Tax return is nearly $3000 LESS because I worked part-time last year!

[Karlzmom]

Are you being serious? Did I say anything about abolishing the Constitution? What does picking and choosing have to do with anything? You can't pick and choose something that isn't in the document!

The U.S. Constitiution includes many overarching ideas but very few specifics to allow for the growth and change of our nation. One of those general ideas include "promoting the general welfare." In other words, the well-being of U.S. citizens. If a significant portion of citizens in the U.S. today are out of work or struggling financially, I would think our general welfare is being negatively affected.

Read as a whole, the Constition is a limit on government action. You're reading of the "general welfare" clause really renders the rest moot, as any action can be classed under that category.

 

[hoffmann2828]

What's the difference? (as applied to jobs)

The difference is that the person who actually WORKED for the money gets to choose. ;-)

 

[Karlzmom]

I was thinking about this earlier. The argument is "give me more money in my paycheck, I'll spend it meaning companies get more money meaning they would employ more people." Do I have that right?

BUT, if the government gets your money, they spend it. So they're giving to companies that are employing people. Since those companies are making money, why don't they employ more people?

Yes, YOU would get to choose which companies your money goes to. But it still gets spent... whether by you or the government. Let's be honest... it's not like the government is taking our money and putting it in a bank account and not using it. So the money IS getting used.

What's the difference? (as applied to jobs)

The true value of the dollar goes down as the various layers of governmnet get their cut along the way. Further, the Fed sends large quantities of bulk cash to foreign entities or use it to service the debt in a way that direct spending doesn't. Money into the fed does not equal money out to private industry to be used by the economy.

 

[JamesMom]

I was thinking about this earlier. The argument is "give me more money in my paycheck, I'll spend it meaning companies get more money meaning they would employ more people." Do I have that right?

BUT, if the government gets your money, they spend it. So they're giving to companies that are employing people. Since those companies are making money, why don't they employ more people?

Yes, YOU would get to choose which companies your money goes to. But it still gets spent... whether by you or the government. Let's be honest... it's not like the government is taking our money and putting it in a bank account and not using it. So the money IS getting used.

What's the difference? (as applied to jobs)

The government doesn't produce a good that can be sold. The government doesn't give money to companies. Sure, they may buy things (at inflated prices which is why everyone wants government contracts), but do they do a true cost/profit analysis?
In the free market, Company A gets the contact over company B because they produce a needed good at the least cost and maximum profit. For the goverment contract, Company B gets the contract despite costing more because a senator got a campaign contribution or they had a more persuasive lobby. The government doesn't create profit - only cost.
Therefore, Company A gets the Free Market Contract and can expand their company with the profits either by exploring new markets for the same good or marketing new goods both of which require new technology, equipment and personel - employing people not only for Company A but for the other companies supplied the needed materials.
Company B on the other hand believing that they can ride the government contract forever don't expand or look for new markets - therefore no job creation OR the goverment contract is limited and the job created are temporary.
Which truly creates jobs and growth? Company A and the new employees who pump more tax revenue by true good production, or Company B who simply pay back tax dollars for tax dollars in a great shell game?

 

[DVCBELLE]

I was thinking about this earlier. The argument is "give me more money in my paycheck, I'll spend it meaning companies get more money meaning they would employ more people." Do I have that right?

BUT, if the government gets your money, they spend it. So they're giving to companies that are employing people. Since those companies are making money, why don't they employ more people?

Yes, YOU would get to choose which companies your money goes to. But it still gets spent... whether by you or the government. Let's be honest... it's not like the government is taking our money and putting it in a bank account and not using it. So the money IS getting used.

What's the difference? (as applied to jobs)

THE GOVERNMENT IS PAYING PEOPLE NOT TO WORK!!!!

That is the difference.

$1000 to the government goes through so many layers of crap that I would bet less than 70% of it goes into programs.

I am careful in picking my charities...I make sure that I only give to those that give at least 97% back in programs. So now I only need to give 730 to generate $700 of aid. I still have $270 left that I will spend in the economy. That $700 will go further b/c it will be going to people who truly need it. So now - the money is going further, buying more and creating more jobs.

The losers here - will be the US govt. - the bureaucrats will have to find another job.

 

[ohlas]

Yes, the remarks are quite offensive and full of excuses. Go back and read her post. It is her DH that makes the money not her. One question for her...what if, God forbid, something happened to your DH or he left you and you were on your own? That is how some people needing assistance got into their predicament. Would you be able to earn the same 6 figure salary? Could you support yourself and your children (sorry, can't remember if you have children) on your salary alone? BTW, I grew up in the "ghetto" too and my sister has documented learning disabilities as well but she graduated National Honor Society and ended up with a Master's Degree. I guess it has made us more tolerant of those that really need the assistance due to no fault of their own (those people do exist BTW).

you dont have to like what i say..insulting or not. not paying your fair of taxes makes me angry

if my husband decided to leave i would call his family thats what family is for till i could support my self,,, i also have disability, life ins on him to pay off all debt plus enough to support my current life style for 10ish yrs.

for your info i put him thru school so he could support his family better, now its my turn..

and i grow up really, really poor so i have walked, breathed, sleep where most on this board have not exp.

 

[luvsJack]

Yes, the remarks are quite offensive and full of excuses. Go back and read her post. It is her DH that makes the money not her. One question for her...what if, God forbid, something happened to your DH or he left you and you were on your own? That is how some people needing assistance got into their predicament. Would you be able to earn the same 6 figure salary? Could you support yourself and your children (sorry, can't remember if you have children) on your salary alone? BTW, I grew up in the "ghetto" too and my sister has documented learning disabilities as well but she graduated National Honor Society and ended up with a Master's Degree. I guess it has made us more tolerant of those that really need the assistance due to no fault of their own (those people do exist BTW).

Yep, I guarantee if something made her dh walk out tonight, she would have an entire different outlook on the whole thing.

Wow, kudos to your sister! A lot of students would have given up at the words "learning disability".

And I agree with you totally, being in those shoes makes one much more tolerant.

 

[ohlas]

Yep, I guarantee if something made her dh walk out tonight, she would have an entire different outlook on the whole thing.

Wow, kudos to your sister! A lot of students would have given up at the words "learning disability".

And I agree with you totally, being in those shoes makes one much more tolerant.

no i wouldnt i have said over and over i was poor growning up.

why is it a bad thing that i have stayed home to support my family and kids, or that my husband of 18.5 years supports his family well.

i didnt marry well i married for love and he or i have always worked several jobs.

It would be better if i think like you is what you are saying, well i dont get over it,

taxing me at a higher rate then my nebor or joe blow is wrong just like me not feeding children that are hungry...


government does a crappy job at welfare why give them more and more hun because why

 

[luvsJack]

I think the component that is missing in this argument is what happens if the govt gets out of the welfare business:

1. I up my charity dollars - as would many of my friends and the businesses they own...b/c we would feel like we could choose organizations that would be good stewards of our money. I am sure that a $1000 given to a non-profit will go farther than $1000 given to the government. More non-profits will actually lead to more jobs as well.

2. I will also have more disposable income...so I will buy more things, take more trips, etc. and what will that do - CREATE MORE JOBS

3. With lower tax responsibilities - employers will keep jobs in the US and have more money to pay for salaries.

4. There will be more jobs in the US for the people who are unskilled therefore meaning less people will need to be on welfare.

The people who TRULY need assistance will be able to get it - those who are lazy and working the system will not and will end up having to get a job - which will be available b/c there will be more jobs b/c people will be spending more money which will create more jobs.

I follow everything you said, right up to that last sentence. Who is going to keep those that "truly" need it being the only ones to get it? Someone will actually have to look at each person and make that determination. Charities and churches are not the best at doing that , plus they don't have the manpower (and if they have to hire more that is less going to the people that need it)

I know a woman that has 5 ex-husbands and 3 children (all grown now, but this is back when they were at home). She decided to get a job and needed her car in running order. She called each one of her exes and asked them for something for the car--tires, help with insurance, tag, air filter, whatever but 5 different things. THEN she went to a local church and gave them the same story and they, in good faith, helped her by giving her a walmart card to get the tires. The church had no way of knowing she didn't need those tires. The next time she decided to try a scam, she just called a different church. My brother and I sat down one day and called area churches to warn them of this woman.

My point is, they had no way to make sure she was really in need and they won't in your scenario either.

I would be really afraid that this would cause a major hardship for churches and a lot of charities.

Besides, someone mentioned the good will of people. Its out there, I have seen it in my own church. But we send a mission group to Peru each year and this year one went to El Salvador. We do holiday meals for those in needs and adopt many families for Christmas. Right now we are collecting shoes for people in Peru. Our youth goes on a mission trip each year, right here in the US--after Katrina, helping build houses on the MS coast, another year going where floods had devasted an area to help rebuild--just wherever they are needed. If our church has to help replace the help people get from government assistance, we couldn't continue the things we do.

 

[ohlas]

I follow everything you said, right up to that last sentence. Who is going to keep those that "truly" need it being the only ones to get it? Someone will actually have to look at each person and make that determination. Charities and churches are not the best at doing that , plus they don't have the manpower (and if they have to hire more that is less going to the people that need it)

I know a woman that has 5 ex-husbands and 3 children (all grown now, but this is back when they were at home). She decided to get a job and needed her car in running order. She called each one of her exes and asked them for something for the car--tires, help with insurance, tag, air filter, whatever but 5 different things. THEN she went to a local church and gave them the same story and they, in good faith, helped her by giving her a walmart card to get the tires. The church had no way of knowing she didn't need those tires. The next time she decided to try a scam, she just called a different church. My brother and I sat down one day and called area churches to warn them of this woman.

My point is, they had no way to make sure she was really in need and they won't in your scenario either.

I would be really afraid that this would cause a major hardship for churches and a lot of charities.

Besides, someone mentioned the good will of people. Its out there, I have seen it in my own church. But we send a mission group to Peru each year and this year one went to El Salvador. We do holiday meals for those in needs and adopt many families for Christmas. Right now we are collecting shoes for people in Peru. Our youth goes on a mission trip each year, right here in the US--after Katrina, helping build houses on the MS coast, another year going where floods had devasted an area to help rebuild--just wherever they are needed. If our church has to help replace the help people get from government assistance, we couldn't continue the things we do.

why do usa church always help people in elsalvador, kora, china, why not adopt a family here and build them a house and "teach them to fish"?

 

[luvsJack]

you dont have to like what i say..insulting or not. not paying your fair of taxes makes me angry

if my husband decided to leave i would call his family thats what family is for till i could support my self,,, i also have disability, life ins on him to pay off all debt plus enough to support my current life style for 10ish yrs.

for your info i put him thru school so he could support his family better, now its my turn..

and i grow up really, really poor so i have walked, breathed, sleep where most on this board have not exp.

That's great, but you cannot guarantee that HIS family would help you. Life happens.

If its true that you grew up poor, its even sadder that you have no empathy in that same situation you were once in.

no i wouldnt i have said over and over i was poor growning up.

why is it a bad thing that i have stayed home to support my family and kids, or that my husband of 18.5 years supports his family well.

i didnt marry well i married for love and he or i have always worked several jobs.

It would be better if i think like you is what you are saying, well i dont get over it,

taxing me at a higher rate then my nebor or joe blow is wrong just like me not feeding children that are hungry...


government does a crappy job at welfare why give them more and more hun because why

You said your husband is working 3 jobs? Why is that necessary?

I don't think there is a thing in the world wrong with him supporting his family well or you staying home with your kids. Its great that you were able to do that. But don't look down your nose at those who are needing help with child care so they can work or go to school (and it is ONLY for those working and/or going to school)

The only thing we were saying is that if you suddenly had to support your children without his $118,000, you would possibly have to go on government assistance. If you didn't "marry well", then his family may not be able to help you.

Your remarks about slaves and the ghetto are unexcusable. There was no reason for that to be brought into this discussion.

 

[luvsJack]

why do usa church always help people in elsalvador, kora, china, why not adopt a family here and build them a house and "teach them to fish"?

We are collecting shoes for the people of Peru because they have no shoes. The people there work with rags wrapped around their feet.

Some of our congregation went to El Salvador to take Christmas boxes to the children there (shoe boxes with little toys, candy and such in them). The people in the villages live in "houses" that we would call a lean to for our livestock.

Our youth does go on trip here in the US. To places that need us the most. Rebuilding houses and churches after hurricanes, floods, etc.

Also, remember these are mission trips so there is more work intended than just the physical work of building houses. You have to have education to "teach them to fish".

We try to help as many as we can, people who are the neediest. We have holiday dinners, adopt families for Christmas, buy school supplies and school clothes. We aren't that large of a church, we can only do so much.

 

[DVCBELLE]

I follow everything you said, right up to that last sentence. Who is going to keep those that "truly" need it being the only ones to get it? Someone will actually have to look at each person and make that determination. Charities and churches are not the best at doing that , plus they don't have the manpower (and if they have to hire more that is less going to the people that need it)

I know a woman that has 5 ex-husbands and 3 children (all grown now, but this is back when they were at home). She decided to get a job and needed her car in running order. She called each one of her exes and asked them for something for the car--tires, help with insurance, tag, air filter, whatever but 5 different things. THEN she went to a local church and gave them the same story and they, in good faith, helped her by giving her a walmart card to get the tires. The church had no way of knowing she didn't need those tires. The next time she decided to try a scam, she just called a different church. My brother and I sat down one day and called area churches to warn them of this woman. My point is, they had no way to make sure she was really in need and they won't in your scenario either.

I would be really afraid that this would cause a major hardship for churches and a lot of charities.

Besides, someone mentioned the good will of people. Its out there, I have seen it in my own church. But we send a mission group to Peru each year and this year one went to El Salvador. We do holiday meals for those in needs and adopt many families for Christmas. Right now we are collecting shoes for people in Peru. Our youth goes on a mission trip each year, right here in the US--after Katrina, helping build houses on the MS coast, another year going where floods had devasted an area to help rebuild--just wherever they are needed. If our church has to help replace the help people get from government assistance, we couldn't continue the things we do.

You do realized you answered your own question - right? Have you ever called the government when you saw their system being abused? Most people don't but would take the time when they saw it happening in a situation where they felt ownership. Plus that woman didn't keep going back to the same church...but she sure would have kept doing it to the government if she had a scam goign there.

Also - we need to help the people in our own backyards before we go and save the world. We can't possibly help everyone in the world...we have to start here and then go do the places beyond the US.

I support US and Foreign charities. And that would continue to happen. The existing charitable organizations would not be picking up all the slack...there would be news ones to help.

 

[ohlas]

well we are talking about the gettho, i didnt bring it up, i do have compasion but its not compassion if im forced to do it. i have never said kick people out in the streets or dont feed them.

The only thing i have said was if you work you should pay the same percent rate as me.

are u done personnely insulting me because you dont agree with me and get back to the facts that the tax codes are wrong and the middle class is getting more and more squezzed every year, because bleed liberals like you what everything to be equal how about we start with an equal tax poilcy

 

[Colleen27]

Should we also have the govt institute a maximum wage, as some apparently want them controlling everything because we as regular citizens can't be trusted to handle our own lives?

When did we as people lose all respect for what we can accomplish without the govt holding our hands every step of the way?

Around the same time we decided that a hard day's work has no inherent worth. We had a strong economy and less need for social welfare programs a generation or two ago, but we also had more of a sense of community and less of this attitude that if you're not educated, you're disposable and shouldn't expect luxuries like shelter, utilities, and food.

Seriously, though, if no minimum wage existed, employers would still be forced to pay what the market will bear. Need evidence? Consider the illegal immigrants who work in the "dirty jobs" that Americans don't want to do anymore. Do they work for pennies an hour? Nope. They work for essentially minimum wage paid under the table.

In many industries and areas that isn't the case. The under-the-table rate for restaurant, landscaping, and construction work in my area breaks down to significantly less than minimum wage. We have a competitor who uses undocumented workers on his roofing crews and pays a flat $50/day. That breaks down to $2-3 below minimum wage over a typical work day. I know of restaurants that pay $5/hr to their cash-paid dishwashers and bus boys. Particularly in weak job markets employers find no shortage of people willing to work for less than minimum wage on the principle that something is better than nothing.

Everyone isn't academic, but everyone needs SOME training beyond high school. Those who don't flourish in the classroom may do very well in beauty school, bricklaying class, etc. We teach some excellent vocational classes in our high school, and students can leave fully qualified to get an entry-level job in the electrical field, working as mechanics, as CNAs, etc. College isn't the only path to a better-than-minimum-wage job, but few people today will be really successful with ONLY high school under their belts.

Again, though, that's a micro level solution that doesn't extrapolate up to a broader scale. We will ALWAYS need more unskilled workers than degreed professionals and skilled tradespeople. The jobs that people talk about as not being worth a livable wage make up a large share of our overall workforce - retail accounts for 12% of American jobs, food service another 8%, home health aids 3% - and these are all growing sectors (and I'm not including those that are hard to pin down numbers on, like gas station cashiers which the BLS lumps in with mechanic in the "transportation service" category or construction general labor which gets lumped in with skilled tradespeople). Isn't it worth considering that maybe it isn't feasible to just write off 20+% of the population as not deserving of wages that will support even a subsistence lifestyle?

Based on past elections it appears that about half the people in this country have a view that the govt should help people that can't take care of themselves.. If those people start giving the same amount to their church/charity as what we could reduce taxes by thats 50% of the welfare needed right there.. Toss in the amount of money the fed govt could save by not needing so many employees running these programs and that the churches/charities are going to do a much better jobs of singling out the people cheating the system, and its now pretty close to a wash..

Does that all look good?

You're missing one key point - many of the people who are the strongest supporters of basic-needs charities (as opposed to the arts, college/private school endowments, medical causes, etc) are those with the least to give. And in times like these, when the middle and working classes are getting hammered by the economy, giving falls while need increases.

And if we're looking to reduce spending, there are other areas that could and should be cut long before basic aid to our own populace both for moral and practical reasons. We give away 30B/year to third world nations. We have the largest military budget in the world - fully six times that of China, ten times Russia's, 14 times that of the UK - most of which isn't devoted to protecting our own borders but rather to enforcing/upholding a sort of corporate imperialism in our "allies" overseas. And on a more worst-case level, I think the anti-welfare arguments lose site of the fact that a hungry, desperate population gets you what is going on in Egypt and Tunisia right now.

 

[palavra]

Read as a whole, the Constition is a limit on government action. You're reading of the "general welfare" clause really renders the rest moot, as any action can be classed under that category.

That was precisely my point. The Constitution, as a whole, is a dynamic document. I very much doubt that the founding fathers assumed that life in America would continue along the same path 200 years down the road.

Fwiw, I am a social studies teacher and teach government as part of one of my classes. I've read the Constitution and have the great privilege to teach about it to middle school students.

 

[ccgirl]

you dont have to like what i say..insulting or not. not paying your fair of taxes makes me angry

if my husband decided to leave i would call his family thats what family is for till i could support my self,,, i also have disability, life ins on him to pay off all debt plus enough to support my current life style for 10ish yrs.

for your info i put him thru school so he could support his family better, now its my turn..

and i grow up really, really poor so i have walked, breathed, sleep where most on this board have not exp.

And what if your DH's family won't help you. Or, what if you didn't have DH's family to rely on? I pay my share of taxes. I also grew up extremely poor and don't want other children to have to go thru that. It was heartbreaking. I'm glad you are in such a good position now but not everyone is. I really think there needs to be a system of check and balances with the current system.

 

[ohlas]

We are collecting shoes for the people of Peru because they have no shoes. The people there work with rags wrapped around their feet.

Some of our congregation went to El Salvador to take Christmas boxes to the children there (shoe boxes with little toys, candy and such in them). The people in the villages live in "houses" that we would call a lean to for our livestock.

Our youth does go on trip here in the US. To places that need us the most. Rebuilding houses and churches after hurricanes, floods, etc.

Also, remember these are mission trips so there is more work intended than just the physical work of building houses. You have to have education to "teach them to fish".

We try to help as many as we can, people who are the neediest. We have holiday dinners, adopt families for Christmas, buy school supplies and school clothes. We aren't that large of a church, we can only do so much.

what im trying to get at is you stop divideing all your good work and work on one family at a time you could make a real difference... and it takes alot of money for missonarys to go places, why not pick local family and buy them a cheap house work on it as a group, get them education and a job. why not?

feeding them dinner is nice but jesus says teach them to fish not give it to them wwjd

 

[ccgirl]

Yep, I guarantee if something made her dh walk out tonight, she would have an entire different outlook on the whole thing.

Wow, kudos to your sister! A lot of students would have given up at the words "learning disability".

And I agree with you totally, being in those shoes makes one much more tolerant.

Thanks! My sister worked very hard. A lot of after school time, homework time, extra classes etc. She worked so much harder than I ever had to. SHe is a great woman. She is now in public service.

I agree our system is definitely broken. When a poster is considering staying home and not working because more money can be earned that way....there is definitely something wrong with the picture.

 

[Colleen27]

I think the component that is missing in this argument is what happens if the govt gets out of the welfare business:

1. I up my charity dollars - as would many of my friends and the businesses they own...b/c we would feel like we could choose organizations that would be good stewards of our money. I am sure that a $1000 given to a non-profit will go farther than $1000 given to the government. More non-profits will actually lead to more jobs as well.

2. I will also have more disposable income...so I will buy more things, take more trips, etc. and what will that do - CREATE MORE JOBS

3. With lower tax responsibilities - employers will keep jobs in the US and have more money to pay for salaries.

4. There will be more jobs in the US for the people who are unskilled therefore meaning less people will need to be on welfare.

The people who TRULY need assistance will be able to get it - those who are lazy and working the system will not and will end up having to get a job - which will be available b/c there will be more jobs b/c people will be spending more money which will create more jobs.

A lot of this is based on a false dichotomy - welfare vs working. The reality is that most people receiving public assistance are working, and 100% of people receiving the specific benefit that started this thread are working. They're working in the kind of jobs that "stimulus" creates, ringing up your Chinese-made purchases at the mall and taking your order when you stop for dinner on the way home. Eliminating welfare doesn't benefit those people at all - it takes away the stop-gap that covers the shortfall between their wages and their living expenses, whether that means the lost of the childcare subsidy that prevents daycare from consuming every dollar they earn or the subsidized school meals that ease the grocery-budget crunch or the CHIPs health care that allows their kids to see a doctor and a dentist.

Also overlooked in this thinking is the impact on communities. Right now, Michigan is adjusting food stamp issuance dates to distribute over the course of the month rather than all at once, because in some communities the poverty level is so high and the number of people receiving aid make up such a large portion of the shopper base that stores couldn't adjust inventory sufficiently to meet the "first of the month" demand. Without those assistance payments those stores close, putting people out of work and leaving communities - even large communities like the city of Detroit, which doesn't have a single "big box" grocery at all - to struggle with a long commute just to buy food.