Winston
Platinum Member
Thanks for once again proving my point. The numbers in your linked article vividly portrayed the problem I have been discussing, mostly due to the structure of the Republican EITC, but also due to the availability of other assistance programs. But just a side note, why does a person making sixty grand in Mississippi only pay $300 in state income taxes but a person making thirty grand pays five times as much at $1500? Really finding it hard to believe that the state income tax in Mississippi is 5% for thirty grand and .5% for sixty grand. But then again, Mississippi is a hell hole. Regardless, that calls in to question the integrity of the entire spreadsheet."Not really understanding why it is so difficult to accept the reality that the structure of the EITC provides an incentive to NOT WORK at even minimal income levels."
Another lie.
It is Democrat 'welfare' policy that does that.
You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.
WITH WELFARE IT MAKES SENSE TO WORK LESS,”
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year. If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.
http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/u..._With-welfare-it-makes-sense-to-work-less.pdf
What happened to that "successful welfare reform in the 1990s"?
The Democrat party killed it to prevent their 'slaves' from escaping the plantation.
13. And Obama killed it.
"Obama kills welfare reform
By Dick Morris - 07/17/12 10:07 PM EDT
Determined to destroy Bill Clinton’s signature achievement, President Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
On Thursday of last week, HHS issued regulations that modified — gutted — the work requirement.
Section 415(a)(2)(B) of the welfare reform act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 615(a)(2)(B), expressly states that ‘a waiver granted under section 1315 of this title [the one that HHS now claims it is acting under] or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on Sept. 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 607 of this title [which applies the work requirements] to the State.’ In short, whatever else might be said of the scope of the waiver authority, the Secretary has no lawful authority to waive the work requirements of section 607, which is what HHS is contemplating in its Memorandum.”
Obama kills welfare reform TheHill
Obama kills welfare reform
This is what Obama killed:
"...welfare rolls plunged by over 60 percent, as many as two million mothers entered the labor force, earnings for females heading families increased while their income from welfare payments fell, and child poverty declined every year between 1993 and 2000. By the late 1990s, both black child poverty and poverty among children in female-headed families had reached their lowest levels ever. " Interview: Welfare reform, 10 years later | Brookings Institution
The Democrats/Liberals don't want folks working, self-reliant, independent.
They want slaves who need them, and vote for them.
Why don't you Republicans come up with a solution to the problem? Why don't you provide an incentive for these people to work instead of just mandate it, as if that would accomplish anything. Because I got to tell you, if someone is content living off the government and working some low-wage job one day a week then I am happy to pay them to keep them the hell out of my way.
Classic example. Worked in furniture sales. We used an up system which means you take turns greeting guests that came in the door. We had a girl that couldn't sell shit. She would actually panhandle her guests instead of trying to sell to them. I asked the team if they would be willing to take up a collection to keep her ass at home and stop her from "burning ups" that we could sell. They all agreed. Then I told them, "welcome to the Democrat party".