Let's get educated about the American welfare programs

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When an employer pays a person, they allocate X number of dollars to pay that person. Then, from that X, they pull out the employer payments and that results in the gross pay. Then the employee payments are pulled out and that results in the net pay. If you ever do 1099 instead of W-2 you will see the difference.

My employer's payments to unemployment insurance comes from the total allotment per employee.

 

[laughing dog]

The working poor, even those who receive the EIC, pay taxes. The OASDI tax is a payroll tax and every employee pays it. It is a falsehood to claim that the working poor pay no taxes.

Also, more white people receive SNAP and Medicaid funds (https://checkyourfact.com/2018/10/18/fact-check-whites-medicaid-food-stamps/ than any other race.

So, those who support eliminating 'welfare" programs are tacitly endorsing white "genocide".

 

[Half-Life]

The working poor, even those who receive the EIC, pay taxes. The OASDI tax is a payroll tax and every employee pays it. It is a falsehood to claim that the working poor pay no taxes.

Also, more white people receive SNAP and Medicaid funds (https://checkyourfact.com/2018/10/18/fact-check-whites-medicaid-food-stamps/ than any other race.

So, those who support eliminating 'welfare" programs are tacitly endorsing white "genocide".

Yes, we know whites receive the most because they are over 70% of the population and they only receive 36% of the benefits. That's about half their population.

Notice how blacks are 13% of the population and they receive 25% of the benefits. That's almost double their population!!!

You have to put it in context. Blacks should be getting about 6.5% of the benefits if we are adjusting for population.

 

[Half-Life]

Unless you are disabled or mentally ill, welfare should be abolished. Have too many kids because you were recklessly having sex? Too bad. This would teach people they can't be reckless and suck on the government teet. People would think twice instead of saying, "I can have all these kids and get more free money from the government!"

Every parent with a child knows how this works. Is your child more likely to get a job if you give them free money every week? Or less likely?

I probably shouldn't feed your nonsensical post any attention, but perhaps someone else here, who is more reasonable, needs to know the truth.

I've never met a person who had children so they could get more government benefits. I've worked with some wonderful women who made the minimum wage or about 50 cents more than the minimum wage. Some of them did have more children than I would have had, but what I learned is that in many, if not in most cases, these women adored their children. Sometimes when you're poor and don't have many opportunities, family is the only thing that gives you purpose and joy in life.

If you think women shouldn't have so many children, then you should be an advocate for better access to good family planning provided by public health or Planned Parenthood. Certainly a person who thinks women are having too many children should support affordable education for women, because statically those are the only things that enable women to have to have goals other than having large families. Then again, considering that the birth rate in the US is declining rapidly, where are all these women who are having too many children?

And, as others have mentioned, why should innocent children who never asked to be born, be punished by their mother's decision to give them birth? What difference does it make if their birth was due to carelessness, or poor access to family planning methods?

And, I'm sure you know how your opinions look. You obviously love the drama that you instill in these discussions, which is why many of us are doubtful that you are sincere in what you post here. Maybe we just don't want to believe that people have views as ignorant and mean as the things you post.

But, if you are for real, why is it that anti abortion folks almost always seem to care more about a fertilized egg or fetus than they do about the child who has been born and needs help? Why do so many conservatives and evangelicals scream about Roe v Wade but are disgusted by poor families who have children? Why is it okay to put children in cages when their parents bring them to our borders? Oh I get it! To them, the fetus is so precious, but once the child is born, it's just fine to let that child live in poverty and suffer the consequences of being raised in a society that judges the poor harshly, and that denies that poor child the means to survive and get ahead.

So, if anyone besides Half judges poor women harshly if they have children, please be sure to make a donation to Planned Parenthood ASAP!

You claim that we conservatives should be doing more to help the children that are born. But, helping them be born is helping them! Once the child is born, it is the parents responsibility to take care of them. It's not the conservatives problem to take care of them. We are not their parents. You may as well make it a law that if you make x amount of money per year, you are required to adopt a child. Would that be fair? "Oh you make over 150K a year?!?! You are now forced to adopt a child because you can afford it!" Not very fair, is it?

What if your neighbor comes up to you and says, "Hey, I'm having trouble paying my cable bill this month. I need $150. Since I know you have a lot of money, why can't you just pay for my cable? Are you so selfish that you want that money for yourself?!?! What about me and my cable?!?!?!?"

Is that fair? Of course not. But, this is how you guys sound when you say "we should take care of all the babies that their own parents refuse to take care of!" Ben Shapiro had a good point about free school lunches. He said that if a child is so underfed that the only place he can get a good meal is at school, then that child needs to be taken away from their parents and put into foster care. The parents are simply not fit to take care of the child.

 

[southernhybrid]

The EIC is a very popular program and it's only given to people who work. I think I once qualified for this when I was a single mother working as a public health nurse. That was in 1980 and my EIC was only a few hundred dollars for the year. Obviously, this program isn't just for the poorest. If home owners get to deduct their real estate taxes and mortgage interest on their tax returns, I think helping those who may not be able to afford to buy a home is a great idea. Since it's given just once, it often helps people pay down debt, buy clothing for their children, or replace a dying appliance etc. I can't imagine why anyone would be against this program, especially when you consider all the tax breaks and right offs that more affluent people can benefit from.

If I take a tax deduction then it just means I pay less taxes. I still pay a lot in taxes though.

EIC goes beyond being a tax deduction. It actually takes the taxes that I pay and gives the money to someone that didn’t pay any taxes at all.

So it’s not really a tax credit. It’s forcing money out of my bank account and handing it over to someone else.

Also, there is no control over what the EIC recipient does with the money. They could just buy a PlayStation and weed with it.

So what. I am well aware of what EIC is! The point is that you get a lower tax bill because you are eligible for a tax deduction because you own a home etc. or because you are self employed and can deduct certain things, which in essence, lowers your over all taxes. In other words, it puts more money in your pocket.

People who are eligible for the EIC are lower income parents who work, usually in difficult positions. They receive a tax credit, one could reasonably claim, because their employers are either too stingy to pay them decent wages or in some cases, aren't making enough money to pay them decent wages. In any case, society benefits from the EIC. It allows businesses to pay lower wages because the government is going to help out at the end of the tax season by rewarding hard work with a cash benefit. Some might consider the EIC welfare for employers. What business is it of yours, how that money is spent! Most are using the money to pay down debt., or perhaps to purchase a much needed item for their home. They don't pay federal taxes because they don't make enough money to pay them!

And, why the fuck do you care if a small percentage buy a little weed with this benefit? That sounds so petty to me. Dog forbid that low income families should ever be able to afford the things that the rest of us take for granted. In any event, these people are spending the money, which benefits the economy.

I bet there are things that you do with your money, including the extra money that you benefit from due to you being eligible to deduct certain expenses from your tax return. But, what you do with your money is none of my business or concern, anymore then how people spend their EIC benefit is any of your business.

It has never ceased to amaze me that some people have such disdain for those who are stuck in the lower socio economic classes.

 

[laughing dog]

The working poor, even those who receive the EIC, pay taxes. The OASDI tax is a payroll tax and every employee pays it. It is a falsehood to claim that the working poor pay no taxes.

Also, more white people receive SNAP and Medicaid funds (https://checkyourfact.com/2018/10/18/fact-check-whites-medicaid-food-stamps/ than any other race.

So, those who support eliminating 'welfare" programs are tacitly endorsing white "genocide".

Yes, we know whites receive the most because they are over 70% of the population and they only receive 36% of the benefits. That's about half their population.

Notice how blacks are 13% of the population and they receive 25% of the benefits. That's almost double their population!!!

You have to put it in context. Blacks should be getting about 6.5% of the benefits if we are adjusting for population.

First, the context is eligibility for benefits not population. Second, those who wish to end welfare will cause more harm to white people in total thereby contributing to white "genocide" if any of those whites who are cutoff from welfare die.

 

[Half-Life]

The working poor, even those who receive the EIC, pay taxes. The OASDI tax is a payroll tax and every employee pays it. It is a falsehood to claim that the working poor pay no taxes.

Also, more white people receive SNAP and Medicaid funds (https://checkyourfact.com/2018/10/18/fact-check-whites-medicaid-food-stamps/ than any other race.

So, those who support eliminating 'welfare" programs are tacitly endorsing white "genocide".

Yes, we know whites receive the most because they are over 70% of the population and they only receive 36% of the benefits. That's about half their population.

Notice how blacks are 13% of the population and they receive 25% of the benefits. That's almost double their population!!!

You have to put it in context. Blacks should be getting about 6.5% of the benefits if we are adjusting for population.

First, the context is eligibility for benefits not population. Second, those who wish to end welfare will cause more harm to white people in total thereby contributing to white "genocide" if any of those whites who are cutoff from welfare die.

What you are doing is akin to doing this:

Let's say I have 100 whites take a test. Let's say 10 of them fail the test.
Now I get 10 blacks to take the test and 6 fail the test.

It would be foolish to say, "See? 10 whites failed and only 6 blacks failed!!!"

 

[laughing dog]

First, the context is eligibility for benefits not population. Second, those who wish to end welfare will cause more harm to white people in total thereby contributing to white "genocide" if any of those whites who are cutoff from welfare die.

What you are doing is akin to doing this:

Let's say I have 100 whites take a test. Let's say 10 of them fail the test.
Now I get 10 blacks to take the test and 6 fail the test.

It would be foolish to say, "See? 10 whites failed and only 6 blacks failed!!!"

It is no more foolish than your analogy, since it is a restatement of your analogy.
Eliminating welfare harms more white people than blacks - that is a fact. If any of the whites who are cutoff from welfare from its demise end up dying, then that promotes white "genocide". Sorry, that is a consequence of the sequence of events.

I understand that eliminating welfare programs would harm a higher percentage of the black population than the white population, but that does not detract from the FACT it would harm more white people - the race you claim to worry about.

 

[Half-Life]

First, the context is eligibility for benefits not population. Second, those who wish to end welfare will cause more harm to white people in total thereby contributing to white "genocide" if any of those whites who are cutoff from welfare die.

What you are doing is akin to doing this:

Let's say I have 100 whites take a test. Let's say 10 of them fail the test.
Now I get 10 blacks to take the test and 6 fail the test.

It would be foolish to say, "See? 10 whites failed and only 6 blacks failed!!!"

It would not be foolish, since it is a statement of what happened in your foolish and irrelevant analogy.

Eliminating welfare harms more white people than blacks - that is a fact. If any of the whites who are cutoff from welfare from its demise end up dying, then that promotes white "genocide". Sorry, that is a consequence of the sequence of events.

I understand that eliminating welfare programs would harm a higher percentage of the black population than the white population, but that does not detract from the FACT it would harm more white people - the race you claim to worry about.

But, that also undercuts the whole "white privilege" nonsense. If whites are receiving 36% of the benefits, how privileged are they? I'm sure those people would laugh in your face if you brought up white privilege to them.

 

[laughing dog]

It would not be foolish, since it is a statement of what happened in your foolish and irrelevant analogy.

Eliminating welfare harms more white people than blacks - that is a fact. If any of the whites who are cutoff from welfare from its demise end up dying, then that promotes white "genocide". Sorry, that is a consequence of the sequence of events.

I understand that eliminating welfare programs would harm a higher percentage of the black population than the white population, but that does not detract from the FACT it would harm more white people - the race you claim to worry about.

But, that also undercuts the whole "white privilege" nonsense. If whites are receiving 36% of the benefits, how privileged are they? I'm sure those people would laugh in your face if you brought up white privilege to them.

I am at loss at what that your ignorance about the notion of "white privilege" has to do with the discussion about how the elimination of welfare programs harms white people.

 

[jonatha]

When an employer pays a person, they allocate X number of dollars to pay that person. Then, from that X, they pull out the employer payments and that results in the gross pay. Then the employee payments are pulled out and that results in the net pay. If you ever do 1099 instead of W-2 you will see the difference.

My employer's payments to unemployment insurance comes from the total allotment per employee.

So does a pro rata portion of the company supply of pencils. Do you take them home, claiming you've paid for them?

 

[Kusa]

The EIC is a very popular program and it's only given to people who work. I think I once qualified for this when I was a single mother working as a public health nurse. That was in 1980 and my EIC was only a few hundred dollars for the year. Obviously, this program isn't just for the poorest. If home owners get to deduct their real estate taxes and mortgage interest on their tax returns, I think helping those who may not be able to afford to buy a home is a great idea. Since it's given just once, it often helps people pay down debt, buy clothing for their children, or replace a dying appliance etc. I can't imagine why anyone would be against this program, especially when you consider all the tax breaks and right offs that more affluent people can benefit from.

If I take a tax deduction then it just means I pay less taxes. I still pay a lot in taxes though.

EIC goes beyond being a tax deduction. It actually takes the taxes that I pay and gives the money to someone that didn’t pay any taxes at all.

So it’s not really a tax credit. It’s forcing money out of my bank account and handing it over to someone else.

Also, there is no control over what the EIC recipient does with the money. They could just buy a PlayStation and weed with it.

So what. I am well aware of what EIC is! The point is that you get a lower tax bill because you are eligible for a tax deduction because you own a home etc. or because you are self employed and can deduct certain things, which in essence, lowers your over all taxes. In other words, it puts more money in your pocket.

I don’t think you understand this. My tax deductions do not “put more money” in my pocket. How is that you say? Well, after paying taxes all year, I still always get a tax bill at tax time. All the deductions do is slightly lower the amount of money that I am forced to pay.

People who are eligible for the EIC are lower income parents who work, usually in difficult positions. They receive a tax credit, one could reasonably claim, because their employers are either too stingy to pay them decent wages or in some cases, aren't making enough money to pay them decent wages.

If they have a difficult position that pays low wages then they should consider doing something more lucrative. That’s what I did.

In any case, society benefits from the EIC. It allows businesses to pay lower wages because the government is going to help out at the end of the tax season by rewarding hard work with a cash benefit.

Cash taken from me.

Some might consider the EIC welfare for employers. What business is it of yours, how that money is spent!

It is money that I earned and was taken from me.

Most are using the money to pay down debt., or perhaps to purchase a much needed item for their home. They don't pay federal taxes because they don't make enough money to pay them!

I don’t care if they don’t pay federal taxes. I just don’t want to have to pay them personally out of my pocket.

And, why the fuck do you care if a small percentage buy a little weed with this benefit? That sounds so petty to me. Dog forbid that low income families should ever be able to afford the things that the rest of us take for granted. In any event, these people are spending the money, which benefits the economy.

It doesn’t benefit my personal economy. In fact, it has a negative effect.

I bet there are things that you do with your money, including the extra money that you benefit from due to you being eligible to deduct certain expenses from your tax return. But, what you do with your money is none of my business or concern, anymore then how people spend their EIC benefit is any of your business.

It is my business what happens to the money I earn, regardless of who spends it.

It has never ceased to amaze me that some people have such disdain for those who are stuck in the lower socio economic classes.

I have no contempt for people that are in different classes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Tax cuts keep the wealthy here instead of taking their company overseas to a different country with a lower tax rate. If they left the country, leftists would be the first ones complaining, "WHERE'S ALL THE JOBS??!?!!" It is the billionaires who create almost all of the jobs in the country for everyone else, and leftists have the nerve to spit on them.

They should be saying, "Thank you for creating all these jobs!"

The tax cuts didn't create jobs. Most of it went into the pockets of the owners.

I'm saying the billionaires create the most jobs for people. Everyone always complains that the top 1% owns 50% of the wealth, but they never stop and look at how many jobs the top 1% creates for everyone.

Without places like Home Depot, Walmart, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, most people wouldn't have any jobs.

Shouldn't the response be "thank you" instead of hatred and spitting on them?

Actually, most job creation is in growing business, not big businesses.

And you're not addressing the reality at all--the tax cuts didn't produce jobs. Much of the money went into stock buybacks--good for anyone who owns the stock, useless for the worker.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It was pointed out to me that Unemployment was something I already paid for.

I have heard this too and I don't buy it.

Unemployment insurance premiums are paid by the employer not the employee.

I believe the argument is that if the employer weren't paying it the money would be available to be paid as wages and since the expense is tied to employment market forces would eventually force it to be paid as wages.

I've been both an employer and am employee and IMHO the employee might see some of the money but certainly not all of it.

I've done a bit of payroll budgeting (how much should we add to the job for the installers). There was the agreed-upon rate they would be paid and the various overhead costs that were combined to produce the line item for installation. The employee installers got the agreed-upon rate, which was a little over half of the total budget. The subcontractor installers, however, got 90% of the line item (not 100% because one of the costs included was the supervisors and we paid that cost even when the installer was a subcontractor.) The subcontractors got 100% of what we saved in things like unemployment insurance. (And we actually preferred the subcontractor guys--they typically did a better job.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most of 'these' millionaires don't run their companies, don't set wages, don't set benefits, don't do anything useful. Those that are hands on with their companies have become spokesmen or symbols for the companies they started. Billionaires are flotsam bringing in big bucks by floating on privilege and wildly out of whack laws.

Leftist fantasy detected.

For instance the symbol of Boeing, it's recently fired billionaire CEO failed to follow proper policy and now Boeing may go down the tube because he did a Nero and lost the trust of both his customers and his customers customers. In fact the main thing billionaires do is attract negative publicity negating the very work tat got them into billionaire alley. Uber, Facebook, flash in to view. The latest rich people from Goggle are out the door because they became toxic to the company.

He wasn't the guy who built the company and he has a net worth of $80 million.

 

[Toni]

To tell the truth, I had thought that this thread would be about all of the corporate welfare in this country.

 

[fromderinside]

Leftist fantasy detected.

Not fantasy. Just a bit of to real for some

He wasn't the guy who built the company and he has a net worth of $80 million.

You are right. he was barely functional

A native of Iowa, Muilenburg earned a bachelor's degree in aerospace engineering and an honorary doctor of science degree from Iowa State University, as well as a master's degree in aeronautics and astronautics from the University of Washington.

pump up exercise: I started at MDC one year after he started at Boeing, but I was a PhD with a post Doc when I started there and I had more than 8 years experience in aerospace by that time.

I guess he got ahead by not making stupid mistakes like the ones I just managed. He caught up quick.

 

[southernhybrid]

So what. I am well aware of what EIC is! The point is that you get a lower tax bill because you are eligible for a tax deduction because you own a home etc. or because you are self employed and can deduct certain things, which in essence, lowers your over all taxes. In other words, it puts more money in your pocket.

I don’t think you understand this. My tax deductions do not “put more money” in my pocket. How is that you say? Well, after paying taxes all year, I still always get a tax bill at tax time. All the deductions do is slightly lower the amount of money that I am forced to pay.

People who are eligible for the EIC are lower income parents who work, usually in difficult positions. They receive a tax credit, one could reasonably claim, because their employers are either too stingy to pay them decent wages or in some cases, aren't making enough money to pay them decent wages.

If they have a difficult position that pays low wages then they should consider doing something more lucrative. That’s what I did.

In any case, society benefits from the EIC. It allows businesses to pay lower wages because the government is going to help out at the end of the tax season by rewarding hard work with a cash benefit.

Cash taken from me.

Some might consider the EIC welfare for employers. What business is it of yours, how that money is spent!

It is money that I earned and was taken from me.

Most are using the money to pay down debt., or perhaps to purchase a much needed item for their home. They don't pay federal taxes because they don't make enough money to pay them!

I don’t care if they don’t pay federal taxes. I just don’t want to have to pay them personally out of my pocket.

And, why the fuck do you care if a small percentage buy a little weed with this benefit? That sounds so petty to me. Dog forbid that low income families should ever be able to afford the things that the rest of us take for granted. In any event, these people are spending the money, which benefits the economy.

It doesn’t benefit my personal economy. In fact, it has a negative effect.

I bet there are things that you do with your money, including the extra money that you benefit from due to you being eligible to deduct certain expenses from your tax return. But, what you do with your money is none of my business or concern, anymore then how people spend their EIC benefit is any of your business.

It is my business what happens to the money I earn, regardless of who spends it.

It has never ceased to amaze me that some people have such disdain for those who are stuck in the lower socio economic classes.

I have no contempt for people that are in different classes.

I certainly do understand it. In fact the expression, "it put more money if my pocket" was a direct quote from my affluent brother in law. He was speaking about the Trump tax break that allowed him to have more money. You are the one who doesn't seem to get it. Your tax liability is lower due to the special deductions that you can take. Without those deductions that are the privilege of the middle and upper classes, you'd be paying more taxes and you would have less money. Why is that so hard to understand?

Those who make more money should pay more taxes. It's as simple at that. Those who barely make enough to live on, benefit from the EIC, a reward to workers for taking on the low paying jobs. That is why I consider it welfare for employers. The employers benefit from the EIC just as much if not more than the workers do. Why? Because they are able to get workers to do that often difficult, but low paying jobs that are vitally important. I'm not sure that you understand that.

The workers who I knew personally, who benefitted from the EIC were aides in an assisted living facility. Don't you think these women, who have to bathe older people with dementia, clean their rooms, cook for them, help them into their wheelchairs, and sometimes take physical abuse from those who become agitated, should be paid more than 8 dollars an hour? If the employer isn't willing to pay them more, the EIC at least helps them at the end of the tax cycle. That benefits the employer as much or more than it benefits the workers. Why aren't you angry at the employers instead of the workers?

I never liked my taxes going to help support our huge and wasteful military budget, but we don't get to decide where our taxes go. Our so called representative leaders get to make those decisions. You don't like that the government helps poor workers. I don't like that the government spends a huge amount of money on military equipment, which is often unnecessary. It's pretty much a hand out to big businesses that make military equipment, regardless of whether it's needed or not. But, I digress.

If you don' t like the EIC, then you should be an advocate for a much higher minimum wage so that fewer people will need the EIC. It's really pretty simple. You made what I consider a poorly informed comment when you said these workers should do something more lucrative. What if they don't have the same opportunities that you did? And, who will do these difficult low paying jobs if everyone gets the type of education or training to do a higher paying job? Sheesh. I'm pretty sure I once got a very small EIC benefit back in the late 70s when I was working as a public health nurse. So, even people with degrees sometimes are under paid and receive EIC benefits.

I get the impression that you hate paying taxes. Well, I'm sorry to inform you that taxes are a necessity to keep the government running, to support the military, to maintain our national parks, and federal buildings and workers, to keep our infrastructure intact, ( yeah, I know we need to spend a lot more money on that ) to. help the poorest among us survive etc. Nobody is crazy about paying taxes, but they are a necessity, despite all the wasteful spending. Does it bother you that our current president has spent absurd amounts of our tax dollars on personal travel etc.? Or does it only bother you when poor people get a little money from the government?

You say that you don't dislike any class of people, but the fact that you resent that a tiny percentage of your tax dollars go to help support the poorest workers say otherwise. I appreciate your input to this thread, but I see no point in continuing to try to convince you that your position is wrong. I've told you what I think and if that doesn't convince you, nothing will. Just stop assuming that I'm the one who doesn't understand. . Basically you've stated that you don't like any of your tax dollars going to help poorly paid workers with children. Got it.

 

[James Brown]

Billionaires need the middle class far more than the middle class needs billionaires.

 

[jonatha]

I certainly do understand it. In fact the expression, "it put more money if my pocket" was a direct quote from my affluent brother in law. He was speaking about the Trump tax break that allowed him to have more money. You are the one who doesn't seem to get it. Your tax liability is lower due to the special deductions that you can take. Without those deductions that are the privilege of the middle and upper classes, you'd be paying more taxes and you would have less money. Why is that so hard to understand?

Actually, what allowed your brother-in-law to have more money in his pocket is the $1 trillion America is borrowing this year (much of it from China).

Kusa is probably not benefiting from any "special deductions". Such things that were the former province of the middle and lower upper classes were effectively eliminated by the latest tax law. (Once exception applies to pass through income, such as that derived from LLCs....)