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

[laughing dog]

I would call no federal income tax liability and $7k in refundable tax credits in addition to programs like SNAP and receiving child support quite a benefit. Note that while the woman from the OP mentions food stamps and WIC she ignores the sizable tax benefits (two extra exemptions and $7k in refundable credits) nor does she say anything about how much child support she receives. Mentioning all that would have made it clear that her financial situation is hardly as bad as she makes it out to be and would have lessened the impact of her woe-is-me article.

First, you claimed these women had a net financial benefit, and you have yet to show that. Yes, you assume there is one without any evidence to support your biased and ignorant assumption. Second, if you actually read the article, the writer is not complaining about being poor, but the arrogant, condescending and ignorant attitudes she encounters when she uses food stamps or reads threads like these. Third, you have no idea whether or not she receives child support from the father or how much that support is.

How is it irrelevant? And I am not ignoring payroll taxes (FICA) which you would know had you bothered to read what I wrote earlier.

You continue to ignore payroll taxes when you talk about all the tax free money she has.

It's pretty sweet to get so much free money from the IRS.

It helps. Whether it is sweet or not is a different matter.

I know my taxes have to be higher in order to subsidize those with children.

In 2014, federal income tax receipts were around 1.7 trillion dollars out of total receipts of 3 trillion or so dollars. In 2015, the estimated total receipts for the federal gov't is 3.2 trillion dollars which yields an estimate of about 1.8 trillion dollars (source: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/fed_revenue_2014US). According to  Earned_income_tax_credit, the EITC is estimated to cost around $70 billion dollars or 3.9% of federal income tax receipts (70 billion/1.8 trillion). If those estimates are reasonable ballpark figures, your tax liability is 4% higher, Ebeneezer Scrooge, assuming that the $70 billion would not be lost in some other fashion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the woman in the OP earns below the minimum income level set by ACA for federal subsidies, and her Republican governor refused to allow the expansion of Medicaid in her state, she's SOL. This is where my daughter is. At 26. She has aged off of my insurance. As a full-time honor-roll college student, she likely won't make enough working part-time to qualify for any federal subsidies for her health insurance. As a full-time honor-roll college student with a part-time job, she doesn't get health insurance through her employer nor can she afford the monthly premiums for the unsubsidized insurance. This is the real world, Loren. Would you like to stick your nose up in the air and criticize my daughter for her "poor planning" now?

That's a different issue entirely--the subsidies go away at the point someone would qualify for medicaid in the states that expanded medicaid. That is a big flaw in the system.

Child care is also highly relevant. You bashed the woman in the OP for supposedly not educating herself. How is she supposed to do so with affordable child care after her first child? How is she supposed to work without affordable child care.

Which has nothing to do with having more babies. That's what I'm calling her on.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it doesn't. There is no state where ACA "covers 0% of anything" as there are federal exchanges. The only thing not available in many states is Medicaid expansion.

What she's apparently referring to is the flaw at the bottom of the range where the subsidies go away when people are supposedly eligible for medicaid--never mind if they actually are.

 

[KeepTalking]

Those assumptions are accurate. I based them on actual 2015 tax info.

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.

Expenses are highly variable though. And children have non-monetary benefits as well, which is why it is the parents, not the taxpayers, who should shoulder most of the financial burden.

$25K gross is not much to support 3 people (one adult and two children) in the USA in most places.

$25k net, from $20k gross. I.e. -25% effective tax rate. Pretty sweet, isn't it?

All you have done is seflishly simper about your imagined tax burden and their imagined windfall.

Neither my tax burden nor their windfall are imagined.

It is obvious you have no fucking clue about the effort and expense it takes to raise a child (or children).

I know what it costs me every time I file a tax return, thank you very much.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

And daycare is mandatory, like car insurance? Obviously it is not. And besides, if you choose to have a child, you should take care of it. Not unload the burden onto taxpayers or your employer by demanding they pay you $15 for flipping burgers.

My post does not assume that daycare is mandatory, nor does it make any observations about unloading burdens onto taxpayers or employers. On the other hand, it does answer the question asked by Axulus regarding the cost of daycare, which was the sole intent of the post.

 

[Toni]

In Australia, like most of the free world, there are some women who may have up to four kids, all by different fathers. The first and second, easily accidental, but above that, it then becomes questionable.

Is there a real point here?

Men should use condoms and greater discretion when selecting their sex partners. I think that's the real take away.

 

[Toni]

I would call no federal income tax liability and $7k in refundable tax credits in addition to programs like SNAP and receiving child support quite a benefit. Note that while the woman from the OP mentions food stamps and WIC she ignores the sizable tax benefits (two extra exemptions and $7k in refundable credits) nor does she say anything about how much child support she receives. Mentioning all that would have made it clear that her financial situation is hardly as bad as she makes it out to be and would have lessened the impact of her woe-is-me article.

Totally irrelevant, and misleading since it ignores the effect of payroll taxes.

How is it irrelevant? And I am not ignoring payroll taxes (FICA) which you would know had you bothered to read what I wrote earlier.

The official poverty threshold is $20,090 for a household of 3 and $24,250 for a household of 4, so the alleged $25K is not really "pretty sweet".

It's pretty sweet to get so much free money from the IRS.

Assuming you have a clue what portion of your income taxes go to income support, that tells you nothing about the actual cost and effort to raise a child.

I know my taxes have to be higher in order to subsidize those with children.

As higher taxes were paid to educate you and to provide needed services to ensure you grew up healthy and ready to be an adult.

 

[Axulus]

She has kids, plural. There doesn't seem to be a husband or child support in the picture. Sorry, gal, but if you get yourself knocked up repeatedly before getting an education you're going through life in poverty.

Which, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the conservative push to eliminate sex-ed in schools, affordable birth control, women's reproductive health care, child care options, etc. Yep, it is 10,000,000% all this woman's own fault.

She had multiple kids. I can understand the Republicans leading to one such oops but if a woman has a second I blame her.

Um, did you guys read the article?

"The government's WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) program helped a little, and I learned a few things at the weekly classes it mandated, but toddlers eat more than babies and our rent had just gone up and there were two adults but only one of us had a job. So I signed up for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, known colloquially as food stamps) for the first time when my older child was about 2 years old.
...
After that first stretch, I didn't go back to SNAP for almost three years. Then suddenly I had two kids, a divorce, a single, crappy job, and all of the expenses of a household on my head. I went back to food stamps."

This isn't the fault of the Republicans or the fault of an unwed double oops. If it's important to you to assign blame, then you're just going to have to find out who's fault the divorce was.

Child support for two kids, especially if his income and her "crappy job" was enough to support the household, is going to be a reasonable amount. She is potentially entitled to alimony as well. To say that all the expenses of the household are on her head is incorrect, unless he is unemployed for some reason. In which case, the divorce is irrelevant.

 

[Derec]

As higher taxes were paid to educate you and to provide needed services to ensure you grew up healthy and ready to be an adult.

Services are fine, especially public schools. What I have issue with are tax rewards for having children.

- - - Updated - - -

What she's apparently referring to is the flaw at the bottom of the range where the subsidies go away when people are supposedly eligible for medicaid--never mind if they actually are.

Is that really happening? Do you have a source?

 

[angelo]

Is there a real point here?

Men should use condoms and greater discretion when selecting their sex partners. I think that's the real take away.

Couldn't agree more!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is there a real point here?

Men should use condoms and greater discretion when selecting their sex partners. I think that's the real take away.

Why don't you change your name to cereD?

You're as rabidly blame-the-man as he is blame-the-woman.

You're blaming men for her stupidity.

- - - Updated - - -

Child support for two kids, especially if his income and her "crappy job" was enough to support the household, is going to be a reasonable amount. She is potentially entitled to alimony as well. To say that all the expenses of the household are on her head is incorrect, unless he is unemployed for some reason. In which case, the divorce is irrelevant.

There's no comment about child support in her financial tale of woe.

Either she's ignoring it to play up her tale or he's worthless.

(And the divorce isn't totally relevant--if he's not producing anything then divorce helps her--one less mouth to feed.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Services are fine, especially public schools. What I have issue with are tax rewards for having children.

It's not children per se, but dependents--you get the same benefit if you're providing the support for parents or anyone else (Exception: You can't claim as a dependent anyone with whom your relationship violates local law. Thus in states that still have cohabitation laws on the books you can't claim a live-in partner.) The government figures a certain amount per person as a base that shouldn't be taxed. If anything these numbers are too low.

What she's apparently referring to is the flaw at the bottom of the range where the subsidies go away when people are supposedly eligible for medicaid--never mind if they actually are.

Is that really happening? Do you have a source?

Try Google, it's not exactly a secret.

The problem is gaming the system to get better numbers. As your income drops the subsidy amount increases--but once you cross the line where you should be eligible for medicaid under the expansion that was part of the ACA then the subsidy amount suddenly goes to zero. Note that this does not apply to those categorically ineligible for medicaid: Immigrants for their first 5 years here. They can get some subsidies even in that very low income bracket.

Unfortunately, in the states that didn't expand medicaid there's a population with no medicaid and no subsidy. While they're still eligible for the ACA they can't hope to afford it.

 

[laughing dog]

Services are fine, especially public schools. What I have issue with are tax rewards for having children.

You are being illogical. Services, especially public schools, are "rewards" for having children that come directly from the public purse.

Furthermore, tax "rewards" for having children accrue to households with two earners or only male earners. Do these "tax rewards" also create issues for you?

 

[Bomb#20]

Child support for two kids, especially if his income and her "crappy job" was enough to support the household, is going to be a reasonable amount. She is potentially entitled to alimony as well. To say that all the expenses of the household are on her head is incorrect, unless he is unemployed for some reason. In which case, the divorce is irrelevant.

There's no comment about child support in her financial tale of woe.

Either she's ignoring it to play up her tale or he's worthless.

(And the divorce isn't totally relevant--if he's not producing anything then divorce helps her--one less mouth to feed.)

The divorce matters more than you guys are giving it credit for. In the first place, the guy may be a deadbeat who could pay child support but doesn't. In the second place, maybe he had an adequate job when they got pregnant but lost his job through no fault of his own. And in the third place, household expenses usually go up a lot when people split. There are probably two apartments to pay for now; and there's apt to be a lot more need for babysitting when there aren't two parents to share the time demands of children. It's quite common for two poor people to be an economically viable unit for raising one or two kids as long as they stay together, but skating close enough to the edge to be non-viable separately. So if you guys want to argue that she was irresponsible, you really need to know how foreseeable her current situation was. At this point, insufficient data.

 

[Axulus]

There's no comment about child support in her financial tale of woe.

Either she's ignoring it to play up her tale or he's worthless.

(And the divorce isn't totally relevant--if he's not producing anything then divorce helps her--one less mouth to feed.)

The divorce matters more than you guys are giving it credit for. In the first place, the guy may be a deadbeat who could pay child support but doesn't. In the second place, maybe he had an adequate job when they got pregnant but lost his job through no fault of his own. And in the third place, household expenses usually go up a lot when people split. There are probably two apartments to pay for now; and there's apt to be a lot more need for babysitting when there aren't two parents to share the time demands of children. It's quite common for two poor people to be an economically viable unit for raising one or two kids as long as they stay together, but skating close enough to the edge to be non-viable separately. So if you guys want to argue that she was irresponsible, you really need to know how foreseeable her current situation was. At this point, insufficient data.

You were the one making the claim the divorce is the reason for the financial hardship situation she is in. I was saying that a divorce in and of itself wouldn't necessarily be so due to mitigating things like child support and alimony.

I'm not trying to assign blame. There seems to be insufficient data available to do that, if anyone at all is even to blame.

 

[braces_for_impact]

There is a middle ground between a "worthless" child support evader and receiving child support. Custodial parents on public assistance in most (if not all) states are required to go after child support from the other parent if their identity is known if they wish to receive benefits. The non-custodial parent may be 1)Unemployed or 2)On disability, for example. Child support is taken directly out of unemployment or disability payments, which often exacerbates the financial problems.

When I was unemployed, my unemployment check was 30 bucks after child support payments were made. The Non-custodial parent loses the job, but child support still has to be paid. No savings? Too bad. No one wants to bring their kids over when the lights aren't on and there isn't enough food in the fridge. So, visitation drops. (Remember snap is based on gross income, so child suport deducted isn't counted if the non-custodial parent tries to apply for welfare.) Homelessness can follow, then pretty much all visitation is gone at that point, unless one has a really understanding divorcee. Soon, the child support payments stop all together as the parent tries to survive, then they're put in jail for not paying. Afterwards, they have trouble finding employment because their credit is in ruins (child support owed goes on your credit report, and people don't like to hire deadbeat parents or people coming out the criminal justice system.)

We can just keep clubbing these people over the head with the mantra "Don't have kids you can't afford" though, it seems to be working well so far.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's no comment about child support in her financial tale of woe.

Either she's ignoring it to play up her tale or he's worthless.

(And the divorce isn't totally relevant--if he's not producing anything then divorce helps her--one less mouth to feed.)

The divorce matters more than you guys are giving it credit for. In the first place, the guy may be a deadbeat who could pay child support but doesn't. In the second place, maybe he had an adequate job when they got pregnant but lost his job through no fault of his own. And in the third place, household expenses usually go up a lot when people split. There are probably two apartments to pay for now; and there's apt to be a lot more need for babysitting when there aren't two parents to share the time demands of children. It's quite common for two poor people to be an economically viable unit for raising one or two kids as long as they stay together, but skating close enough to the edge to be non-viable separately. So if you guys want to argue that she was irresponsible, you really need to know how foreseeable her current situation was. At this point, insufficient data.

She's not paying anything towards his living expenses, what he's spending is irrelevant. The lost child care could be relevant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When I was unemployed, my unemployment check was 30 bucks after child support payments were made. The Non-custodial parent loses the job, but child support still has to be paid. No savings? Too bad. No one wants to bring their kids over when the lights aren't on and there isn't enough food in the fridge. So, visitation drops. (Remember snap is based on gross income, so child suport deducted isn't counted if the non-custodial parent tries to apply for welfare.) Homelessness can follow, then pretty much all visitation is gone at that point, unless one has a really understanding divorcee. Soon, the child support payments stop all together as the parent tries to survive, then they're put in jail for not paying. Afterwards, they have trouble finding employment because their credit is in ruins (child support owed goes on your credit report, and people don't like to hire deadbeat parents or people coming out the criminal justice system.)

I do agree there's a problem here--there should be a much simpler, faster means of adjusting child support for income changes.

We can just keep clubbing these people over the head with the mantra "Don't have kids you can't afford" though, it seems to be working well so far.

They can "afford" it just barely--which is the usual cause of financial trouble. Skate at the edge and sooner or later something happens to knock you over it.

 

[angelo]

Of course men have a responsibility! A rational, responsible, intelligent man will wear a condom while having sex if he wishes to assure there are no later complications.

 

[angelo]

Agree!

 

[angelo]

It is sickening to me how some men want to ignore their own child. No matter how much a misogynist a man is, it is still HIS child too.

By this logic, should sperm donors be held financially responsible for their genetic children made from their sperm? It is their own child after all. It is HIS child too, as you say. Is he a misogynist for not wanting to raise it?

Come to think of it, what does any of this have to do with misogyny other than to use it an attempted insult at people? Not wanting to support your offspring is an anti-offspring thing, not an anti-woman thing. Women are just as capable of being anti-offspring.

There's a confidentiality clause signed before one donates to a sperm bank.

 

[ksen]

Hey mods, can we get this derail split out?