What are you cutting in your budget to absorb the Payroll Tax increase?

[leahjade]

I think the poor and welfare people are easy targets.

After working in a government assistance office for a year, I think there is more abuse than anyone realizes. And it's not only abuse, it's learning to work the system, and it's that the whole system is broken! Case in point, talking to my friend yesterday who has her two grandkids living with her because her son is a drug addict. My friend's income is six figures yet she gets food stamps, free medical care and free meals for the kids (not to mention the son who is getting welfare, food stamps, apartment and utility assistance). She said "I feel guilty talking money from the government to raise my own grandkids but hey if they want to give it, I'll take it."

 

[Suz D]

sorry, I meant to start a new thread.

 

[DisneyATlast]

After working in a government assistance office for a year, I think there is more abuse than anyone realizes. And it's not only abuse, it's learning to work the system, and it's that the whole system is broken! Case in point, talking to my friend yesterday who has her two grandkids living with her because her son is a drug addict. My friend's income is six figures yet she gets food stamps, free medical care and free meals for the kids (not to mention the son who is getting welfare, food stamps, apartment and utility assistance). She said "I feel guilty talking money from the government to raise my own grandkids but hey if they want to give it, I'll take it."

They probably give her food stamps and free medical care because she was willing to take the kids instead of a foster family. If a foster family had to take the kids in, they would get a cash payment, food stamps, and medical care along with paying to send the kids to daycare or after school care. So, in the eyes of the government...they're saving money.

 

[DisneyATlast]

I am still waiting for the proof that welfare mothers have less kids than the American woman that was claimed by a poster. She posted TANF and that is not all that is welfare.

Yes EITC is welfare since you are getting money to raise your kids. SSI is also a welfare program. SSDI is the insurance that working people get if they become disabled. SSI and SSDI are two different programs.

Considering that I pay a pretty good chunk of change into SSI, as I'm sure most people do, I don't think I will say that I'm "on welfare" if I live to retire and receive a check.

I wonder if the people who have paid into SSI their entire lives refuse to cash their checks or donate them to charity? Surely they wouldn't accept welfare!

EITC is debatable, but children are an exemption for everyone who has a child and files taxes. So, are all tax exemptions welfare?

 

[Granny square]

I know I'm tired but you are saying ssi is "welfare" right? Not the regular social security.

So retirement and collecting aren't the concern.

 

[ilovemk76]

what proof are you waiting for? I told you where i found the information go read. if you google the question you will get 2. I'm assuming htat those folks rounded up as it's pretty weird to say 0.8 of a child. I claimed the number is 1.8 per household.
I did consider money and food stamps only. I did not considered ssi sorry.

What you want me to go count them personally? where's the proof that it's not that number. Outside of fox news? Ok, is this acceptable?

Myth: Welfare gives mothers an economic incentive to have more children.

Fact: Studies have not found a correlation between size of welfare benefits and families

The average AFDC family is virtually the same size as the average American family. Of all welfare families, 73.9 percent have two children or less. (3) Of all American families with children, this figure is 79.1 percent. (4) (Families without children are not qualified for welfare, even though they may need it, so there are conceptual problems with adding childless families to either side of this comparison

This on is from the usda.

Food stamp households have little income. Only
9 percent are above the poverty line, while 40
percent have incomes at or below half the
poverty line. The typical food stamp household
had gross income of $558 per month and
received a monthly food stamp benefit of $169.
Food stamp households possess few resources.
The average food stamp household possesses
only about $92 in countable resources (including
vehicles, checking and savings accounts, and
other savings).
Most food stamp households are small. The
average food stamp household size was 2.4, but
varied considerably by household composition.
Households with children were relatively large,
averaging 3.4 members. Households with elderly
members tended to be smaller, with an average
size of 1.3 people.

Natural assumption is that one of the 3.4 members is not a child so that brings the number of children down to 2.4

I did forget to include SSI though. I'll go play and see what the family size is for that but some thing tells me you be bitterly disappointed that you won't be able to hold onto the ghetto queen myth there either.

That is more than 1.8, as you originally claimed. I made no claims just asked for proof as I knew the 1.8 was incorrect. The real number is in line with the average American woman.

I know I'm tired but you are saying ssi is "welfare" right? Not the regular social security.

So retirement and collecting aren't the concern.

Correct.

 

[DisneyATlast]

You're right about the SSI. I was thinking "Social Security Income" when it's Supplemental Security Income. So, yes, I agree it's a welfare program.

I still don't consider tax exemptions (which is what EITC is) to be welfare. If a single mother of 2 children makes 40k per year and is eligible to claim EITC, why wouldn't she? I'm sure most would, and I wouldn't consider them to be on welfare.

It's funny how people focus on the "welfare queens" when corporate welfare is the biggest culprit of all. That's the way they want it though....if you stay focused on the woman in front of you using a food stamp card, you won't notice the big shots are the real crooks.

 

[MomToOne]

That is more than 1.8, as you originally claimed. I made no claims just asked for proof as I knew the 1.8 was incorrect. The real number is in line with the average American woman.

Since you are so big on statistics, the current "average American woman" has 1.9 children. I don't know what you are thinking it is, since you seem to think the number is closer to 2.4 than 1.8. But if you are going to put yourself out as someone who's so big on "proof", then at least be sure to put the right data out there yourself.

Here's my source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_05.pdf

 

[Granny square]

Ok, I was confusing myself. .

Regarding the numbers in the welfare children, I would think that the 2.4 would really be less because a reasonable portion of welfare families has two parents. You can't just assume one. But that is just experience speaking and not official statistical info.

 

[DisneyATlast]

Historically, the “typical” cash welfare family has been headed by a single parent (usually themother) with one or two children. The single parent has also typically been unemployed.

That's from http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32760.pdf

That's only considering families who receive cash benefits (true welfare IMO) but if those families consist of "one or two children" I would imagine that families who are receiving some other type of benefit, but not qualifying for cash, would not be MORE.

Who knows though. You have to define what "welfare" is, and if you're including EITC then who knows how many other programs or people should be included in the count.

 

[DisneyATlast]

Since you are so big on statistics, the current "average American woman" has 1.9 children. I don't know what you are thinking it is, since you seem to think the number is closer to 2.4 than 1.8. But if you are going to put yourself out as someone who's so big on "proof", then at least be sure to put the right data out there yourself.

Here's my source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_05.pdf

Apparently if a woman receives assistance then she isn't included in the count of the "average american woman" either!

 

[MomToOne]

Regarding the numbers in the welfare children, I would think that the 2.4 would really be less because a reasonable portion of welfare families has two parents. You can't just assume one. But that is just experience speaking and not official statistical info.

I have data to help - there are actually more adults than children receiving foodstamps. Here's my data: http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/2011Characteristics.pdf

So, while many love to think that "welfare" users are all Welfare Queens with 10 kids, it's just not the truth. I think we've put enough data out there now to debunk that.

 

[MomToOne]

Case in point, talking to my friend yesterday who has her two grandkids living with her because her son is a drug addict. My friend's income is six figures yet she gets food stamps, free medical care and free meals for the kids (not to mention the son who is getting welfare, food stamps, apartment and utility assistance). She said "I feel guilty talking money from the government to raise my own grandkids but hey if they want to give it, I'll take it."

Then the grandmother has either a subsidized guardianship or a kinship foster care relationship, granted by a court. She's helping out by stepping up, I don't have a problem with that - it's 1000% better for the kids than being handed over to strangers. Regular foster parent would get the payments - as they should - why not her? It's not "abusing" the system, it's setting up a system that will actually serve the children - it's eliminating barriers that could cause extended family to not take them in when needed.

 

[robsmom]

I still don't consider tax exemptions (which is what EITC is) to be welfare. If a single mother of 2 children makes 40k per year and is eligible to claim EITC, why wouldn't she? I'm sure most would, and I wouldn't consider them to be on welfare.

The issue with the earned income tax credit is that an individual can receive more from the credit than they ever paid in taxes. So yes, all families take an exemption for themselves and their kids, but for most people this just decreases the amount of taxes they pay in the year. Many people who receive an earned income credit end up with tax income instead of paying any taxes for the year. The credit is not a refund of money they have paid as they pay zero taxes. Tt is a cash payment from the government and is a form of income redistribution which is a form of welfare. I am not saying it is right or wrong, just explaining why it really is a form of public assistance.

 

[Muushka]

The issue with the earned income tax credit is that an individual can receive more from the credit than they ever paid in taxes. So yes, all families take an exemption for themselves and their kids, but for most people this just decreases the amount of taxes they pay in the year. Many people who receive an earned income credit end up with tax income instead of paying any taxes for the year. The credit is not a refund of money they have paid as they pay zero taxes. Tt is a cash payment from the government and is a form of income redistribution which is a form of welfare. I am not saying it is right or wrong, just explaining why it really is a form of public assistance.

Very well stated. Thanks

 

[Colleen27]

I'm so glad so many of you have woken up to "everyone should pay their own way." Next time there is a thread on how little financial aid is available, how unreasonable the EFC is, and how can college possibly be so expensive, I'll take down names from this thread to tell you that you need to pay your own way. Because what I'm sick and tired of is not paying so someone can get $4 a day in food stamps while they have a manicure, but subsidizing the college educations of people who can afford trips to Disney while they whine about someone needing SNAP.

A-freakin-men!

It is easy to single out the poor. We all have decades of social conditioning telling us that anyone willing to work hard enough can be wealthy, that we all have the same chances to succeed, and that it is all about personal choices/responsibility. Of course all of those notions are oversimplification at best and fairy tales at worst, but they make it easy for those of us who have done relatively well in life to point out the flaws and shortcomings of those who didn't because the logical flip side to "hard work brings success" is "if you don't succeed, you must not be working hard enough". But we're far less willing to turn that same argument at ourselves when we can't contribute enough to our retirement accounts in the face of ever-increasing health insurance premiums, or when we can't save a quarter million dollars per kid to anticipate college inflation when we haven't seen a raise in a decade.

 

[Colleen27]

Trusting Americans to save for their own retirements isn't going to work.
A large and growing share of American workers are tapping their retirement savings accounts for non-retirement needs

Trusting the government isn't working, either. My DH and I have been paying in to SS since we were 15. We will never collect SS, because I'm sure in 20 years it will be means tested. Those of us that lived beneath our means and saved for our retirements will be screwed.

Actually, the SS shortfall can't be blamed entirely on the government. It is a product of the same paradigm shift that made 401k habits an issue in the first place - the end of the traditional pension. Companies keep more of their earnings as profit and government is expected to pick up the tab (the same consequence of a minimum wage that doesn't keep pace with inflation, actually). Social security was sound for the era in which it was designed, when most workers earned a pension along with their wages, but can't hold up to a world in which it is the primary retirement system and the only alternative is a voluntary-contribution system crippled by the strain of stagnant wages and skyrocketing costs of essentials like health care, food, and energy.

 

[DisneyATlast]

The issue with the earned income tax credit is that an individual can receive more from the credit than they ever paid in taxes. So yes, all families take an exemption for themselves and their kids, but for most people this just decreases the amount of taxes they pay in the year. Many people who receive an earned income credit end up with tax income instead of paying any taxes for the year. The credit is not a refund of money they have paid as they pay zero taxes. Tt is a cash payment from the government and is a form of income redistribution which is a form of welfare. I am not saying it is right or wrong, just explaining why it really is a form of public assistance.

Tax breaks and government benefits are always considered a bad thing when they benefit poor people.

It's no wonder that people continue to focus on the social "welfare queens" while ignoring the corporate welfare kings and subsidies for the rich. It's exactly what they want us to do and it's obviously working.

"The government spent about $59 billion to pay for traditional social welfare programs like food stamps and housing assistance in 2006, while Uncle Sam doled out $92 billion in assistance to corporations during the same year, according to an analysis from Think By Numbers, a progressive blog. That means that big, and in many cases profitable, corporations got nearly double the money from the government that needy individuals got."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/government-subsidies-corporations_n_1912835.html

Everyone has a problem with government benefits until it benefits them. I didn't see anyone sending back their stimulus check in '09 or refusing to take advantage of the "cash for clunkers" or the 8k first time home buyer credit.

 

[Muushka]

I for one am 100% opposed to corporate welfare.
From subsidizing green energy to bailing out favored companies to giving Hollywood and NASCAR tax breaks.

Please, with what actors and NASCAR drivers make, do they really need a tax break?

It has got to stop.