Here’s a sob story about a college%educated professional who can’t support his four kids without the enchanted government child support

[woodwork201]

Again, show me where I was wrong. For a married couple the income limit is $32,000 to $44,000. And again, Social Security income does not count until other income reaches that limit. For a single individiual, it is $25,000, and again, that total DOES NOT include Social Security.

Ok, Mr. Financial Expert. Here's a test question. Is $32,000 more than $40,000 or less than $40,000?

 

[Lisa558]

Please give an example of a bad decision you might make (actually or theoretically) where I deserve the consequences of your bad decision instead of you deserving the consequences of your bad decision.

There are some exceptions, but few and far between. If a low-income woman gets lost in a bad section of town looking for the bus stop, and is raped by thugs, and gets pregnant, and keeps the baby, I am OK with helping support the baby.

Her bad decision was to take the bus Instead of a taxi.

But we aren’t really talking about that in this thread. we are talking about college-educated professionals, such as the subject of the article or Winston, who have more children than they can support without either 1) lowering the lifestyle to fit their means, or 2) having the spouse pitch in with extra earnings, and instead feel entitled to - or even brag about - how other people were forced to pick up the financial burden.

 

[Lisa558]

Ok, Mr. Financial Expert. Here's a test question. Is $32,000 more than $40,000 or less than $40,000?

Besides him being wrong on so much (an elderly woman DOES pay income taxes at $40k, and some of her SS is taxable), Winston is defending old people having to pay tax on modest incomes while defending how the affluent $150,000 software engineer gets to shirk his tax obligation.

Also, did you notice how he practically DEMEANED Granny for responsibly saving $300,000 into her IRA and proudly claimed how he would never have that much? Again, the Upside-Down Land of liberals - where living beneath one‘s means in order to amass a relatively small nest egg for retirement gets a sneer, and people who spend every dime brag about it.

 

[braalian]

I‘m sure it’s some leftist thing.

Did you notice in the article how another mother said that without the enhanced government child support, she “will have to be cautious with [her] spending”? Well, people who don’t have lots of extra money have to be careful that way, duh.

God forbid anyone has to be careful with their spending.

those kinds of people are so out of touch with the actual working class it’s staggering

 

[PoliticalChic]

^^

Proof Positive that Johnson's "War on Poverty" has been a huge success!

So we can end welfare????????


Excellent proposal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I want to live in Obama's beach house. Why can't I? The government should provide me a nice place, as nice as anyone else's, right? I haven't earned it ; I haven't worked hard enough to afford it; haven't improved my market value to increase my salary to afford it, but I want it.

You can't because he has a wall around it.....you know, like the one Democrats won't allow America to have.

Obama's building a wall! Workers seen at the First Family's new home

Builders are hard at work making sure the Obamas new Washington DC home is up to scratch, just 14 days before the First Family has to vacate the White House.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[JoeB131]

There are some exceptions, but few and far between. If a low-income woman gets lost in a bad section of town looking for the bus stop, and is raped by thugs, and gets pregnant, and keeps the baby, I am OK with helping support the baby.

Her bad decision was to take the bus Instead of a taxi.

Holy shit... seriously?

 

[22lcidw]

Holy shit... seriously?

This exists. Regenerated areas abutting slums. College areas the same. Hospital located in ghettos close to any taxpaying areas or neighborhood.

 

[Winston]

Besides him being wrong on so much (an elderly woman DOES pay income taxes at $40k, and some of her SS is taxable), Winston is defending old people having to pay tax on modest incomes while defending how the affluent $150,000 software engineer gets to shirk his tax obligation.

Also, did you notice how he practically DEMEANED Granny for responsibly saving $300,000 into her IRA and proudly claimed how he would never have that much? Again, the Upside-Down Land of liberals - where living beneath one‘s means in order to amass a relatively small nest egg for retirement gets a sneer, and people who spend every dime brag about it.

I am going to ask again. How is this software engineer shirking his tax obligations? Do you pay more in taxes than the law requires you to? Why do expect this software engineer to do that, and if he doesn't, how is he shirking his responsibility? This software engineer is no different than a CEO of a corporation. He has an obligation to provide for his family the best way he sees fit, and to maximize his return on the investment that is that family. If he takes advantage of government programs and thereby keeps his wife at home taking care of the kids because he feels the return on that investment is better than the return he would get by having her work, that is his decision. And just like the CEO that takes advantage of every tax break and credit he can, so does this software engineer. You are under the delusion that he should not be making the best decision that he sees for his family, he should be making the best decision so that you won't have to pay as much in taxes. And you want to call me self-absorbed.

You never answered the question about taking the mortgage interest deduction. What about health insurance, did you ever have company sponsored group health insurance? I mean that is the largest tax expenditure in the federal government's budget. And number two on the list is Grandma's IRA that you talk so much about. How many tax dollars were lost as Grandma dutifully saved into the IRA, removing that savings from her taxable income? I mean how dare her, now some poor young family is going to have to more in taxes. The difference between you and I is I can't see a difference between Grandma reducing her tax liability by contributing to an IRA and our software engineer, taking advantage of tax credits. Both are using the tax code to their advantage. Good for them. Hell, it is why we have a tax code that encourages certain behaviors, rather it is raising kids or saving for retirement.

But let's talk about Grandma. From your numbers, and claiming she is only taking her RMD, she is 82 years old. Yes, she has 300 grand in that IRA, but she has been taking RMD's for more than ten years. No way in hell I would let that happen with any of my clients. First off, she probably started drawing Social Security early, and took a 25% hit in doing so. And she left the IRA alone. Well before Trump was elected president that decision started costing her money. Even if she waited to start drawing at 65, she made a mistake. She should have been pulling from that IRA and postponing Social Security. Had she drawn from the IRA and waited to collect Social Security at 70 she would now be drawing 40% more from Social Security every month. She would have taken income from the IRA when she was in a low tax bracket, and only half of her Social Security check is calculated in her income to determine if she pays taxes on it. Had she done that, she would be paying zero in income taxes today, earning more from Social Security and taking less in the form of RMD's.

Further more, IRA's are tax bombs. Why the hell would you shelter income today only to be slammed with income taxes tomorrow, on the gains and on the income you sheltered. I mean you say you take money from your IRA even though you are not over 70. Is your marginal tax rate greater than 15%? If so then, SUCKER. You could have either paid the taxes and put the money in a Roth IRA, which all my children do. Or you could have paid taxes on the money and invested it in the same funds you did within the IRA and only pay long term capital gains on your profits, 15%, tops.

So damn skippy. No way in hell I would have 300 grand in an IRA at 82. In fact, I don't even think the scenario you have created is even realistic.

 

[initforme]

So we should not encourage people to have kids. Yet you will complain about a declining birth rate.

 

[Lisa558]

I am going to ask again. How is this software engineer shirking his tax obligations? Do you pay more in taxes than the law requires you to? Why do expect this software engineer to do that, and if he doesn't, how is he shirking his responsibility? This software engineer is no different than a CEO of a corporation. He has an obligation to provide for his family the best way he sees fit, and to maximize his return on the investment that is that family. If he takes advantage of government programs and thereby keeps his wife at home taking care of the kids because he feels the return on that investment is better than the return he would get by having her work, that is his decision. And just like the CEO that takes advantage of every tax break and credit he can, so does this software engineer. You are under the delusion that he should not be making the best decision that he sees for his family, he should be making the best decision so that you won't have to pay as much in taxes. And you want to call me self-absorbed.

You never answered the question about taking the mortgage interest deduction. What about health insurance, did you ever have company sponsored group health insurance? I mean that is the largest tax expenditure in the federal government's budget. And number two on the list is Grandma's IRA that you talk so much about. How many tax dollars were lost as Grandma dutifully saved into the IRA, removing that savings from her taxable income? I mean how dare her, now some poor young family is going to have to more in taxes. The difference between you and I is I can't see a difference between Grandma reducing her tax liability by contributing to an IRA and our software engineer, taking advantage of tax credits. Both are using the tax code to their advantage. Good for them. Hell, it is why we have a tax code that encourages certain behaviors, rather it is raising kids or saving for retirement.

But let's talk about Grandma. From your numbers, and claiming she is only taking her RMD, she is 82 years old. Yes, she has 300 grand in that IRA, but she has been taking RMD's for more than ten years. No way in hell I would let that happen with any of my clients. First off, she probably started drawing Social Security early, and took a 25% hit in doing so. And she left the IRA alone. Well before Trump was elected president that decision started costing her money. Even if she waited to start drawing at 65, she made a mistake. She should have been pulling from that IRA and postponing Social Security. Had she drawn from the IRA and waited to collect Social Security at 70 she would now be drawing 40% more from Social Security every month. She would have taken income from the IRA when she was in a low tax bracket, and only half of her Social Security check is calculated in her income to determine if she pays taxes on it. Had she done that, she would be paying zero in income taxes today, earning more from Social Security and taking less in the form of RMD's.

Further more, IRA's are tax bombs. Why the hell would you shelter income today only to be slammed with income taxes tomorrow, on the gains and on the income you sheltered. I mean you say you take money from your IRA even though you are not over 70. Is your marginal tax rate greater than 15%? If so then, SUCKER. You could have either paid the taxes and put the money in a Roth IRA, which all my children do. Or you could have paid taxes on the money and invested it in the same funds you did within the IRA and only pay long term capital gains on your profits, 15%, tops.

So damn skippy. No way in hell I would have 300 grand in an IRA at 82. In fact, I don't even think the scenario you have created is even realistic.

Allow me to give you a lesson in common decency, no fee involved.

A man (you) does not call a lady (me) a piece of shit and tell her to STFU, and then expect her to work her way through his lengthy, verbose post and expend the effort to respond to the various points and accusations.

 

[Winston]

Allow me to give you a lesson in common decency, no fee involved.

A man (you) does not call a lady (me) a piece of shit and tell her to STFU, and then expect her to work her way through his lengthy, verbose post and expend the effort to respond to the various points and accusations.

Wait, let me get this straight, you can attack me but I can't attack you because you are a "lady".

 

[Lisa558]

Wait, let me get this straight, you can attack me but I can't attack you because you are a "lady".

You started with the nasty profanity and personal attacks. Take up your argument with a dude; you do not know how to deal with a lady.

 

[JoeB131]

Allow me to give you a lesson in common decency, no fee involved.

A man (you) does not call a lady (me) a piece of shit and tell her to STFU, and then expect her to work her way through his lengthy, verbose post and expend the effort to respond to the various points and accusations.

Quite right.

You are a RACIST piece of shit. Winston was being too kind.

Also, he clearly owned you on your double standards.

 

[woodwork201]

There are some exceptions, but few and far between. If a low-income woman gets lost in a bad section of town looking for the bus stop, and is raped by thugs, and gets pregnant, and keeps the baby, I am OK with helping support the baby.

Her bad decision was to take the bus Instead of a taxi.

But we aren’t really talking about that in this thread. we are talking about college-educated professionals, such as the subject of the article or Winston, who have more children than they can support without either 1) lowering the lifestyle to fit their means, or 2) having the spouse pitch in with extra earnings, and instead feel entitled to - or even brag about - how other people were forced to pick up the financial burden.

I disagree. Her family should help. Local charities should help.

When I was in the Navy, we had the annual United Way drives just like today. Back then there were named charities you could select for your United Way funds to go to. I always chose local homes for unwed mothers. Now we don't have homes for unwed mothers because free sex means the working class must pay the way for unwed mothers. If we had homes for unwed mothers, they could help rape victims. Lacking homes for unwed mothers, other charities and churches should step up.

And, in any case, local government, if any government, might help; there's no constitutional limitation on them while there is no constitutional authority for the Federal Government to do so.

 

[JoeB131]

I disagree. Her family should help. Local charities should help.

When I was in the Navy, we had the annual United Way drives just like today. Back then there were named charities you could select for your United Way funds to go to. I always chose local homes for unwed mothers. Now we don't have homes for unwed mothers because free sex means the working class must pay the way for unwed mothers. If we had homes for unwed mothers, they could help rape victims. Lacking homes for unwed mothers, other charities and churches should step up.

And, in any case, local government, if any government, might help; there's no constitutional limitation on them while there is no constitutional authority for the Federal Government to do so.

Or Americans are just realizing that "marriage" is an outdated construct. 41% of births are out of wedlock today. It doesn't mean the fathers aren't involved, it just means they aren't formally married.

The fact is, we spend a lot more money on what we call "Entitlements" (AKA White People Welfare) designed to keep middle class white people from becoming poor, i.e. (Social Security, Disability, Medicare, Veteran's Benefits, Unemployment), than we do on poverty relief (Food Stamps, TANF, Section 8, etc.) Even the biggest poverty relief program - Medicaid- often benefits middle class people putting their oldsters in nursing homes than providing health coverage for the working poor.

None of this WOULD be an issue if the rich paid their fair share in taxes, like they did before Ronnie Ray-Gun started messing with the tax code.

 

[Lisa558]

I disagree. Her family should help. Local charities should help.

When I was in the Navy, we had the annual United Way drives just like today. Back then there were named charities you could select for your United Way funds to go to. I always chose local homes for unwed mothers. Now we don't have homes for unwed mothers because free sex means the working class must pay the way for unwed mothers. If we had homes for unwed mothers, they could help rape victims. Lacking homes for unwed mothers, other charities and churches should step up.

And, in any case, local government, if any government, might help; there's no constitutional limitation on them while there is no constitutional authority for the Federal Government to do so.

In an ideal world, yes.

But you hear the liberals screeching “what about the poor, dumb women in the Bible Belt?” This compromise answers their objection about forcing women to complete their unwanted pregnancies (which in 99% of cases occur because they didn’t use birth control): they still can kill their babies; they might just have to take a bus ride to see it out. (Both meanings of the phrase apply.)

 

[JoeB131]

In an ideal world, yes.

But you hear the liberals screeching “what about the poor, dumb women in the Bible Belt?” This compromise answers their objection about forcing women to complete their unwanted pregnancies (which in 99% of cases occur because they didn’t use birth control): they still can kill their babies; they might just have to take a bus ride to see it out. (Both meanings of the phrase apply.)

Fetuses aren't babies.

And if you are going to deny medical care based on lifestyle choices, let's deny cancer treatment to smokers or people who are overweight, as they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[woodwork201]

In an ideal world, yes.

But you hear the liberals screeching “what about the poor, dumb women in the Bible Belt?” This compromise answers their objection about forcing women to complete their unwanted pregnancies (which in 99% of cases occur because they didn’t use birth control): they still can kill their babies; they might just have to take a bus ride to see it out. (Both meanings of the phrase apply.)

Constitutionally speaking, there is no such thing as compromise, only surrender. The Constitution empowers the Federal Government to do certain things and prohibits it from doing anything else, some explicitly and some implicitly. The Government either abides by the Constitution and we require it to do so, or we surrender liberty and power to the Government and allow them to do things they are not authorized to do.

In a compromise, both sides give something and both sides gain something. The only thing the government brings to the table in compromise is whether to take more of our rights or to take less of our rights. Too many think that them agreeing to take less rather than to take more is compromise; it is not; it is still taking rights they do not have the authority to take.

 

[woodwork201]

In an ideal world, yes.

But you hear the liberals screeching “what about the poor, dumb women in the Bible Belt?” This compromise answers their objection about forcing women to complete their unwanted pregnancies (which in 99% of cases occur because they didn’t use birth control): they still can kill their babies; they might just have to take a bus ride to see it out. (Both meanings of the phrase apply.)

99% of unwed pregnancies did NOT occur because the mother did not use birth control.

99% of unwed pregnancies occurred because the mother (and father) chose to engage in sex while not married. They made a choice. In less than 1% of abortions do the mothers even claim it is because of rape or incest so there's no argument that the other 99% of pregnancies were simply a choice to behave in a way that has adult outcomes and not wanting to take adult responsibilities for their behaviors.