The difference in police shootings

[Loren Pechtel]

That doesn't help matters. As I said, the chart they give renders low-skill (really, without college degree in almost all cases) single parents unemployable. If you pick a value that covers them you now have rendered everyone without a degree unemployable.

In what way does the chart do that?

As far as I can tell, it only gives living wages for a variety of different possible living wage implementations. If you advocate for a living wage for a single person with no family, there's a column for that, if you think a living wage should be provided for a family of 5 with only one person in the family working, there is a column for that. What it doesn't do is provide cover for your contention that no one is making any effort to provide data for living wage targets.

If you decide that a living wage has to support a single parent then the reality is that if you don't have a degree you're very likely unemployed.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, a lot of people on the left have this loony idea that reproduction should somehow be without responsibility to care for their children.

And apparently at this web board you won't be able to find one that feels as such. What a ridiculous thing to say.

I've drawn fire in the past for saying that economic reality should be considered in childbearing decisions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In what way does the chart do that?

As far as I can tell, it only gives living wages for a variety of different possible living wage implementations. If you advocate for a living wage for a single person with no family, there's a column for that, if you think a living wage should be provided for a family of 5 with only one person in the family working, there is a column for that. What it doesn't do is provide cover for your contention that no one is making any effort to provide data for living wage targets.

If you decide that a living wage has to support a single parent then the reality is that if you don't have a degree you're very likely unemployed.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, a lot of people on the left have this loony idea that reproduction should somehow be without responsibility to care for their children.

And apparently at this web board you won't be able to find one that feels as such. What a ridiculous thing to say.

I've drawn fire in the past for saying that economic reality should be considered in childbearing decisions.

Those two statements aren't exactly equivalent.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

20% for payroll taxes?

Income tax is $843
FICA is $1432
Total $2275

That's 12%.

Add social security, medicare and applicable state taxes. The only way to avoid those taxes is to be BELOW poverty line, which isn't what I'm talking about.

people in that income range usually have a roommate!

They also usually have time machines, bifurcated penises and an imaginary friend named Steve.

See? I can make shit up too!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Add social security, medicare and applicable state taxes. The only way to avoid those taxes is to be BELOW poverty line, which isn't what I'm talking about.

Did you not notice FICA in my numbers? That's the SS & Medicare taxes!

I admit that I omitted state taxes--I live in a state that doesn't have them so they didn't come to mind and they vary from state to state anyway, there's no way to give a one-size-fits-all answer.

 

[RavenSky]

I admit that I omitted state taxes--I live in a state that doesn't have them so they didn't come to mind and they vary from state to state anyway, there's no way to give a one-size-fits-all answer.

Then why do you?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Add social security, medicare and applicable state taxes. The only way to avoid those taxes is to be BELOW poverty line, which isn't what I'm talking about.

Did you not notice FICA in my numbers? That's the SS & Medicare taxes!

It's clearly not, since SS and Medicare combined take more than that on average.

You also went out of your way to point out that the hypothetical full-time worker I mentioned is above poverty level, something I SPECIFICALLY pointed out in my post. The fact that he is not TECHNICALLY at Federal poverty level does not change the fact that his life circumstances leave him on the ragged edge of financial stability even if absolutely nothing in his life goes even slightly wrong for the rest of the decade. You suggested he should get a roommate, also ignoring the fact that I specified a studio to one-bedroom apartment which in a city like Chicago runs for 500 to $700, IF you are willing to live in a gang-infested slum. As it happens, I would consider a financial situation desperate enough to stick a bunk bed and a roommate into a studio apartment to be "poverty," Federal guidelines notwithstanding. I would imagine that the British detective in the OP would as well.

I admit that I omitted state taxes--I live in a state that doesn't have them so they didn't come to mind and they vary from state to state anyway, there's no way to give a one-size-fits-all answer.

Then stop fucking doing it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did you not notice FICA in my numbers? That's the SS & Medicare taxes!

It's clearly not, since SS and Medicare combined take more than that on average.

Do the fucking math!

You also went out of your way to point out that the hypothetical full-time worker I mentioned is above poverty level, something I SPECIFICALLY pointed out in my post. The fact that he is not TECHNICALLY at Federal poverty level does not change the fact that his life circumstances leave him on the ragged edge of financial stability even if absolutely nothing in his life goes even slightly wrong for the rest of the decade. You suggested he should get a roommate, also ignoring the fact that I specified a studio to one-bedroom apartment which in a city like Chicago runs for 500 to $700, IF you are willing to live in a gang-infested slum. As it happens, I would consider a financial situation desperate enough to stick a bunk bed and a roommate into a studio apartment to be "poverty," Federal guidelines notwithstanding. I would imagine that the British detective in the OP would as well.

I admit that I omitted state taxes--I live in a state that doesn't have them so they didn't come to mind and they vary from state to state anyway, there's no way to give a one-size-fits-all answer.

Then stop fucking doing it.

I used the federal numbers.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It's clearly not, since SS and Medicare combined take more than that on average.

Do the fucking math!

I have. Every paystub I've earned for the past 15 years, in fact (and it's actually gone up in recent years).

Of course I'm one of Mitt Romney's 47% who pays no taxes, so clearly my math is wrong and the 31% of my paycheck that doesn't make it into my hands every two weeks must be a rounding error, or something.

I used the federal numbers.

And arrived at a one-size-fits-all answer.

That's the REASON you got it wrong. It doesn't change the fact that you got it wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do the fucking math!

I have. Every paystub I've earned for the past 15 years, in fact (and it's actually gone up in recent years).

Of course I'm one of Mitt Romney's 47% who pays no taxes, so clearly my math is wrong and the 31% of my paycheck that doesn't make it into my hands every two weeks must be a rounding error, or something.

I used the federal numbers.

And arrived at a one-size-fits-all answer.

That's the REASON you got it wrong. It doesn't change the fact that you got it wrong.

FICA is never more than 7.65%. For the income tax I actually did the 1040ez given those numbers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have. Every paystub I've earned for the past 15 years, in fact (and it's actually gone up in recent years).

Of course I'm one of Mitt Romney's 47% who pays no taxes, so clearly my math is wrong and the 31% of my paycheck that doesn't make it into my hands every two weeks must be a rounding error, or something.

I used the federal numbers.

And arrived at a one-size-fits-all answer.

That's the REASON you got it wrong. It doesn't change the fact that you got it wrong.

FICA is never more than 7.65%. For the income tax I actually did the 1040ez given those numbers.

Unless you are self-employed.

 

[KeepTalking]

In what way does the chart do that?

As far as I can tell, it only gives living wages for a variety of different possible living wage implementations. If you advocate for a living wage for a single person with no family, there's a column for that, if you think a living wage should be provided for a family of 5 with only one person in the family working, there is a column for that. What it doesn't do is provide cover for your contention that no one is making any effort to provide data for living wage targets.

If you decide that a living wage has to support a single parent then the reality is that if you don't have a degree you're very likely unemployed.

If you decide that a living wage has to support only the worker, then the chart has a column for that, and that person's employment is very likely unaffected. So, in short, what you are saying is wrong, again.