Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks for proving my point. If she went to work, what was she going to make? If she made three hundred dollars and lost two hundred and fifty, would they have got caught up with the rent? And would you be willing to work some overtime if you only got to keep twenty cents on the dollar?
If she got a job at Walmart or McDonald's and worked ten hours each day, that's 100 hours a month. Even if those jobs only paid $8.00 an hour, that's $800.00 gross a month.
Gross eight hundred dollars. Lose two hundred fifty dollars food stamps. Lose at least a hundred dollars a month in the EITC. Pays another seventy five in Social Security taxes and eighty dollars in income taxes. That leaves her with a little less than three hundred dollars. Would you work ten hours a day, two days a week, to bring home seventy five bucks? How do you feel about a 62.5% marginal tax rate?
You don't pay income taxes when you make that little. She would probably lose (after deductions) about $350.00 at the most, and would probably get a lot of that back in her income tax refund. After all less than 10 K a year with two dependents is poverty, so she may get it all back.
Either way, it could have prevented them from losing their home, him having the embarrassment of getting his wages garnished, paying my legal fees and time off of work, and having an eviction on his record.
Would I work for that kind of money? Probably not, but then again I wouldn't have had a family in the first place, feed a large dog and three cats, and would have given up cigarettes.
She might not pay the income taxes but more than likely she would. Her standard deduction and exemptions would have been exhausted covering the husband's income. But she most certainly would pay the Social Security taxes, that's the bigger chunk. She most certainly would have lost some of the EITC.
And I wasn't asking if you would work for eight dollars an hour. I am asking if you would work when you only get twenty to thirty cents on the dollar of whatever wage you were earning.
No, she would get it all back because she is not married to the father of her children. They live together, but government doesn't count that as a two income family. Government doesn't even check into those things.
Why do the rich make as much as they do?Sure you have a choice. Don't want to pay taxes, don't earn any income. After all, all you righties claim those that don't work have it made. So join them. I don't care. I encourage it.
When we use the same kind of logic on you leftists, you get all bent out of shape. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't have an income. Okay, well if you can't afford to support your family, don't have children.
But with those food stamps, they can AFFORD to have children. And rather you like it or not, we need more children. Without the immigration that you and others often cry about this nation would be dying out.
Immigration Is the Only Reason the U.S. Doesn't Have an Aging Crisis
Like I said. If someone qualifies for food stamps they have a RESPONSIBILITY to get them. Just like a CEO whose company qualifies for tax credits. But let's run with that same kind of logic.
If you can't afford your mortgage without the mortgage interest deduction, get a smaller house or rent. Why should I have to help you pay your mortgage?
If you can't afford that Prius without the tax credit, buy a different car. Why should I have to help pay for your car.
If a company can't fund their research department without the tax credits, close down the department, why should I fund research that expands their profits?
If you can't afford to fund your 401K with aftertax dollars, don't fund it.
We could go on all day. The two biggest tax expenditures in the federal budget are the mortgage interest deduction and the employer provided health insurance credit. I have no doubt that many on this very board, you included, have derived more benefit from just the mortgage interest deduction than that single lowlife mom on food stamps will get in a lifetime.
My 21 year old son is closing on his first house next week. He got a fifteen thousand dollar first time home buyer grant. He will pay over ten thousand dollars in interest in the first year and take the mortgage interest deduction. He puts twelve percent of his salary into his 401K. And god only knows what his gold plated company funded health insurance premium is. The total cost of the tax expenditures he will receive in ONE YEAR could fund that lowlife Mom's food stamps for TEN YEARS. And at 21, well he is making significantly more than the US median income of $52,000.
Like I said, complaining about food stamps is like complaining about an open window after a tornado ripped off the roof of your house.
Apples and oranges. You can't say that people keeping more of their own money is the same as someone who is taking other people's money. If a person can't afford a family without taxpayers money, then they can't afford the family. Your comparison is like me saying I can afford a yacht because I embezzled a million dollars from the company I work for. No, I cannot afford a yacht, that's why I have to steal money from my employer to have one.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
You can't say that people keeping more of their own money is the same as someone who is taking other people's money.
The hell I can't. Why do you have a problem with the food stamp beneficiary. Because they make you pay more in taxes, right? You got no problem with the local catholic church opening up a soup kitchen. It's not the charity that is bothering you. It is not the fact that they are not working that is bothering you. Hell, it shouldn't be about them, it is about YOU and your taxes.
Well, when people or companies get to "keep more of their money" due to some tax break or credit that not everyone can use, IT MAKES YOUR TAXES GO UP. When they pay less, YOU PAY MORE. The food stamp beneficiary might cost you an extra nickel or so in taxes. The mortgage interest deduction and employer provided health insurance special tax treatment, neither of which is available to me, costs me HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS in extra taxes.
I explained why I have a problem with many of the recipients of food stamps, but because you live in the middle of nowhere, you don't see it so it can't be happening in your world.
Church kitchens are ENTIRELY funded by charitable contributions. That's different than a church forcing money from you that you don't want to give.
I'm no rich person. I don't consider myself a genius of any kind. I'm one of the few (if not the only one) here that admit to being a blue collar worker. What I did in life is not that difficult for anybody else to do. Get out of school, get a job, eventually get a trade of work, don't have children you can't afford, and invest at least some of your money. It was not that difficult for me, so I don't think it's that difficult for most people. As for people that did not do those simple things that I did in life, why are they my problem now?
Sure you have a choice. Don't want to pay taxes, don't earn any income. After all, all you righties claim those that don't work have it made. So join them. I don't care. I encourage it.
When we use the same kind of logic on you leftists, you get all bent out of shape. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't have an income. Okay, well if you can't afford to support your family, don't have children.
But with those food stamps, they can AFFORD to have children. And rather you like it or not, we need more children. Without the immigration that you and others often cry about this nation would be dying out.
Immigration Is the Only Reason the U.S. Doesn't Have an Aging Crisis
Like I said. If someone qualifies for food stamps they have a RESPONSIBILITY to get them. Just like a CEO whose company qualifies for tax credits. But let's run with that same kind of logic.
If you can't afford your mortgage without the mortgage interest deduction, get a smaller house or rent. Why should I have to help you pay your mortgage?
If you can't afford that Prius without the tax credit, buy a different car. Why should I have to help pay for your car.
If a company can't fund their research department without the tax credits, close down the department, why should I fund research that expands their profits?
If you can't afford to fund your 401K with aftertax dollars, don't fund it.
We could go on all day. The two biggest tax expenditures in the federal budget are the mortgage interest deduction and the employer provided health insurance credit. I have no doubt that many on this very board, you included, have derived more benefit from just the mortgage interest deduction than that single lowlife mom on food stamps will get in a lifetime.
My 21 year old son is closing on his first house next week. He got a fifteen thousand dollar first time home buyer grant. He will pay over ten thousand dollars in interest in the first year and take the mortgage interest deduction. He puts twelve percent of his salary into his 401K. And god only knows what his gold plated company funded health insurance premium is. The total cost of the tax expenditures he will receive in ONE YEAR could fund that lowlife Mom's food stamps for TEN YEARS. And at 21, well he is making significantly more than the US median income of $52,000.
Like I said, complaining about food stamps is like complaining about an open window after a tornado ripped off the roof of your house.
Apples and oranges. You can't say that people keeping more of their own money is the same as someone who is taking other people's money. If a person can't afford a family without taxpayers money, then they can't afford the family. Your comparison is like me saying I can afford a yacht because I embezzled a million dollars from the company I work for. No, I cannot afford a yacht, that's why I have to steal money from my employer to have one.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
You can't say that people keeping more of their own money is the same as someone who is taking other people's money.
The hell I can't. Why do you have a problem with the food stamp beneficiary. Because they make you pay more in taxes, right? You got no problem with the local catholic church opening up a soup kitchen. It's not the charity that is bothering you. It is not the fact that they are not working that is bothering you. Hell, it shouldn't be about them, it is about YOU and your taxes.
Well, when people or companies get to "keep more of their money" due to some tax break or credit that not everyone can use, IT MAKES YOUR TAXES GO UP. When they pay less, YOU PAY MORE. The food stamp beneficiary might cost you an extra nickel or so in taxes. The mortgage interest deduction and employer provided health insurance special tax treatment, neither of which is available to me, costs me HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS in extra taxes.
I explained why I have a problem with many of the recipients of food stamps, but because you live in the middle of nowhere, you don't see it so it can't be happening in your world.
Church kitchens are ENTIRELY funded by charitable contributions. That's different than a church forcing money from you that you don't want to give.
I'm no rich person. I don't consider myself a genius of any kind. I'm one of the few (if not the only one) here that admit to being a blue collar worker. What I did in life is not that difficult for anybody else to do. Get out of school, get a job, eventually get a trade of work, don't have children you can't afford, and invest at least some of your money. It was not that difficult for me, so I don't think it's that difficult for most people. As for people that did not do those simple things that I did in life, why are they my problem now?
Employment is a lagging indicator. Snap participation is falling.It's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.
It's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.
The food stamp beneficiary is no more spending your money than your barber. Come on, it is not a hard concept to understand. Once you turn over your tax money to the government, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE, just like when you turn your money over to your barber, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE.
I expect nothing more coming from a Progressive. Frankly, I usually see better from Progressives than them trying to sell a line that government money is NOT taxpayer money.
Over the decades I've had hundreds of haircuts. Never once, in all those years did I have a single barber demand money from me under threat of imprisonment then not even cut my hair. Usually, I say, "cute try" but this was simply pathetic.
The taxes that you pay are the price you pay for the freedom and security of living in a first world country. Safety, security and infrastructure cost money. An educated society providing a highly skilled work force, costs money, as for the protections provided by intellectual property laws and other governmental agencies.
There are lots of countries where individuals pay no income tax. You'll need to hire full body guards and bribe the local police for protection, there's no decent roads, hospitals or schools, you'll be hard pressed to have any safety or security. There's always the danger the government will be overthrown and you'll lose everything you have, but you won't pay taxes.
I don't think you'll find many on the right that believe we should pay no taxes, it's just the waste, the vote buying, the coddling of full grown adults like they are children is where we have the problem.
Those on the left complain about Trump's budget because everybody likes their goodies. But we are 20 trillion in debt and it's time to stop with the goodies. It's time we blow off the dust on that US Constitution of ours and only spend money outlined within.
It's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.
David Brooks, seconds ago
The reason food stamps have expanded is not because of an expansion of the welfare state. It is because a lot of people are near poor due to a fundamental problem with the STRUCTURE of the US economy.
It's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.
David Brooks, seconds ago
The reason food stamps have expanded is not because of an expansion of the welfare state. It is because a lot of people are near poor due to a fundamental problem with the STRUCTURE of the US economy.
And what fundamental problem is that? Apparently Obama's economic solutions didn't work too well for the people the Democratic Party says they work for. If Mr Brooks has written something on this I'd like to read it. Sure looks like a big expansion of the welfare state to me.
David Brooks is a progressive shit stain… FactIt's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.
David Brooks, seconds ago
The reason food stamps have expanded is not because of an expansion of the welfare state. It is because a lot of people are near poor due to a fundamental problem with the STRUCTURE of the US economy.
Maybe I do things different than others, but an eviction is way more important than credit ratings. I have tenants who don't make a lot of money, and they are my best tenants. Some of those people stay with me for many years and are problem free.
She can't get an apartment in her name because she doesn't have an income. If a landlord needs to sue her for back rent or damages, they couldn't get anything because she doesn't work. I sued him for back rent and had his wages garnished for a year.
David Brooks is a progressive shit stain… FactIt's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.
David Brooks, seconds ago
The reason food stamps have expanded is not because of an expansion of the welfare state. It is because a lot of people are near poor due to a fundamental problem with the STRUCTURE of the US economy.
let's end the drug war, simply for the sake of morals and bearing "True Witness" to our Commerce Clause.
David Brooks is a progressive shit stain… FactIt's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.
David Brooks, seconds ago
The reason food stamps have expanded is not because of an expansion of the welfare state. It is because a lot of people are near poor due to a fundamental problem with the STRUCTURE of the US economy.
Never been to a red state?Because most Republicans work and have never been on food stamps, and never looked into how it works.
David Brooks is a progressive shit stain… FactIt's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.
David Brooks, seconds ago
The reason food stamps have expanded is not because of an expansion of the welfare state. It is because a lot of people are near poor due to a fundamental problem with the STRUCTURE of the US economy.
I thought he was a moderate conservative. It is true I think that rent-seeking in the Obama years did diminish economic growth to some extent, but that's what you get when your policies are unfavorable towards business investments.
David Brooks is a progressive shit stain… FactIt's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.
David Brooks, seconds ago
The reason food stamps have expanded is not because of an expansion of the welfare state. It is because a lot of people are near poor due to a fundamental problem with the STRUCTURE of the US economy.
I thought he was a moderate conservative. It is true I think that rent-seeking in the Obama years did diminish economic growth to some extent, but that's what you get when your policies are unfavorable towards business investments.
OMG, you don't even know what rent seeking is. I know this because of your undocumented and based on nothing comment about Obama policies unfavorable towards business. The scourge of rent seeking began to rapidly expand during the Reagan administration and has pretty much grown unabated since then.
Why do the rich make as much as they do?
