Well, at the very least, it’s good to see you expressing a relatively positive emotion towards some children…
Okay, she didn’t get a lot of traction with me before with the complaints about your meanness, but that was actually pretty mean…
Go grab your Social Security statement. Did you pay in more than you got out of it? No? Then yes, it’s a welfare program.
I wonder how many times I’ve said I have no problem with well behaved childen…
I didn’t say he was being mean, I said he was being an asshole.
I have paid in a LOT more than I have received and since I am on SSDI I may not get back everything I paid in.
Not that it has anything to do with it. Social Security is a pension plan, and even in private pensions there will be people who end up with more benefit than they had paid in. Companies cover this by investing the money their employees pay in but the government just pissed the SS money away. Something I certainly cannot be held accountable for, nor does that mean it is now a welfare program.
Of course, this might be why so many people these days seem to see nothing wrong with people living their whole lives on welfare. If you cannot see the difference between someone getting paid by the government for their pension, and someone just sitting on their bums demanding that someone else support them, then it’s no wonder so many people these days have financial problems.
The dollars that are spent on the poor outside of retirees and unemployment insurance (whose recipients have also paid in to) by the federal government is around $100 billion a year, which is also only a small portion of the deficit. Essentially, we’re back to my original throwaway proposal: eliminate this, AND nearly a third of the military, and almost ALL of the rest of the government, and you still might need a tax increase.
But yet, it’s just because of politics that we can’t do this.
Will be interested to see if anyone disagree with you on this, since when I say essentially the same thing they jump.
They probably won’t, because others will see that I am being sarcastic. My throwaway proposal was meant to prompt reflection on your part, either complete agreement, or a counter proposal after crunching some alternative numbers. I don’t think that taking a battle axe to every function of the government except most entitlements is merely politics. It would almost certainly be disastrous. But if you at least did agree with it, then I would know where you stood.
I also think that it’s easy to favor balanced budgets when your borrowing costs are relatively high. Before attributing official policy preferences to ideology, I’d probably look for what the alternatives of the government would have actually been.
It’s also really hard to get the shit back in the horse. Once the link between spending and the budget breaks, it’s hard to find a good reason for everyone to accept the constraint simultaneously again. Someone is always going to be injured disproportionately so we can’t get back to the virtuous equilibrium. It may be that the only way to restore to balance is to make our borrowing costs so high that we can enforce some more discipline. Of course if this happens we suffer in many other areas, so that’s not such a great solution.
You guys have to understand that you’re dealing with someone who actually seriously believes that the income tax situation is such that if she and her husband made more money, the increase in taxes would completely offset any benefit and they’d have the same net pay after taxes. She has a severe and persistent misunderstanding of the situation, and when pressed for details, she waves her hand and says she doesn’t remember specific numbers. You are making a valiant effort, but you’re never getting anywhere.
You can actually see this misunderstanding illustrated in posts she’s made in this thread. She thinks it’s interesting and/or significant that her and her husband’s total combined tax paid was greater than her salary when she last worked. She translates that in her mind to “all of my income goes to the IRS”, which is just a completely silly way to look at it. It allows her to justify her nonsensical notion that an increase in her income wouldn’t benefit them, since even if she made more money, “all of her income” would still go to the IRS. She’s simply not too smart about money and taxes.
Name me a subject she is smart about.
I do not accept your challenge.
When I need Dorothy, she is always there for me. But she has to get the credit.
It’s still an entitlement program, under the definition that is being used in the current public discourse. You’re not presuming that the current public discourse has nothing to do with you or your circumstances on account of you’ve dropped out of participation in the political process, are you?
Now you’re just changing the subject.
Nobody’s said that those aren’t different things. They’ve tried explaining to you that they ALL fall under the description of “entitlements.”
I don’t think that everything that goes on in the government is merely politics, but I do believe that much of it is driven by that, and things would be much different if somehow all the politics were eliminated. And no, I don’t think any one area should be “battle axed”. I’m also not looking to pay off the whole deficit in one budget.
Another one who makes up “facts”. I gave specific numbers way back when, and I’ll do them again. When I was working I was grossing just over $30K, and our income tax total payout was over that. Therefore, my salary did, essentially, all go to the IRS and the state revenue board. When I quit working our taxes dropped significantly - here is where I’m not going to go look for numbers but it went down at least $20K.
I don’t know why you all think you know more about our finances than I do. Most, if not all of you don’t live here and don’t know how much we pay in state income tax and none of you have any idea what write offs we might have. Tho I can tell you that one - next to none because we aren’t paying much interest on our mortgage any more and that’s the only write-off we qualify for. We don’t have kids, we were in an upper tax bracket and this state makes us pay thru the nose. Even now, with the big drop in income, we still pay over $15,000 in payroll deductions and usually another 4-5K at filing time between the two, about 20% of our gross income. It’s fucking ridiculous but better than the +/- 25% we were paying before and it washes out to about the same amount of actual money we can spend as when I was working.
But yeah, you just sit there in where ever you are and tell me what is going on with our money. :rolleyes:
“Entitlement” has a different definition in here than it does in public discourse.
No, they are trying to equate SSDI with welfare. Really Not All That Bright was the latest, just a few posts up.
Only to you, I’m afraid.
bolding mine
Either your statements are not accurate or there is more to the story. If you were making $30k, and your tax rate was ~25%, your tax bill wouldn’t drop $20k. That implies a ~67% tax rate.
Haha you really want to go down this rabbit hole?
The last time curly talked about how taxes made it make no sense for her to have a job, it was because her husband made over 100k and she stopped working and didn’t feel any change in lifestyle, therefore their tax burden was so large that her money from working evaporated.
I’m not joking.
OK, focus only on the one thing in all you have said that cannot be proved. All I’ll say on this one is I’ve run into plenty of people on this board who do not follow the dictionary definition of entitlement.
Are you including the +/- 100K my husband makes? Also, I’m talking gross income.
Not that this has anything to do with the subject of the thread - people just like to discredit me by “not remembering correctly” what I’ve said before.
I haven’t been following this, but do you think that if your income hits a higher rate that all your income is taxed at that rate?
That isn’t the way it works. If taxes for people making 200k are 36%, then only the income over 200k is taxed at that level.
I just want to make sure, because that’s a very common belief and it isn’t true.
Yes, I know that.