I get food stamps, and I’m not ashamed — I’m angry

[Playball40]

I have. I have told you about the negative taxes due to generous (for those with kids) exemptions and refundable credits. Even somebody with 2 kids (like the angry, whiny woman in the OP) who makes $20k gross ends up with something like $25k net, even when factoring in FICA and state taxes. And that doesn't count food stamps and other benefits nor does it count child support.

Nor does it get you rich.

I did not say that it gets you rich, only that it is financially beneficial.

Was it you that posted the picture of the sweet hammock on the beach?

 

[laughing dog]

I have. I have told you about the negative taxes due to generous (for those with kids) exemptions and refundable credits. Even somebody with 2 kids (like the angry, whiny woman in the OP) who makes $20k gross ends up with something like $25k net, even when factoring in FICA and state taxes. And that doesn't count food stamps and other benefits nor does it count child support.

Even with the generous assumption that your numbers are reasonably accurate, in order for you to provide evidence that such women have a net benefit from their large progeny, you need to supply evidence that cash flow received for the progeny exceeds the cash flow out for the progeny. You have not done anything remotely close to that. $25K gross is not much to support 3 people (one adult and two children) in the USA in most places.

All you have done is seflishly simper about your imagined tax burden and their imagined windfall. It is obvious you have no fucking clue about the effort and expense it takes to raise a child (or children).

 

[KeepTalking]

I have. I have told you about the negative taxes due to generous (for those with kids) exemptions and refundable credits. Even somebody with 2 kids (like the angry, whiny woman in the OP) who makes $20k gross ends up with something like $25k net, even when factoring in FICA and state taxes. And that doesn't count food stamps and other benefits nor does it count child support.


I did not say that it gets you rich, only that it is financially beneficial.

So let's say she ends up with an even $7k in benefits. How much outlay does she have for expenses for the kids, including daycare when they aren't in school and she's at work? How much does having the kids impact her work schedule flexibility and thus her employment options and wage impact?

Then there are the nonfinancial costs: you can't just plan a night out with friends and family - you have to have a babysitter lined up. You have to plan your entire schedule around them.

Daycare alone will cost about $200/week, and from my experience the daycare facility will charge you for a full week regardless of how many days your child is there. That adds up to over $10,000/yr.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem there is that he children didn't ask to be born, and by society not supporting them, we would be neglecting citizens in need, put there though no fault of their own. You may think that by not supporting these children through child tax credits and the like you may dissuade other parents from making poor decisions, but is it worth those children being neglected?

I have two friends and one former co-worker who were widowed when their husbands all died unexpectedly, between the ages of 35 and 40. They had between 2 and 4 children each. Two had degrees and good strong family support that often goes along with the solid middle class background that they grew up with. The other had no degree and no stable family who was willing or able to provide extra support when her husband died unexpectedly. By support, I don't mean just or even mostly money but help with children (all had very young families at the time), being around so that the surviving parent could go to work or the store or to an appointment without having to stress about finding and paying for a sitter, or help with heavy household duties that are usually handled by both people, etc.

My own family was fortunate that only one of my siblings was still in elementary school when my mother suffered a traumatic brain injury. She didn't die, but her hospital bills were enormous compared with our family resources--including very good health insurance. She was left disabled, so there were lots of other expenses and considerations, chief among them the permanent loss of a second income, or even the potential for one.

It really just takes a small twist of fate to take you from up and coming, stable, having all your shit together and then some to struggling to figure out how you will make ends meet.

It's called life insurance.

 

[Toni]

I'm not 'ducking' anything. You, along with Derec, seem to be grossly misinformed about welfare recipients, at least in the US.

You are the one misinformed. I purposely didn't focus on TANF (welfare proper) but primarily on tax exemptions and credits, which are rather large and are not temporary.

Tax credits and exemptions are not welfare but part of the tax code designed to reward sought after behavior.

Tax credits are also not limited to functions related to child rearing. Those that do relate to child rearing certainly are temporary as is childhood. We no longer receive any tax credit or exemption for our now adult and economically independent children and have not for years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And then you have the single mums who keep having babies to different fathers just to receive government benefits.

These days I don't think they're doing it to get extra benefits, but rather because they're irresponsible and the guys don't want to wear condoms. (Not to mention, condoms cost money today, a baby is in the future.) Remember how effective Colorado found providing free long term contraception was?

 

[Toni]

I have two friends and one former co-worker who were widowed when their husbands all died unexpectedly, between the ages of 35 and 40. They had between 2 and 4 children each. Two had degrees and good strong family support that often goes along with the solid middle class background that they grew up with. The other had no degree and no stable family who was willing or able to provide extra support when her husband died unexpectedly. By support, I don't mean just or even mostly money but help with children (all had very young families at the time), being around so that the surviving parent could go to work or the store or to an appointment without having to stress about finding and paying for a sitter, or help with heavy household duties that are usually handled by both people, etc.

My own family was fortunate that only one of my siblings was still in elementary school when my mother suffered a traumatic brain injury. She didn't die, but her hospital bills were enormous compared with our family resources--including very good health insurance. She was left disabled, so there were lots of other expenses and considerations, chief among them the permanent loss of a second income, or even the potential for one.

It really just takes a small twist of fate to take you from up and coming, stable, having all your shit together and then some to struggling to figure out how you will make ends meet.

It's called life insurance.

My mother did not die. Not for decades.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

you got me - but every study and survey in existence says men on average have more partners than women.

That is a curious finding. Over reporting by men and under reporting by women due to cultural expectations? Men counting their hands as partners? A strong negative correlation between women having a lot of sex partners and women willing to answer these surveys? Because... I mean... hetero sex kind of needs a man and a woman right?

Actually, I would expect to see this. There are two problems with the data:

1) The data is always grouped into ranges. There's always a highest range. Suppose the highest range is 100. The person with 101 partners and the person with 10,000 get lumped in the same group. (And, yes, 10,000 exists. Think prostitutes.)

2) Surveyors are likely to miss people that aren't available at normal hours. There's a reason prostitutes are called ladies of the night.

- - - Updated - - -

there's a minimum number of hours they must pay you for if you walk through the door.

Citation needed....

https://www.google.com/search?q=reporting+pay&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, offence, but people who have worked on themselves and have their emotional life in good working order, get completely swept away by horniness and have all out passionate sex. People like that might not think of contraception each time they have sex. Add alcohol and drugs to that (neither of which are going away... and you have a problem). That's my opinion. People who have their full faculties operating when they're about to have sex are neurotic control freaks who need to work with a therapist. Because it's a problem. Until you do you'll never be able to experience sex like we're supposed to. It's passionate, hot, often violent and is amazing. And often leads to contraceptives being forgotten.

We will never reach 100% use of contraceptives. Not even close.

This is why you plan ahead when you are not horny. There's the pill, there's IUD's, among others.

Exactly. Planning ahead is not exactly the strong suit of the left, though.

The right has the opposite problem, though--they expect people to plan ahead for every eventuality no matter how rare and no matter whether it's feasible to plan ahead for it in the first place. (For example, health insurance. Before the ACA it simply wasn't possible for a self-employed person to plan ahead adequately for developing health issues, yet the right continues to blame people for not doing so.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because, in his example, both sides are so horny that by the time the condom is needed their mental faculties have been taken over by the hormones. Thus, the contraception must be in use when one is not horny in his scenario.

Others did mention the vasectomy if you were wanting an example for men under these restrictions.

If you are with someone where sex is a possibility and you haven't already agreed on something else you should have a condom at hand. Both people should have a condom at hand.

Note that if you're the type that might hook up that means you have one at hand all the time, relationship or not. Change it out frequently.

- - - Updated - - -

It's called life insurance.

My mother did not die. Not for decades.

I was talking about the first part of the message. In regards to your mother, it's called disability insurance.

 

[laughing dog]

I was talking about the first part of the message. In regards to your mother, it's called disability insurance.

You expect people to plan ahead for the possibility of being disabled. That puts you in the category of "they expect people to plan ahead for every eventuality no matter how rare and no matter whether it's feasible to plan ahead for it in the first place."

 

[JonA]

Inequality in the distribution of wealth is the greatest obstacle to economic growth.

Increasing employee pay while decreasing executive compensation is the only way to bring employee pay in line with employee value.

The market for labor—like the market for leisure, environmental quality, health care, etc.—is broken.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was talking about the first part of the message. In regards to your mother, it's called disability insurance.

You expect people to plan ahead for the possibility of being disabled. That puts you in the category of "they expect people to plan ahead for every eventuality no matter how rare and no matter whether it's feasible to plan ahead for it in the first place."

You consider disability insurance to be planning ahead for something extremely rare?? A quick check of the social security site shows almost 9 million people receiving social security disability income. The only way you get SSDI is if you were working for at least 10 years and then become disabled.

The actual number that would end up using disability insurance is higher because those with high-skill jobs normally get own-occupation insurance and SSDI is any-occupation. Since the US labor force is just under 160 million this gives just over a 5% chance that you will end up not able to work. That's a threat it's quite reasonable to insure against.

 

[Derec]

Not to mention, condoms cost money today, a baby is in the future.

I love this display.

 

[angelo]

Will all those refugees receive food stamps or cash in hand?

 

[jonatha]

there's a minimum number of hours they must pay you for if you walk through the door.

Citation needed....

https://www.google.com/search?q=reporting+pay&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Ah.

Not a Federal requirement and only 8 states and DC have it, which is why I hadn't heard of it.

 

[laughing dog]

You expect people to plan ahead for the possibility of being disabled. That puts you in the category of "they expect people to plan ahead for every eventuality no matter how rare and no matter whether it's feasible to plan ahead for it in the first place."

You consider disability insurance to be planning ahead for something extremely rare?? A quick check of the social security site shows almost 9 million people receiving social security disability income. The only way you get SSDI is if you were working for at least 10 years and then become disabled.....

The US population is about 300 million so you are talking about 3% of the population or so. Moreover, in Toni's example (to which you specifically responded), her mother was probably a stay at home mom in her mid 40s back when she had her stroke. How many stay at home mom's back then (probably in the 70s or 80s, maybe 90s) had disability insurance? If my conjectures about the specifics of the situation are reasonably accurate, your suggestion was ridiculous.

 

[Toni]

there's a minimum number of hours they must pay you for if you walk through the door.

Citation needed....

https://www.google.com/search?q=reporting+pay&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Ah.

Not a Federal requirement and only 8 states and DC have it, which is why I hadn't heard of it.

Certainly back when my mother had her brain injury, disability payments were through SSI. I checked my last SSI statement and the benefit I would receive if I became disabled would cover...groceries and a basic cell phone. It's much more than what my mother got.

As far as life insurance? Very few people have enough to cover the loss of their income over more than a year or two.

My advice to Loren is: don't get into any bad accidents that would leave you disabled.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not to mention, condoms cost money today, a baby is in the future.

I love this display.

Yup, it makes the point very clearly.

Something like that should be in every sex ed class in the nation.

- - - Updated - - -

there's a minimum number of hours they must pay you for if you walk through the door.

Citation needed....

https://www.google.com/search?q=reporting+pay&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Ah.

Not a Federal requirement and only 8 states and DC have it, which is why I hadn't heard of it.

I didn't realize it was only 8 states.

- - - Updated - - -

You consider disability insurance to be planning ahead for something extremely rare?? A quick check of the social security site shows almost 9 million people receiving social security disability income. The only way you get SSDI is if you were working for at least 10 years and then become disabled.....

The US population is about 300 million so you are talking about 3% of the population or so. Moreover, in Toni's example (to which you specifically responded), her mother was probably a stay at home mom in her mid 40s back when she had her stroke. How many stay at home mom's back then (probably in the 70s or 80s, maybe 90s) had disability insurance? If my conjectures about the specifics of the situation are reasonably accurate, your suggestion was ridiculous.

You're counting people not in the labor force in the first place.

You might have a point about being a stay-at-home, though.

- - - Updated - - -

Certainly back when my mother had her brain injury, disability payments were through SSI. I checked my last SSI statement and the benefit I would receive if I became disabled would cover...groceries and a basic cell phone. It's much more than what my mother got.

As far as life insurance? Very few people have enough to cover the loss of their income over more than a year or two.

My advice to Loren is: don't get into any bad accidents that would leave you disabled.

If you have worked at least 10 years you get SSDI. I believe it's the same as a normal-retirement social security payment. It's not means tested.

If you haven't worked 10 years you can only get SSI. It's substantially less and is means tested.

 

[Toni]

I love this display.

Yup, it makes the point very clearly.

Something like that should be in every sex ed class in the nation.

- - - Updated - - -

there's a minimum number of hours they must pay you for if you walk through the door.

Citation needed....

https://www.google.com/search?q=reporting+pay&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Ah.

Not a Federal requirement and only 8 states and DC have it, which is why I hadn't heard of it.

I didn't realize it was only 8 states.

- - - Updated - - -

You consider disability insurance to be planning ahead for something extremely rare?? A quick check of the social security site shows almost 9 million people receiving social security disability income. The only way you get SSDI is if you were working for at least 10 years and then become disabled.....

The US population is about 300 million so you are talking about 3% of the population or so. Moreover, in Toni's example (to which you specifically responded), her mother was probably a stay at home mom in her mid 40s back when she had her stroke. How many stay at home mom's back then (probably in the 70s or 80s, maybe 90s) had disability insurance? If my conjectures about the specifics of the situation are reasonably accurate, your suggestion was ridiculous.

You're counting people not in the labor force in the first place.

You might have a point about being a stay-at-home, though.

- - - Updated - - -

Certainly back when my mother had her brain injury, disability payments were through SSI. I checked my last SSI statement and the benefit I would receive if I became disabled would cover...groceries and a basic cell phone. It's much more than what my mother got.

As far as life insurance? Very few people have enough to cover the loss of their income over more than a year or two.

My advice to Loren is: don't get into any bad accidents that would leave you disabled.

If you have worked at least 10 years you get SSDI. I believe it's the same as a normal-retirement social security payment. It's not means tested.

If you haven't worked 10 years you can only get SSI. It's substantially less and is means tested.

I've put in well over 10 years in the workforce.

The payment I would receive would be grossly inadequate to replace my income, even with what my employer would pay in early retirement benefits at my current age.


I honestly get your point but having lived the reality and having had friends go through a great deal of financial hardship while raising very young families, my observation is that you are grossly ignorant about the reality of these situations.

Again, I urge you to avoid becoming disabled through any accident or medical event. Also, avoid cancer requiring chemo or any neurological disorder. However well you have planned, you will find it inadequate. And that's just the money part. Never mind the dozens upon dozens of other issues which will arise.