universes yet he still begs for your money at church....Funny how that works.
It is better when one parent is a stay-at-home parent to help raise a family compared to when both parents work...

maybe they should find religion and go to their local church food pantry instead of begging hard working tax payers for cash…that is if they really needed help

 

[initforme]

People are filling jobs and working. Americans are working harder than they ever did. By far the hardest working people on earth.

 

[woodwork201]

Not sure why you had to interject religion into this.

And sure it’s better to have one stay-at-home parent, but that’s IF your family can afford it. This family apparently can’t. They should have either limited themselves to a family they COULD support without requiring welfare, or the mother should take a part-time job when the kids are at school. She could be home by the time they get out of school.

The solution to problems of one’s own making is NOT always to have other people give you money (although I know you leftists think it is).

Yes, that family can afford to have a parent home to raise their children rather than the State raise them. 90% of families can. Families who lost one parent and, especially, families who lost a parent in service to their country are obvious exceptions. For virtually all others, not having a parent home to raise their children is a choice.

 

[woodwork201]

A software architect is a senior developer position, generally given to the best of the best. That's virtually always the intent but, like in any other job, sometimes they get it wrong. He makes over 100K in virtually any software architect job in the country, closer to 140K or more in most of them and as high as 180K to 200K in many companies.

The reason he only has insurance that covers just him and not his family is that he's a contract employee rather than a W-2 employee.

I've worked for most of the bigger contracting firms. Most offer dependent insurance but it's expensive.

That's a choice; there are plenty of IT jobs for direct hire employees. He might make slightly less as a W-2 employee than as a contract employee but the wage ranges I posted are for W-2 employees. My senior contract developers all make 180K or above, many 220K to 240K. Senior system admin contractors make in the 100 to 140K range.

So this guy is gaming the system as do most gig workers, letting the taxpayers pay for what their employers don't pay them.

I wonder how many poor black kids in the south side of Chicago have braces... not counting the ones who get those lead bits in their faces and mouths.

This guy, his family, and MSNBC are completely out of touch with reality.

 

[woodwork201]

Back in the day, Mom didn't have to work because Dad made enough at his Union job to support the family and the wealthy paid their fair share in taxes.

Dads with any marketable skill still earn enough to support the family. Most poorer families with working mothers spend more keeping her working than she makes between second cars, clothes, prepared foods or restaurants, day-care, etc. For women who earn more, their income goes for things they can live without.

 

[monkrules]

More proof that "education" and "intelligence" are two very different things.

The wife can a job (part time, or work at home). And hubby can get a second job, as millions of other people have to do.

Make an appointment to get "fixed" before they have more mistakes they can't afford.

Find some sharp people to teach them about self-reliance and personal responsibility.

Get the fuck off the government dole. They're not our fucking kids. Support them yourselves.

 

[woodwork201]

What exactly is a software architect compared to a software engineer?

If it follows construction conventions, than an architect is more involved with user interfaces than the hard structure of the programming in question.

Software architects are senior developers who may or may not still write production code. They develop, set, publish, or help with application design and design standards or patterns across a project, team, or even the enterprise. It's among the highest paid titles in IT.

 

[woodwork201]

You're conflating two issues here

The state did very little to subsidize your parents financial situation....

It's a wage issue...Between women working and the rest of the world catching up that's why our labor is worth less. Not because you can tax "the rich" to equality

The rich don't have enough wealth to tax. And corporations will leave with their dollars if we raise corporate taxes. Which is why tax havens work.

You have to raise the value of labor to get labor more money in a sustainable way. Things like ending low skill migration and convincing women to be stay at home mothers would be a much better start than taking the pittance we can find on the top .01% or even 1%

Women moving into the workforce had little to do with needing the extra wages. It was WWII and they were needed by the war effort because the men were at war. When the men came home, the women found they liked the independence and the money. And the government likes the extra tax income.

 

[monkrules]

Good point. We need more people living in poverty so that you don’t have to pay 5% more for hamburger.

THEY MADE THE CHOICE TO HAVE KIDS THEY CANNOT AFFORD.

They shouldn't be allowed to saddle other people with the results of their bad choices.

They could have exercised self-restraint. Or had tubes tied, or a vasectomy. Or used birth control. Or, used their fucking brains.

 

[JoeB131]

Now for a couple of questions:

1. If they couldn’t afford to support four kids, why did they have them?

Oh, maybe they don't beleive in abortion. Seems to me that they are doing what you conservatives say families should do.

2. All four children are school-age. Why can’t the mother take one of the millions of unfilled jobs during school hours?

You mean so they can take THIS kind of abuse?

Sorry, but I am not going to cry when a college-educated professional complains that they can’t support their four kids on a single income, and expect to have other people fund child support payments so the wife doesn’t have to work.

Yes, some rich person might not be able to afford a dressage Horsie...

 

[Lisa558]

THEY MADE THE CHOICE TO HAVE KIDS THEY CANNOT AFFORD.

They shouldn't be allowed to saddle other people with the results of their bad choices.

They could have exercised self-restraint. Or had tubes tied, or a vasectomy. Or used birth control. Or, used their fucking brains.

So true. And remember….that liberal going on with all her holier-than-thou sanctimony is skipping right over the fact that we are talking about a six-figure income family here. These children would not be living in poverty regardless.

It also shows how brainwashed the liberal media is. They pick, as the subject of their article, an affluent family where the father is earning well over $100,000 a year to drum up sympathy - failing to realize that the vast majority of people earn far, far less, and unless they have kids, they are expected to budget and support themselves.

 

[Indeependent]

A software architect is a senior developer position, generally given to the best of the best. That's virtually always the intent but, like in any other job, sometimes they get it wrong. He makes over 100K in virtually any software architect job in the country, closer to 140K or more in most of them and as high as 180K to 200K in many companies.

The reason he only has insurance that covers just him and not his family is that he's a contract employee rather than a W-2 employee.

I've worked for most of the bigger contracting firms. Most offer dependent insurance but it's expensive.

That's a choice; there are plenty of IT jobs for direct hire employees. He might make slightly less as a W-2 employee than as a contract employee but the wage ranges I posted are for W-2 employees. My senior contract developers all make 180K or above, many 220K to 240K. Senior system admin contractors make in the 100 to 140K range.

So this guy is gaming the system as do most gig workers, letting the taxpayers pay for what their employers don't pay them.

I wonder how many poor black kids in the south side of Chicago have braces... not counting the ones who get those lead bits in their faces and mouths.

This guy, his family, and MSNBC are completely out of touch with reality.

You didn’t have to explicitly state that MSNBC is out of touch with reality.

 

[martybegan]

Yup. I know a couple who are always running short on food for their multiple kids, but they have plenty for cigarettes and booze.

Look at all the extra expenses we have today that we didn't have even 30 years ago. Cable TV/Internet, Cell Phones, various streaming services, all of them monthly costs. It used to be things were point costs.

Monthly costs sneak up on you.