Tax Single Mothers

LesActive · July 6, 2015

Agreed...there is plenty of revenue to go around, but that isn't the point at all. Single parent welfare payments are a relatively small portion of government budgets, but the trump card is political and the perceived unfairness to working taxpayers is real. That's why "workfare" and lifetime welfare maximums were enacted in the United States.

I would think that corporate welfare coupled with obscene profit far outstrips the cost of social welfare.

bush_cheney2004 · July 6, 2015

I would think that corporate welfare coupled with obscene profit far outstrips the cost of social welfare.

Different agenda entirely...who is paying the taxes ? Single parent households receive more welfare because of dependent children. "Society" already discriminates in that regard.

Edited July 6, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

LesActive · July 6, 2015

Saving money and not spending more than you can afford = hoarding. Being irresponsible and spending well above your means while racking up debt = oppressed. Got it.

I see that's how you would like to spin what I wrote, but that's not what I wrote.

How many people do you know that need (as in necessary for one's own relative comfort) more than the average salary of $76 000? In my case I don't make near that because I don't need that much but then I'm single with no dependents, no debt and no credit. Most of the people I know don't make near that much either. Why do these people feel the need to make as much as possible, if not more?

eta: I'm not writing about those with a few extra thousand tucked away for a rainy day, tuitions (which should also be free) or vacations. I'm writing about those with obscene amounts of wealth: the top 10%.

Edited July 6, 2015 by LesActive

LesActive · July 6, 2015

Different agenda entirely...who is paying the taxes ? Single parent households receive more welfare because of dependent children. "Society" already discriminates in that regard.

I'm writing with regard to the way I would like to see it, not how it is at present. I have no issue with supporting people who need it, such as single mothers with no other recourse.

bush_cheney2004 · July 6, 2015

I'm writing with regard to the way I would like to see it, not how it is at present. I have no issue with supporting people who need it, such as single mothers with no other recourse.

That's the rub...many do have other options. Lots of single parents manage without welfare to the max.

LesActive · July 6, 2015

That's the rub...many do have other options. Lots of single parents manage without welfare to the max.

I'm sure they do, it's the expectation that everyone has other options that is false. Abuse of the system is another bag o' cats. IMO, the wealthy abuse the system at far greater levels.

bush_cheney2004 · July 6, 2015

I'm sure they do, it's the expectation that everyone has other options that is false. Abuse of the system is another bag o' cats. IMO, the wealthy abuse the system at far greater levels.

The wealthy also pay the lion's share of taxes. I suppose we could all just sit on our asses and collect welfare.

-1=e^ipi · July 6, 2015

How many people do you know that need (as in necessary for one's own relative comfort) more than the average salary of $76 000?

Need? Zero.

Do I know people that earn far more than that and have no savings because they spend well above their means? Yes.

Do I know people that earn less than that and spend within their means? Yes.

Why do these people feel the need to make as much as possible, if not more?

The premise of your question is flawed because I never made such a claim.

I'm not writing about those with a few extra thousand tucked away for a rainy day, tuitions (which should also be free) or vacations. I'm writing about those with obscene amounts of wealth: the top 10%.

I took what you wrote literally. It's not my fault if you can't understand the difference between people saving money and income inequality. People that are saving for retirement are 'hoarding money' and some people that spend beyond their means end up in a 'mess' that they are 'too poor to help themselves out of'. Your post made about as much sense as Justin Trudeau's 'definition' of middle class (which as I recall was anyone earning an income and not living off their savings, so would include millionaire CEOS but not include retired people).

LesActive · July 6, 2015

Need? Zero.

Do I know people that earn far more than that and have no savings because they spend well above their means? Yes.

Do I know people that earn less than that and spend within their means? Yes.

The premise of your question is flawed because I never made such a claim.

I took what you wrote literally. It's not my fault if you can't understand the difference between people saving money and income inequality. People that are saving for retirement are 'hoarding money' and some people that spend beyond their means end up in a 'mess' that they are 'too poor to help themselves out of'. Your post made about as much sense as Justin Trudeau's 'definition' of middle class (which as I recall was anyone earning an income and not living off their savings, so would include millionaire CEOS but not include retired people).

The premise of my question is not flawed, it was rhetorical and not in direct response to anything you brought up. Your posts in reply to mine are at least as rhetorical if not more so because of the straw man elements you raise.

Do people need money for retirement? In this system, of course they do, so that is well outside the indices of my comments regarding obscene wealth.

I'm no fan of any politician so that is a moot aspect.

LesActive · July 6, 2015

The wealthy also pay the lion's share of taxes. I suppose we could all just sit on our asses and collect welfare.

As they should, benefitting as much as they do. As for your non sequitor, if you allow people to play a part then they generally will. I suspect that you've never been in a position to have to collect welfare for subsistence.

Edited July 6, 2015 by LesActive

Smallc · July 6, 2015

Workfare and welfare maximums were enacted in the United States because voters are selfish and ignorant cannibals.

It's much better to have a permanent underclass dependant on the system. It gives you someone to cheer for.

bush_cheney2004 · July 6, 2015

As they should, benefitting as much as they do. As for your non sequitor, if you allow people to play a part then they generally will. I suspect that you've never been in a position to have to collect welfare for subsistence.

You suspect wrong....it's just that being on welfare/food stamps carried a huge stigma years ago, and my family would have none of it. I cleaned toilets in commercial buildings at age 11....the rent got paid. We didn't need socialists to tell us we were poor and living below the "poverty line".

LesActive · July 6, 2015

You suspect wrong....it's just that being on welfare/food stamps carried a huge stigma years ago, and my family would have none of it. I cleaned toilets in commercial buildings at age 11....the rent got paid. We didn't need socialists to tell us we were poor and living below the "poverty line".

If I suspected wrongly then you did collect welfare, but your family would have none of it, so you didn't collect welfare? A bit confusing. Is child labour ok if it keeps the family off the dole?

The poor always know that they're poor, often acutely. No "ist" of any stripe needs to tell them that.

bush_cheney2004 · July 7, 2015

If I suspected wrongly then you did collect welfare, but your family would have none of it, so you didn't collect welfare? A bit confusing. Is child labour ok if it keeps the family off the dole?

The poor always know that they're poor, often acutely. No "ist" of any stripe needs to tell them that.

My family never collected welfare, but certainly qualified for it. Nothing wrong with being "poor"...many people today don't know how to survive with less...much less.

As for "child labour", a strong work ethic does wonders to keep the socialists and their welfare trap at bay.

Edited July 7, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

Big Guy · July 7, 2015

To WIP - I read where you dismissed my references to orphanages by suggesting that I read Charles Dickens. I am very familiar with his work thank you.

I suggest that you might google "Orphanages vs Foster Homes" and read some of the research and statistics on the issue. You may find yourself more informed and less dismissive of ideas that are foreign to you.

On Guard for Thee · July 7, 2015

My family never collected welfare, but certainly qualified for it. Nothing wrong with being "poor"...many people today don't know how to survive with less...much less.

As for "child labour", a strong work ethic does wonders to keep the socialists and their welfare trap at bay.

Do you have investments in Joe Fresh...

Hal 9000 · July 7, 2015

They might be leaving an abusive relationship. And they might be the cause of an abusive relationship. Who do you think holds the upper hand there most often... You are grasping there. Again, if there is a custody battle, the courts try to decide what is best for the child, and it aint all about breast feeding.

Custody goes to the woman by default. The man must prove (and they never can) that the woman is unfit (which never happens). she could be a junkie whore and she'll be given benefit of the doubt.

WestCoastRunner · July 7, 2015

Aaa

Edited July 21, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

WestCoastRunner · July 7, 2015

Custody goes to the woman by default. The man must prove (and they never can) that the woman is unfit (which never happens). she could be a junkie whore and she'll be given benefit of the doubt.

Edited July 21, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

LesActive · July 7, 2015

My family never collected welfare, but certainly qualified for it. Nothing wrong with being "poor"...many people today don't know how to survive with less...much less.

As for "child labour", a strong work ethic does wonders to keep the socialists and their welfare trap at bay.

Then my suspicions were not wrong, thank you for clarifying. You do not know the stigma firsthand as you didn't have to apply for it. Your family had alternatives (even if it did involve child labour), many others don't.

Welfare is not a party, it won't even cover rent in many cases. Easily, having to rely on welfare is one of the most dehumanizing experiences you can have in this society. A very small percentage of people abuse it and I'll bet even less would prefer it to a decent job.

WestCoastRunner · July 7, 2015

Then my suspicions were not wrong, thank you for clarifying. You do not know the stigma firsthand as you didn't have to apply for it. Your family had alternatives (even if it did involve child labour), many others don't.

Welfare is not a party, it won't even cover rent in many cases. Easily, having to rely on welfare is one of the most dehumanizing experiences you can have in this society. A very small percentage of people abuse it and I'll bet even less would prefer it to a decent job.

Edited July 21, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

On Guard for Thee · July 7, 2015

Custody goes to the woman by default. The man must prove (and they never can) that the woman is unfit (which never happens). she could be a junkie whore and she'll be given benefit of the doubt.

What friggin planet do you live on. Here on earth courts decide based on evidence around who is the primary care giver. That does tend to be the mother more often than not, especially with infants, for obvious reasons.

bush_cheney2004 · July 7, 2015

Then my suspicions were not wrong, thank you for clarifying. You do not know the stigma firsthand as you didn't have to apply for it. Your family had alternatives (even if it did involve child labour), many others don't.

There should be "stigma"...it is not an entitlement to be celebrated. There are often alternatives not explored because living on the dole can be easier and more economic sense. Many choose welfare instead of work/workfare.

Welfare is not a party, it won't even cover rent in many cases. Easily, having to rely on welfare is one of the most dehumanizing experiences you can have in this society. A very small percentage of people abuse it and I'll bet even less would prefer it to a decent job.

Maybe...it is much less so these days. The Canadian "safety net" and experience is different than in the U.S.

Hal 9000 · July 7, 2015

I see that's how you would like to spin what I wrote, but that's not what I wrote.

How many people do you know that need (as in necessary for one's own relative comfort) more than the average salary of $76 000? In my case I don't make near that because I don't need that much but then I'm single with no dependents, no debt and no credit. Most of the people I know don't make near that much either. Why do these people feel the need to make as much as possible, if not more?

eta: I'm not writing about those with a few extra thousand tucked away for a rainy day, tuitions (which should also be free) or vacations. I'm writing about those with obscene amounts of wealth: the top 10%.

I'm in that 10% and i'm not obscenely wealthy. In fact, the top 10% contribute nearly 60% of the government federal revenue.

Hal 9000 · July 7, 2015

So basically whenever a divorce occurs it is mostly the woman's fault because she is junkie whore and/or an unfit mother. Brilliant

Like I say put the kids in an orphanage.

I Didn't say that!