Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12

[Gator]

OK, $250 invested each year compounding at 6% for 30 years.  $19, 764.

Forget the compounding.  How can I buy 30 years? 

[Slumba]

If you looked at just welfare spending at the federal level in the US (5 or 6% of the budget), and assuming the individual made $40,000 a year, his "share" to welfare recipients is less than $250 a year.  LOL, yeah, I can see how that massive tax payment would stick in someone's craw. 


I don't get it either.  I have more issues with public sector union employees, tbh.  I don't resent their salaries, I'd like them to be paid the same as in the private sector.  But the gold plated pensions, and benefits are an issue.

I think you are forgetting that the states also spend a great deal; and the spending is spread across a great many programs.  There is CHIP, TANF, EITC (tax credit paid via IRS refunds), SNAP, LIHEAP, Section 8 etc.

Approximate total is $152.8 Billion USD each year.

see http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2015/the-high-public-cost-of-low-wages.pdf

The emphasis on this paper concerns those who are part of the working poor - not something I will get into - but the total amounts are given.

So divided by 325 million Americans you get roughly $500 . But about 47-49% of American pay no net income taxes ,so, it's fair to say about $1000/ year per taxpayer. 

For someone earning $40K that is 2.5% of their wages, each and every year. 

And remember that Section 8 and the many other assistance programs mean that the people on benefits end up competing for e.g. housing with the taxpayer - further increasing his or her costs.

[ML]

The pensions can be rich.  A senior fire department employee can retire early and receive over $1 million in cash.

A neighbor lady told that she had moved her older brother into a nursing home in our area because his wife in another state was not taking proper care of him.  The wife agreed to this, of course, because now she has no duties to her husband.

I asked about the cost and if some of his costs would be paid by governments (which means we taxpayers).  She said, 'Oh no, his pension is too high . . . it is $107,000 per year'

I asked what he had done.

'Deputy Sheriff for 30 years,' she said.

I was quite surprised; even shocked.

[BillyB]

If you guys want benefits, it's best you don't marry your girl and let the government pay for her and the kids to live according to the article below. Many know the song and dance to get benefits and do it well.

http://www.millercountyliberal.com/news/2015-08-19/Opinion/New_American_way_of_life.html

[LiveFromUkraine]

If you guys want benefits, it's best you don't marry your girl and let the government pay for her and the kids to live according to the article below. Many know the song and dance to get benefits and do it well.

http://www.millercountyliberal.com/news/2015-08-19/Opinion/New_American_way_of_life.html

Thanks Billy.  I found my new retirement plan.   

[Muzh]

That's right, include me because I have a SOH and laughed at how Slumba twisted some humor into the running feud he enjoys with you.   

I worry about your health.  You are now retired.  People in their Golden Years should learn to relax.

 


Oh, the irony.

[Muzh]

The Ragin' Rican will never relax as long as there are any non-leftists who have the temerity to speak up on the Internet.

For an attorney, who's supposed to have a vast vocabulary, that was eye-opening.

[Gator]

 


Oh, the irony.

I will match blood pressure readings with you.

[Muzh]

Add to that the job protection.  For example, someone told me the teachers unions have persuaded the African American community to reject charter schools.  And if populations decline, or technology changes, or the tax base shrinks, jobs need to be reduced.  The private sector faces that risk.  Some protection is needed as an incentive if salaries are lower than the equivalent in the private sector.  However, the best performers do not worry about job protection. 

The pensions can be rich.  A senior fire department employee can retire early and receive over $1 million in cash.

LMFAO


That's rich. I take it you never spent a day in the public sector.


Well, let me elucidate you. Public sector workers get laid off. Especially when it is time to balance the budget. I'll give you NYS example. A few years ago a governor had to balance the state budget and at the same time he was "negotiating" a new contract for public employees. His offer was a contract with no raises and an increrase in health care and pension contribution in exchange of job "security." He claimed that to balance the budget about 10K had to be laid off. The unions agreed to get the "job security" over any raises. As soon as the ink was dried on the union contracts and the state budget, the governor instituted a quarterly lay off scheme. He said he kept his promise not to lay off 10 thousand employees AT ONCE.


Also, have you ever heard of reduction through attrition?


And, did you know the majority of state employees pay into their retirement system? Pretty soon it willbe a 50-50 scheme, just like in the private sector who offer retirement plans.

[Muzh]

A neighbor lady told that she had moved her older brother into a nursing home in our area because his wife in another state was not taking proper care of him.  The wife agreed to this, of course, because now she has no duties to her husband.

I asked about the cost and if some of his costs would be paid by governments (which means we taxpayers).  She said, 'Oh no, his pension is too high . . . it is $107,000 per year'

I asked what he had done.

'Deputy Sheriff for 30 years,' she said.

I was quite surprised; even shocked.

Why are you so shocked? It is common knowledge that law enforcement has the most generous pension system. They can retire after 20 years of service, they can pad their over time right before retirement and their pension averages over $100K a year. That's with only 20 years of service.


What do you think of that? 

[Muzh]

I will match blood pressure readings with you.

Sure granpa. 124/74

[Gator]

Sure granpa. 124/74

Never varies? 



Good numbers, but not as good as mine on average.  My blood pressure improved a few years after retiring and divorcing from my clinically depressed spouse.  You would have won in my younger days.  As you settle into retirement, if possible for your soul, your numbers should come down. 

[Gator]

LMFAO


That's rich. I take it you never spent a day in the public sector.

Three months, California Dept. of Water Resources, doing mathematical modeling.  Uncle Sam terminated my service.  I was too young to know what was happening or to care.

   And, did you know the majority of state employees pay into their retirement system? Pretty soon it willbe a 50-50 scheme, just like in the private sector who offer retirement plans.

So I am now enlightened.  In my company, we had a 20% matching 401(k) plan.  Do corporations have pension plans these days? 

[Boethius]

I think you are forgetting that the states also spend a great deal; and the spending is spread across a great many programs.  There is CHIP, TANF, EITC (tax credit paid via IRS refunds), SNAP, LIHEAP, Section 8 etc.

Approximate total is $152.8 Billion USD each year.

see http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2015/the-high-public-cost-of-low-wages.pdf

The emphasis on this paper concerns those who are part of the working poor - not something I will get into - but the total amounts are given.

So divided by 325 million Americans you get roughly $500 . But about 47-49% of American pay no net income taxes ,so, it's fair to say about $1000/ year per taxpayer. 

For someone earning $40K that is 2.5% of their wages, each and every year. 

And remember that Section 8 and the many other assistance programs mean that the people on benefits end up competing for e.g. housing with the taxpayer - further increasing his or her costs.

No, I didn't forget.  I just took the total budget expenditure, but largely for non working people.  Your link is for the working poor.  What I did not include was state expenditures, as those would vary by state.

Your $500 methodology is flawed.  What an individual taxpayer would pay would depend on the rate of tax he pays to the federal government.  Remember, your tax rates are progressive. 


The average American making $40,000 a year with no dependents and no deductions (rare) pays about $4000 in federal tax.  Assuming 6% total government expenditures on "pure" welfare, which I suspect is on the high side (as it takes into account all federal programmes, and it is unlikely a recipient would be in receipt of benefits from all of them), that translates to $240 in tax contributed to those lazy welfare bums.  If we up the taxpayer to $80,000 (again, no dependents and no deductions), the share is $791 ($2.17 a day), or 0.00988 of that taxpayer's total income.

[Slumba]

  What I did not include was state expenditures, as those would vary by state.

Since it is the states that pay a great deal of the benefits, your scenario greatly understates what is paid.

[Boethius]

No, the tax liability is exactly as I posted..  Some states pay generous benefits, others don't.

Let's take Colorado as an example.  5% of the budget is used for "welfare".  Let's assume all of that is expended on non working individuals (highly unlikely).  That $40,000 taxpayer will pay $1850 in state tax.  So, the amount he is contributing to welfare is $92.50.  If he makes $80,000, he will pay $3704 in state tax, so his contribution will be $185.20.

Let's now take Idaho as an example.  Less than 1% of their budget is spent on welfare.  Lets round it up.  That $40,000 taxpayer will pay $1970 in state tax.  He will pay $19 of his state taxes to welfare.  If  he makes $80,000, he will pay $4930 in state tax, and less than $49 will be used for welfare.

These calculations are imperfect, as they do not take into account corporate taxes or, in states, sales taxes.  They also probably overestimate the welfare payments, because not all of the funds expended are for the poor, be they "welfare queens" or the working poor.

[Boethius]

LivefromUkraine had a good point about third world countries.  While not exactly "third world", let's look at Ukraine as an example.  Stray dogs roaming the cities.  They often live in graveyards.  Children and a few adults have been attacked, and some killed, by stray dogs.  Manhole covers disappearing on busy thoroughfares, sold for scrap metal.  Children as young as 8 living on the streets, or, if they are lucky, in orphanages where they are thrown out on the street with no housing, no benefits, and to just make their way when they reach the age of majority. 


Pensioners rationing water and deciding whether they will take less medication, eat something other than bread/eggs/milk, or turn on the heat in the winter, because their pensions won't cover it all.  And that is in a country where produce (fruits/vegetables) are abundant and relatively cheap.  Is that really the country you want to live in?

[Slumba]

No, the tax liability is exactly as I posted..  Some states pay generous benefits, others don't.

Let's take Colorado as an example.  5% of the budget is used for "welfare".  Let's assume all of that is expended on non working individuals (highly unlikely).  That $40,000 taxpayer will pay $1850 in state tax.  So, the amount he is contributing to welfare is $92.50.  If he makes $80,000, he will pay $3704 in state tax, so his contribution will be $185.20.

Let's now take Idaho as an example.  Less than 1% of their budget is spent on welfare.  Lets round it up.  That $40,000 taxpayer will pay $1970 in state tax.  He will pay $19 of his state taxes to welfare.  If  he makes $80,000, he will pay $4930 in state tax, and less than $49 will be used for welfare.

These calculations are imperfect, as they do not take into account corporate taxes or, in states, sales taxes.  They also probably overestimate the welfare payments, because not all of the funds expended are for the poor, be they "welfare queens" or the working poor.

No, you are still very wrong, and demonstrably wrong.  I will give 1 example.

Numbers presumed accurate from here  http://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_state_budget_and_finances

Let's say you browsed down to the heading, "Spending by function" which has a nice pie chart and a spreadsheet table showing not only CO's spending but allows you to quickly compare it to other nearby states.

Look at the footnote ...

""Other" expenditures include "Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), institutional and community care for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled, public health programs, employer contributions to pensions and health benefits, economic development, environmental projects, state police, parks and recreation, housing and general aid to local governments.""

What is CHIP?  It is the provision of free healthcare to children who don't otherwise have health insurance. 

It is not included under "welfare" nor under "Medicaid", yet it is still a Medicaid-like expense.

See http://ballotpedia.org/Medicaid_spending_in_Colorado#Children.27s_Health_Insurance_Program 

And it is not included in your calculations.  Just like there are hundreds of other such programs which are not included in the numbers you are quoting. 

Go ahead, try to find out if LIHEAP is included under "welfare" payments - this is a program which subsidizes low-income people to be able to pay their heating bills during the winter .  There is a similar one for water and sewer, and for electricity.  And while not listed under "welfare" it goes to exactly the same people (except for CHIP which has higher thresholds).


What do you think: the politicians are going to make it easy to track all the giveaways so that the taxpayers who have to pay it, can easily find out about it?

[fathertime]

Two observations from this thread:


1. It is a perfect illustration to the following quote: "When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression"
2.

I see it the same way...the pecking order is slowly changing and those formally on the top are on a more level playing field and don't like it....less entitlement.

Fathertime!

[LiveFromUkraine]

LivefromUkraine had a good point about third world countries.  While not exactly "third world", let's look at Ukraine as an example.  Stray dogs roaming the cities.  They often live in graveyards.  Children and a few adults have been attacked, and some killed, by stray dogs.  Manhole covers disappearing on busy thoroughfares, sold for scrap metal.  Children as young as 8 living on the streets, or, if they are lucky, in orphanages where they are thrown out on the street with no housing, no benefits, and to just make their way when they reach the age of majority. 


Pensioners rationing water and deciding whether they will take less medication, eat something other than bread/eggs/milk, or turn on the heat in the winter, because their pensions won't cover it all.  And that is in a country where produce (fruits/vegetables) are abundant and relatively cheap.  Is that really the country you want to live in?

Unfortunately, I really don't think some care at all.  Out of sight out of mind...  and if that doesn't work they will build up a reality that all people on welfare are lazy.   The funny thing is if they got what they want they would be crying about seeing the poverty and crime. 


There tends to be some truth to some generalizations.  The Republican generalizations are one such generalization that has some basis of truth as seen on this forum.

[Boethius]

No, you are still very wrong, and demonstrably wrong.  I will give 1 example.

Numbers presumed accurate from here  http://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_state_budget_and_finances

Let's say you browsed down to the heading, "Spending by function" which has a nice pie chart and a spreadsheet table showing not only CO's spending but allows you to quickly compare it to other nearby states.

Look at the footnote ...

""Other" expenditures include "Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), institutional and community care for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled, public health programs, employer contributions to pensions and health benefits, economic development, environmental projects, state police, parks and recreation, housing and general aid to local governments.""

What is CHIP?  It is the provision of free healthcare to children who don't otherwise have health insurance. 

It is not included under "welfare" nor under "Medicaid", yet it is still a Medicaid-like expense.

See http://ballotpedia.org/Medicaid_spending_in_Colorado#Children.27s_Health_Insurance_Program 

And it is not included in your calculations.  Just like there are hundreds of other such programs which are not included in the numbers you are quoting. 

Go ahead, try to find out if LIHEAP is included under "welfare" payments - this is a program which subsidizes low-income people to be able to pay their heating bills during the winter .  There is a similar one for water and sewer, and for electricity.  And while not listed under "welfare" it goes to exactly the same people (except for CHIP which has higher thresholds).


What do you think: the politicians are going to make it easy to track all the giveaways so that the taxpayers who have to pay it, can easily find out about it?

CHIP and LIHEAP are both funded under health.  Those, both federally and by state, are chump change.  So, round your numbers up by 1.5%, which would be more than generous.  Still a negligible contribution.


The bottom line is, do you want to live in a country like Hong Kong or India, or one like Finland, Denmark, or Norway? 

[Slumba]

CHIP and LIHEAP are both funded under health.  Those, both federally and by state, are chump change.  So, round your numbers up by 1.5%, which would be more than generous.  Still a negligible contribution.


The bottom line is, do you want to live in a country like Hong Kong or India, or one like Finland, Denmark, or Norway?

Having lost the argument by showing your lack of knowledge on this subject, you moved the goalposts again.  Note that I gave you 1 example - there are likely to be tens or even hundreds of these programs, all of which increase taxes on the tax-paying.

The origin of this discussion concerned Miquel Westano and his likely taxes.

[Boethius]

No, I noted that both the programs you mentioned are under health, and even if we increase the payments by 1% (which is very generous), you are still at about $275 in my first example. 


Really, you are talking peanuts in terms of budgetary expenditures or tax dollars.

[Slumba]

No, I noted that both the programs you mentioned are under health, and even if we increase the payments by 1% (which is very generous), you are still at about $275 in my first example. 


Really, you are talking peanuts in terms of budgetary expenditures or tax dollars.

You are just guessing at those numbers. I won't bother to dig into it but anyone who understands health care in the USA would laugh at your 1% adjustment.

[Slumba]

Getting back to the original topic, we have this:

http://www.infowars.com/hillary-clinton-sends-thank-you-letter-to-courageous-woman-who-is-proud-of-her-sexually-transmitted-disease/

"Hillary Clinton sent a thank you letter to a woman who gained notoriety for celebrating the fact that she was a “slut” and had contracted herpes, a sexually transmitted disease.

Ella Dawson obtained brief Internet fame earlier this year when she launched a campaign backed by the hashtag #ShoutYourStatus to encourage young women to embrace their STDs, arguing that there shouldn’t be any social stigma surrounding the issue.

“I’m a slut, and I have herpes. I still am a person who deserves respect,” tweeted Dawson at the time."

FEMINISM IS CANCER