Why are republicans so stupid when it comes to Food Stamps?

[RealDave]

Because most Republicans work and have never been on food stamps, and never looked into how it works.

Never been to a red state?

Been to many red states.

Never saw a poor Republican?

If all Republicans work & don't get any government benefits, why do Red States lead the pack in welfare type programs?

 

[Markle]

OMG, you don't even know what rent seeking is. I know this because of your undocumented and based on nothing comment about Obama policies unfavorable towards business. The scourge of rent seeking began to rapidly expand during the Reagan administration and has pretty much grown unabated since then.

How great, you found a new term. Find something real, rent seeking is primarily an old term for corruption. You're just trying to be cute. FAIL!

 

[Scamp]

Because most Republicans work and have never been on food stamps, and never looked into how it works.

Never been to a red state?

Been to many red states.

Never saw a poor Republican?

If all Republicans work & don't get any government benefits, why do Red States lead the pack in welfare type programs?

All Republicans don't work. Some are retired.

 

[Winston]

It's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.

David Brooks, seconds ago

The reason food stamps have expanded is not because of an expansion of the welfare state. It is because a lot of people are near poor due to a fundamental problem with the STRUCTURE of the US economy.

David Brooks is a progressive shit stain… Fact

I thought he was a moderate conservative. It is true I think that rent-seeking in the Obama years did diminish economic growth to some extent, but that's what you get when your policies are unfavorable towards business investments.

OMG, you don't even know what rent seeking is. I know this because of your undocumented and based on nothing comment about Obama policies unfavorable towards business. The scourge of rent seeking began to rapidly expand during the Reagan administration and has pretty much grown unabated since then.

Well I tell you what, when I see an economy where more businesses close up than start up, I sorta figure the current economic policies are not exactly favorable to economic growth. So, do you want to continue with the condescension cuz if so I'm outta here.

Then quit with the political bullshit. Obama created far more jobs than Bush. But he did nothing to discourage rent seeking. Rent seeking is when companies seek additional wealth without creating new wealth. In other words, by TAKING instead of MAKING. Citizens United pretty much threw the door wide open.

As the distribution of wealth becomes increasingly unequal, the returns to that wealth—like interest, dividends, and capital gains—will generate more inequality. In addition, the fact that those at higher wealth levels seem to receive higher returns to capital, when coupled with reductions in tax rates on capital income in recent decades, has increased the contribution of capital income to overall inequality. Further, if some firms earn monopoly profits, owners of those firms may benefit more than others.

How Rent-Seeking Is Driving Inequality

"reductions in tax rates on capital income". Did you get that. Obviously, the very first thing we can do is increase the tax rates on capital income to at least the level hard working blue collar Americans pay.

 

[RealDave]

Because most Republicans work and have never been on food stamps, and never looked into how it works.

Never been to a red state?

Been to many red states.

Never saw a poor Republican?

If all Republicans work & don't get any government benefits, why do Red States lead the pack in welfare type programs?

All Republicans don't work. Some are retired.

I agree, some Republicans are retarded.

 

[Markle]

If all Republicans work & don't get any government benefits, why do Red States lead the pack in welfare type programs?

Why not compare cities? Isn't that more accurate?

 

[Winston]

OMG, you don't even know what rent seeking is. I know this because of your undocumented and based on nothing comment about Obama policies unfavorable towards business. The scourge of rent seeking began to rapidly expand during the Reagan administration and has pretty much grown unabated since then.

How great, you found a new term. Find something real, rent seeking is primarily an old term for corruption. You're just trying to be cute. FAIL!

Dude, rent seeking is not a new term. Hell, it is a pretty damn old term. Old school economics. Supply side economists pretty much ignored that old concept. Now, it is coming back with a roar and exposing supply side economics for the con it always was.

And there is one thing I just don't understand. Sure, I don't expect most people to know what rent seeking is. But what surprises me is that once someone on the right is exposed to exactly what rent seeking is, seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth, they just ignore it. What happened to that hard working American work ethic? I mean here we are in a thread about food stamps. Complaints about people getting food without earning it, and yet rent seeking, BY DEFINITION, is attaining MONEY without earning it. Worse, after knowing what it is, they openly advocate policies that will only exacerbate the problem, like cutting corporate income taxes or taxes on the wealthy. Like supporting Citizens United. Like supporting the gutting of the EPA.

Look what rent seeking results in.

reduced economic efficiency through poor allocation of resources

reduced actual wealth creation

lost government revenue

increased income inequality

And you guys are worried about a few lame brain terrorists.

 

[task0778]

David Brooks, seconds ago

The reason food stamps have expanded is not because of an expansion of the welfare state. It is because a lot of people are near poor due to a fundamental problem with the STRUCTURE of the US economy.

David Brooks is a progressive shit stain… Fact

I thought he was a moderate conservative. It is true I think that rent-seeking in the Obama years did diminish economic growth to some extent, but that's what you get when your policies are unfavorable towards business investments.

OMG, you don't even know what rent seeking is. I know this because of your undocumented and based on nothing comment about Obama policies unfavorable towards business. The scourge of rent seeking began to rapidly expand during the Reagan administration and has pretty much grown unabated since then.

Well I tell you what, when I see an economy where more businesses close up than start up, I sorta figure the current economic policies are not exactly favorable to economic growth. So, do you want to continue with the condescension cuz if so I'm outta here.

Then quit with the political bullshit. Obama created far more jobs than Bush. But he did nothing to discourage rent seeking. Rent seeking is when companies seek additional wealth without creating new wealth. In other words, by TAKING instead of MAKING. Citizens United pretty much threw the door wide open.

As the distribution of wealth becomes increasingly unequal, the returns to that wealth—like interest, dividends, and capital gains—will generate more inequality. In addition, the fact that those at higher wealth levels seem to receive higher returns to capital, when coupled with reductions in tax rates on capital income in recent decades, has increased the contribution of capital income to overall inequality. Further, if some firms earn monopoly profits, owners of those firms may benefit more than others.

How Rent-Seeking Is Driving Inequality

"reductions in tax rates on capital income". Did you get that. Obviously, the very first thing we can do is increase the tax rates on capital income to at least the level hard working blue collar Americans pay.

At no time in human history has higher taxes on capital income and redistribution to lower income people EVER resulted in economic growth. NEVER. I'll be back later to expand on that.

 

[Winston]

David Brooks is a progressive shit stain… Fact

I thought he was a moderate conservative. It is true I think that rent-seeking in the Obama years did diminish economic growth to some extent, but that's what you get when your policies are unfavorable towards business investments.

OMG, you don't even know what rent seeking is. I know this because of your undocumented and based on nothing comment about Obama policies unfavorable towards business. The scourge of rent seeking began to rapidly expand during the Reagan administration and has pretty much grown unabated since then.

Well I tell you what, when I see an economy where more businesses close up than start up, I sorta figure the current economic policies are not exactly favorable to economic growth. So, do you want to continue with the condescension cuz if so I'm outta here.

Then quit with the political bullshit. Obama created far more jobs than Bush. But he did nothing to discourage rent seeking. Rent seeking is when companies seek additional wealth without creating new wealth. In other words, by TAKING instead of MAKING. Citizens United pretty much threw the door wide open.

As the distribution of wealth becomes increasingly unequal, the returns to that wealth—like interest, dividends, and capital gains—will generate more inequality. In addition, the fact that those at higher wealth levels seem to receive higher returns to capital, when coupled with reductions in tax rates on capital income in recent decades, has increased the contribution of capital income to overall inequality. Further, if some firms earn monopoly profits, owners of those firms may benefit more than others.

How Rent-Seeking Is Driving Inequality

"reductions in tax rates on capital income". Did you get that. Obviously, the very first thing we can do is increase the tax rates on capital income to at least the level hard working blue collar Americans pay.

At no time in human history has higher taxes on capital income and redistribution to lower income people EVER resulted in economic growth. NEVER. I'll be back later to expand on that.

There was, in fact, only one time that capital gains were taxed at the same rates that were paid by people who earned their money by working. That was during the years 1988 to 1990, as a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 — a law championed by President Ronald Reagan.

FLASHBACK: Reagan Raised Capital Gains Taxes To The Same Level As Wage Taxes For First Time

Got that righties. I am only advocating the VERY SAME THING AS RONALD REAGAN.

 

[Markle]

OMG, you don't even know what rent seeking is. I know this because of your undocumented and based on nothing comment about Obama policies unfavorable towards business. The scourge of rent seeking began to rapidly expand during the Reagan administration and has pretty much grown unabated since then.

How great, you found a new term. Find something real, rent seeking is primarily an old term for corruption. You're just trying to be cute. FAIL!

Dude, rent seeking is not a new term. Hell, it is a pretty damn old term. Old school economics. Supply side economists pretty much ignored that old concept. Now, it is coming back with a roar and exposing supply side economics for the con it always was.

And there is one thing I just don't understand. Sure, I don't expect most people to know what rent seeking is. But what surprises me is that once someone on the right is exposed to exactly what rent seeking is, seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth, they just ignore it. What happened to that hard working American work ethic? I mean here we are in a thread about food stamps. Complaints about people getting food without earning it, and yet rent seeking, BY DEFINITION, is attaining MONEY without earning it. Worse, after knowing what it is, they openly advocate policies that will only exacerbate the problem, like cutting corporate income taxes or taxes on the wealthy. Like supporting Citizens United. Like supporting the gutting of the EPA.

Look what rent seeking results in.

reduced economic efficiency through poor allocation of resources

reduced actual wealth creation

lost government revenue

increased income inequality

And you guys are worried about a few lame brain terrorists.

If all else fails, read the post to which you are responding.

I said it was a NEW TERM TO YOU. You know, like a kid that discovers a new word and goes crazy using the term.

 

[Winston]

OMG, you don't even know what rent seeking is. I know this because of your undocumented and based on nothing comment about Obama policies unfavorable towards business. The scourge of rent seeking began to rapidly expand during the Reagan administration and has pretty much grown unabated since then.

How great, you found a new term. Find something real, rent seeking is primarily an old term for corruption. You're just trying to be cute. FAIL!

Dude, rent seeking is not a new term. Hell, it is a pretty damn old term. Old school economics. Supply side economists pretty much ignored that old concept. Now, it is coming back with a roar and exposing supply side economics for the con it always was.

And there is one thing I just don't understand. Sure, I don't expect most people to know what rent seeking is. But what surprises me is that once someone on the right is exposed to exactly what rent seeking is, seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth, they just ignore it. What happened to that hard working American work ethic? I mean here we are in a thread about food stamps. Complaints about people getting food without earning it, and yet rent seeking, BY DEFINITION, is attaining MONEY without earning it. Worse, after knowing what it is, they openly advocate policies that will only exacerbate the problem, like cutting corporate income taxes or taxes on the wealthy. Like supporting Citizens United. Like supporting the gutting of the EPA.

Look what rent seeking results in.

reduced economic efficiency through poor allocation of resources

reduced actual wealth creation

lost government revenue

increased income inequality

And you guys are worried about a few lame brain terrorists.

If all else fails, read the post to which you are responding.

I said it was a NEW TERM TO YOU. You know, like a kid that discovers a new word and goes crazy using the term.

The first director of the OMB for Ronald Reagan was Andrew Benavie. He was a professor of Economics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I was his TA. Our weekly arguments in regards to Reagan's economic policies at He's Not Here were legendary. When I graduated I went to work at Bowles Hollowell Connor & Co. I got the job because I tossed a coin on the desk of the interviewer given to me by Erskine Bowles' father who was the state treasurer of North Carolina for years. That got me straight to his office.

In short, I am pretty sure I have forgotten more about Economics than you will ever know. I knew what rent seeking was when I was 14 years old, that was more than forty years ago. And those Benavie arguments, well last I heard he was playing the Cello in a symphony and openly admits I was right and he was wrong.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Never saw a poor Republican?

If all Republicans work & don't get any government benefits, why do Red States lead the pack in welfare type programs?

A red state does not mean everybody in that state is a Republican. If that were the case, there would be no need for local and state elections. States don't get welfare--people in states get welfare.

We in Ohio are a swing state, but currently pretty red. We have several large cities where Democrats dwell. That's where a lot of our population lives, and that's where you'll most likely find the welfare types.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maybe I do things different than others, but an eviction is way more important than credit ratings. I have tenants who don't make a lot of money, and they are my best tenants. Some of those people stay with me for many years and are problem free.

She can't get an apartment in her name because she doesn't have an income. If a landlord needs to sue her for back rent or damages, they couldn't get anything because she doesn't work. I sued him for back rent and had his wages garnished for a year.

We have different Landlord Tenant laws and requirements in Florida.

She doesn't need a great income if she is getting Section-8 housing.

In Florida, you may sue someone for back rent and damages but if they have nothing, you get nothing. Only the IRS may garnish wages in Florida. The purported intent of the Landlord Tenant Act in Florida is to level the playing field. In practice, it is heavily weighted in favor of the tenant.

It seems just the opposite over here. In court, there were several evictions before mine, and in every case, the judge ordered the tenant out of the rental unit.

Here you go to court, and the judge gives the tenant 14 days to clear out. If the tenant doesn't, you return to court to get a last date before tenant removal which is usually 10 days. If they're not out on that last day, the bailiff comes out, you break into the apartment and he removes the tenant for you. Then he sticks around until you change all the locks on the apartment. If the tenant returns for some reason after that, you are advised to call the police and have the tenant(s) arrested for trespassing.

There is no screwing around with tenants here.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The food stamp beneficiary is no more spending your money than your barber. Come on, it is not a hard concept to understand. Once you turn over your tax money to the government, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE, just like when you turn your money over to your barber, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE.

I expect nothing more coming from a Progressive. Frankly, I usually see better from Progressives than them trying to sell a line that government money is NOT taxpayer money.

Over the decades I've had hundreds of haircuts. Never once, in all those years did I have a single barber demand money from me under threat of imprisonment then not even cut my hair. Usually, I say, "cute try" but this was simply pathetic.

The taxes that you pay are the price you pay for the freedom and security of living in a first world country. Safety, security and infrastructure cost money. An educated society providing a highly skilled work force, costs money, as for the protections provided by intellectual property laws and other governmental agencies.

There are lots of countries where individuals pay no income tax. You'll need to hire full body guards and bribe the local police for protection, there's no decent roads, hospitals or schools, you'll be hard pressed to have any safety or security. There's always the danger the government will be overthrown and you'll lose everything you have, but you won't pay taxes.

I don't think you'll find many on the right that believe we should pay no taxes, it's just the waste, the vote buying, the coddling of full grown adults like they are children is where we have the problem.

Those on the left complain about Trump's budget because everybody likes their goodies. But we are 20 trillion in debt and it's time to stop with the goodies. It's time we blow off the dust on that US Constitution of ours and only spend money outlined within.

So you oppose corporate welfare? But you support a low minimum wage, which benefits business, and which is supplemented by Food stamps, Medicaid, CHIP, and earned income credits, which are paid for by middle income taxpayers. This is a huge subsidy for some of the most profitable companies in the US, paid for by the taxpayers.

Trump is planning on reducing earned income credits, access to Medicaid, and food stamps but not increase the minimum wage. All to pay for tax cuts to millionaires - like himself.

He's eliminating that minimum tax payment by millionaires. The one that saw him pay $25 million on the year that Maddow published. This will reduce Trump's future taxes to zero. How's that working for you.

People earning minimum wage are usually kids, kids in college, stay at home moms making a few extra bucks while the kids attend school, or senior citizens looking for something to do.

We should not be supplementing people who make too little money. We should cut those programs which will pressure them to work more hours, get a better paying job, or seek a career. That's how you solve that problem.

Some of our customers use temporary services for their work crew. When things get busy and they ask the temps to work overtime, many refuse. Why? Because it would cut into their food stamp allowance.

As a local truck driver I spend a lot of time in industrial areas every day. They are all littered with HELP WANTED signs. Some of them are our customers, so I try to strike up a conversation about their need for help. Some of those jobs pay pretty good for non-skilled labor, but no matter, they still can't find people to work there; at least not any that can pass a drug test which is a secondary problem in this country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.

David Brooks, seconds ago

The reason food stamps have expanded is not because of an expansion of the welfare state. It is because a lot of people are near poor due to a fundamental problem with the STRUCTURE of the US economy.

Despite government claims, the job market is still lagging. The poverty rate is on the rise, The Journal says. And federal laws passed under former President Clinton and further under Mr. Obama are actually driving the enrollment rate higher. Those laws allow for those with higher incomes to take food stamps — the logic being that helping people before they reach crisis financial level will actually stimulate the economy, The Journal says.

Food stamp president: Enrollment up 70 percent under Obama

 

[Winston]

Never saw a poor Republican?

If all Republicans work & don't get any government benefits, why do Red States lead the pack in welfare type programs?

People earning minimum wage are usually kids, kids in college, stay at home moms making a few extra bucks while the kids attend school, or senior citizens looking for something to do.

We should not be supplementing people who make too little money. We should cut those programs which will pressure them to work more hours, get a better paying job, or seek a career. That's how you solve that problem.

Some of our customers use temporary services for their work crew. When things get busy and they ask the temps to work overtime, many refuse. Why? Because it would cut into their food stamp allowance.

As a local truck driver I spend a lot of time in industrial areas every day. They are all littered with HELP WANTED signs. Some of them are our customers, so I try to strike up a conversation about their need for help. Some of those jobs pay pretty good for non-skilled labor, but no matter, they still can't find people to work there; at least not any that can pass a drug test which is a secondary problem in this country.

Yeah, I hear you. Arbeit Macht Frei.

 

[Winston]

It's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.

David Brooks, seconds ago

The reason food stamps have expanded is not because of an expansion of the welfare state. It is because a lot of people are near poor due to a fundamental problem with the STRUCTURE of the US economy.

Despite government claims, the job market is still lagging. The poverty rate is on the rise, The Journal says. And federal laws passed under former President Clinton and further under Mr. Obama are actually driving the enrollment rate higher. Those laws allow for those with higher incomes to take food stamps — the logic being that helping people before they reach crisis financial level will actually stimulate the economy, The Journal says.

Food stamp president: Enrollment up 70 percent under Obama

Those laws allow for those with higher incomes to take food stamps

So, it's not the economy, it's the fact that qualification standards have loosened.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When we use the same kind of logic on you leftists, you get all bent out of shape. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't have an income. Okay, well if you can't afford to support your family, don't have children.

But with those food stamps, they can AFFORD to have children. And rather you like it or not, we need more children. Without the immigration that you and others often cry about this nation would be dying out.

Immigration Is the Only Reason the U.S. Doesn't Have an Aging Crisis

Like I said. If someone qualifies for food stamps they have a RESPONSIBILITY to get them. Just like a CEO whose company qualifies for tax credits. But let's run with that same kind of logic.

If you can't afford your mortgage without the mortgage interest deduction, get a smaller house or rent. Why should I have to help you pay your mortgage?

If you can't afford that Prius without the tax credit, buy a different car. Why should I have to help pay for your car.

If a company can't fund their research department without the tax credits, close down the department, why should I fund research that expands their profits?

If you can't afford to fund your 401K with aftertax dollars, don't fund it.

We could go on all day. The two biggest tax expenditures in the federal budget are the mortgage interest deduction and the employer provided health insurance credit. I have no doubt that many on this very board, you included, have derived more benefit from just the mortgage interest deduction than that single lowlife mom on food stamps will get in a lifetime.

My 21 year old son is closing on his first house next week. He got a fifteen thousand dollar first time home buyer grant. He will pay over ten thousand dollars in interest in the first year and take the mortgage interest deduction. He puts twelve percent of his salary into his 401K. And god only knows what his gold plated company funded health insurance premium is. The total cost of the tax expenditures he will receive in ONE YEAR could fund that lowlife Mom's food stamps for TEN YEARS. And at 21, well he is making significantly more than the US median income of $52,000.

Like I said, complaining about food stamps is like complaining about an open window after a tornado ripped off the roof of your house.

Apples and oranges. You can't say that people keeping more of their own money is the same as someone who is taking other people's money. If a person can't afford a family without taxpayers money, then they can't afford the family. Your comparison is like me saying I can afford a yacht because I embezzled a million dollars from the company I work for. No, I cannot afford a yacht, that's why I have to steal money from my employer to have one.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You can't say that people keeping more of their own money is the same as someone who is taking other people's money.

The hell I can't. Why do you have a problem with the food stamp beneficiary. Because they make you pay more in taxes, right? You got no problem with the local catholic church opening up a soup kitchen. It's not the charity that is bothering you. It is not the fact that they are not working that is bothering you. Hell, it shouldn't be about them, it is about YOU and your taxes.

Well, when people or companies get to "keep more of their money" due to some tax break or credit that not everyone can use, IT MAKES YOUR TAXES GO UP. When they pay less, YOU PAY MORE. The food stamp beneficiary might cost you an extra nickel or so in taxes. The mortgage interest deduction and employer provided health insurance special tax treatment, neither of which is available to me, costs me HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS in extra taxes.

I explained why I have a problem with many of the recipients of food stamps, but because you live in the middle of nowhere, you don't see it so it can't be happening in your world.

Church kitchens are ENTIRELY funded by charitable contributions. That's different than a church forcing money from you that you don't want to give.

I'm no rich person. I don't consider myself a genius of any kind. I'm one of the few (if not the only one) here that admit to being a blue collar worker. What I did in life is not that difficult for anybody else to do. Get out of school, get a job, eventually get a trade of work, don't have children you can't afford, and invest at least some of your money. It was not that difficult for me, so I don't think it's that difficult for most people. As for people that did not do those simple things that I did in life, why are they my problem now?

The reason I pointed out the church, and you have confirmed it here, is because your problem is not the charity. You don't have a problem with anyone refusing to work and living off charity, it is about your taxes. And what I was trying to show you is that those food stamp beneficiaries, they cost you pennies. While the mortgage interest deduction and the special treatment of employer provided health insurance costs you DOLLARS. And I know you have heard the statement, "Penny wise and pound foolish" before. Your viewpoint here is a perfect example.

Taxes are only part of it. Let me explain this another way:

The landlord who owns the property next to me decided to go to HUD. We are in the suburbs, and HUD people are living right next door to me. I have to go out every morning and work to live in the burbs, and these people just apply to the government and are my neighbors. That's what kills me.

In my younger years I didn't have much in the way of money. I would go to the grocery store to buy 5 pounds of ground beef, make hamburgers out of it for the week, and that's what I lived on. It killed me every time I seen a food stamp person buying stakes, crabs, cereal, prepared soft drinks and frozen TV dinners. I wished I could afford those things.

That's around the time I started to become more conservative. I couldn't understand why people who don't work (or work very little) are doing better in life than a working person like myself. And in over 35 years, it seems it only got better for the non-working than worse. Back then, HUD people were only in the inner-city as the government only purchased or rented the lowest cost housing available. Today, they are littering our nice neighborhoods with their noise and trash.

There is something seriously wrong with a society where the non-working live just as good if not better than the working, and it's the working who are paying to have them live better. That's my beef.

 

[BlueGin]

How bout some sensible fixes ? With the bet cards , its harder to commit fraud .

Don't you mean ebt cards? I believe bet cards are for on-line betting.

In my opinion, the majority of food stamps recipients are, at least partially, gaming the system.

I don't think majority ! Many people get a rather low amount . $40-50 bucks . I forget what the average amount is .

There's a lot of elderly fix income types . And people on disability .

No. One of my tenants is on SS disability, and he doesn't get anything from food stamps. My father retired about 23 years ago, my mother about 20 years ago, and neither of them ever needed (or wanted) food stamps.

Yep. My mother is 75 collecting SS. Does not get food stamps.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If she got a job at Walmart or McDonald's and worked ten hours each day, that's 100 hours a month. Even if those jobs only paid $8.00 an hour, that's $800.00 gross a month.

Gross eight hundred dollars. Lose two hundred fifty dollars food stamps. Lose at least a hundred dollars a month in the EITC. Pays another seventy five in Social Security taxes and eighty dollars in income taxes. That leaves her with a little less than three hundred dollars. Would you work ten hours a day, two days a week, to bring home seventy five bucks? How do you feel about a 62.5% marginal tax rate?

You don't pay income taxes when you make that little. She would probably lose (after deductions) about $350.00 at the most, and would probably get a lot of that back in her income tax refund. After all less than 10 K a year with two dependents is poverty, so she may get it all back.

Either way, it could have prevented them from losing their home, him having the embarrassment of getting his wages garnished, paying my legal fees and time off of work, and having an eviction on his record.

Would I work for that kind of money? Probably not, but then again I wouldn't have had a family in the first place, feed a large dog and three cats, and would have given up cigarettes.

She might not pay the income taxes but more than likely she would. Her standard deduction and exemptions would have been exhausted covering the husband's income. But she most certainly would pay the Social Security taxes, that's the bigger chunk. She most certainly would have lost some of the EITC.

And I wasn't asking if you would work for eight dollars an hour. I am asking if you would work when you only get twenty to thirty cents on the dollar of whatever wage you were earning.

No, she would get it all back because she is not married to the father of her children. They live together, but government doesn't count that as a two income family. Government doesn't even check into those things.

Then you messed up. You should of told them to get married, then your rent would have gotten paid, and then some. Unless the guy made more than thirty grand, and it sounds like he didn't, the EITC on his income more than offsets the food stamps. Plus, he could have gotten the EITC pre-loaded on his paycheck instead of waiting for a tax refund.

No, no, no. You make out better if you're not married than married. By government standards, she was a single woman with two children and no income. They never considered the father living in the same dwelling. It doesn't matter to the government. Married, she would have not been able to get food stamps--or get very little. As a single woman with two children, she got plenty.

I have tenants who are married. She is a sickly woman and is always at the doctors or hospital. He works but doesn't make the big bucks. But they both work like hell--or within her ability to do so.

She applied for disability and was refused because she was married. Recently, she was finally accepted for partial disability. But at the time, we seriously discussed what she might get if they got a divorce and the government looked only at her income instead of their combined income. I added that if they got a divorce and I put the apartment in her name, HUD might kick in and pay their rent for both of them. See how it works now?