Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12

[Patagonie]

Every state decides what is fair and equitable. In my case, I sued for divorce and custody of my children. I ended up with primary custody (meaning I was in charge of their well being) of my kids. Since we bought the house a month before we married, I paid her for half the equity on the house. I didn't pay any alimony and I was a very good guy, I didn't ask for child support. 

You were a too much good guy, you should have ask her to pay some child support, no excuse for girl to not be involved in the custody, as men (considering that the childs are from their blood and they have not been raped for their sperm).

[Patagonie]

I actually agree with slumba (and we rarely agree) but I would amend his statement to "3rd wave feminism is cancer". Feminism had its time and place and did some good for women at one point. Now, things are tilting in the opposite direction and men are the people on the losing side. Feminists say they are for equality but we passed equality for women a long time ago. If you truly want equality, start fighting for the boys and men.

There are probably some little things to solve as more women in politics, and equal wage for equal position, qualification, time worked and seniority but now it's time to stop the hammering on men and stop the global hypocrisis.

[Miquel Westano]

Sure thing, as soon as you give up Medicare and buy private health insurance or pay your own money for your healthcare. I do not feel like paying for some old angry white dude's medical care from my own taxes, especially since Medicare is not likely to be in place when I retire.

I don't get Medicare or social security yet.  But if you are worried about them, vote Republican since the democrats like to take that money and give it to people who have never paid any taxes.

BTW, nice racial shot at me.  What does being white have to do with anything?  Why are libs the ones on here always bringing up race?

[mhr7]

There are probably some little things to solve as more women in politics, and equal wage for equal position, qualification, time worked and seniority but now it's time to stop the hammering on men and stop the global hypocrisis.

Fewer women run for office, it's their choice. In America we have a law that guarantees equal position=equal wage.  Honestly, for the last several decades women have been coddled and catered to but they still complain.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Maybe, but the point is, I do pay.  I have no problem with those you refer to as WORKING together.  I have a problem with those who don't work, but want stuff for free.  And a bigger problem with people who want to tell me I owe someone else something.  Especially for some supposed privilege. 

I just don't get people like you.  If you want to give the supposedly oppressed 100% of your money out of some guilt you feel go ahead.  But why do you feel you have any right to judge what I want to do with my money?  I didn't oppress anyone, don't owe anybody anything, and have never taken a penny from the government in the form of welfare or any kind of aid.  When I lost my job in the eighties, I got off my butt and started a business.  When I needed money to build it, I worked nights.  If I can do it, so can anyone else.

People like me? I haven't said you oppressed anyone.   I have no guilt whatsoever.  You have some more broad strokes flying right now.  All welfare recipients are parasites.


You have tunnel vision when it comes to this.  You pay very little in the grand scheme of things.  You take much more than you give. You should feel lucky many of us do pay taxes otherwise you wouldn't be living so well.


I suggest you spend some time in a 3rd world country to get a better perspective on things.  You won't be able to escape the poverty no matter how much money you have.  The poverty is everywhere and it's not a place I would want to live.  Stepping over people sleeping on sidewalks.  Smell of defecation while you take a taxi.  Seeing kids bath out of pots that is also used for cooking.  That could be America if it wasn't for our social safety nets. 

I can hear you now... "Damn kids bathing out of a pot.  Why can't they do that behind the bush so I can't see them!" 

I and many others don't want to live in a place like that.  I'm not going back and forth with you on this again.  You are only out to help yourself.  Muzh is right in his assessment. That is something you will have to deal with when your time on this earth is done.

[Larry1]

You have tunnel vision when it comes to this.  You pay very little in the grand scheme of things.  You take much more than you give. You should feel lucky many of us do pay taxes otherwise you wouldn't be living so well.

How can you possibly know what MW has paid in taxes over his lifetime and has received in gov. benefits?

[LiveFromUkraine]

How can you possibly know what MW has paid in taxes over his lifetime and has received in gov. benefits?

Miquel has said he wasn't even close to being rich.  If he is using our infrastructure, he has gotten out much more than he paid in.  I was pretty clear about it in other posts.  Our taxes are not used only for welfare which was my main point.   

[Gator]

I know you suffer from reading comprehention (as in if it doesn't mesh with your preconcive notions, it doesn't exist) so you should (and Gator too) read it again and see it describes you (and Gator too) to a tee. 

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.

[Larry1]

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.

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

[Slumba]

Miquel has said he wasn't even close to being rich.  If he is using our infrastructure, he has gotten out much more than he paid in.  I was pretty clear about it in other posts.  Our taxes are not used only for welfare which was my main point.

Without a great deal of number-crunching you don't really have a way to measure it.  You would have to know his employment history, whether or not he ran a business that charged sales taxes, etc.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Without a great deal of number-crunching you don't really have a way to measure it.  You would have to know his employment history, whether or not he ran a business that charged sales taxes, etc.

No need to number crunch.  It's common sense.  You really think the sum of Miquel's taxes paid for all the roads he uses among other things?  Not to mention the upkeep.


I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise.   

[Slumba]

No need to number crunch.  It's common sense.  You really think the sum of Miquel's taxes paid for all the roads he uses among other things?  Not to mention the upkeep.


I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise.

OK so let's say that MW is an owner-operator of an 18 wheeler making $40K a year (he isn't, and I don't know his earnings).

You would say, "It's common sense" except that each 18-wheeler on the road pays in the neighborhood of $20-25K a year in Federal highway and fuel taxes, before the driver even pays taxes on his resulting income. 

Like I said, you don't actually know enough to know.

[LiveFromUkraine]

OK so let's say that MW is an owner-operator of an 18 wheeler making $40K a year (he isn't, and I don't know his earnings).

You would say, "It's common sense" except that each 18-wheeler on the road pays in the neighborhood of $20-25K a year in Federal highway and fuel taxes, before the driver even pays taxes on his resulting income. 

Like I said, you don't actually know enough to know.

How many roads would that 20 to 25k build and maintain compared to what that trucker is using in your example?   Not to mention that trucker wouldn't have a job if the infrastructure wasn't in place.


We are able to have a higher standard of life because we pool our resources as a group.  We elevate each other.  We would have only a fraction of what we use today if we relied only on ourselves.

[Slumba]

How many roads would that 20 to 25k build and maintain compared to what that trucker is using in your example?   Not to mention that trucker wouldn't have a job if the infrastructure wasn't in place.


We are able to have a higher standard of life because we pool our resources as a group.  We elevate each other.  We would have only a fraction of what we use today if we relied only on ourselves.

The issue is not doing something productive, but instead rewarding the unproductive at the expense of the productive. Not sure why you can't see this ....

[LiveFromUkraine]

The issue is not doing something productive, but instead rewarding the unproductive at the expense of the productive. Not sure why you can't see this ....

The issue is most of us put in very little compared to the benefits we receive.


What it comes down to is worrying about someone else getting a better deal.   It's the same mentality I find when there is discussions about lowering taxes.  People will still complain about rich people paying lower taxes even if their taxes are lowered as well.  I don't get the mentality.


Anyway, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't see what you're saying. 


I don't agree with how you and Miquel look at people on welfare.  I think most people would rather work and take care of their own.  I don't think most want handouts.   Sure, as in everything, a small group will try and play the system. 


All I can say is you and Miquel better get used to it.  The jobs aren't there and what is there is being taken over by automation.   I could agree with your outlook on welfare recipients if there were good paying jobs they could get simply by walking into a shop.   Those days are gone and have been for awhile now.


If you don't take care of the people who need help they will find what they need in less desirable ways.  I, personally, would rather not live behind walls, own a bunch of guns and worry about who is trying to take my stuff.  Just look at Chicago now if you think what I am saying is unrealistic.   

[Slumba]

I don't agree with how you and Miquel look at people on welfare.  I think most people would rather work and take care of their own.  I don't think most want handouts.   Sure, as in everything, a small group will try and play the system. 


All I can say is you and Miquel better get used to it.  The jobs aren't there and what is there is being taken over by automation.   I could agree with your outlook on welfare participants if there were good paying jobs they could get simply by walking into a shop.   Those days are gone and have been for awhile now.


If you don't take care of the people who need help they will find what they need in less desirable ways.  I, personally, would rather not live behind walls, own a bunch of guns and worry about who is trying to take my stuff.  Just look at Chicago now if you think what I am saying is unrealistic.   

I think that multi-generation welfare takers are direct evidence of "most don't want handouts" as being specious and poorly supported as an argument.  When nearly 37% are multi-generation recipients... 

"Welfare promotes intergenerational dependence -- 29.3 percent of recipients had parents who received welfare as children and a remarkable 7.5 percent are third-generation recipients. "

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=3844

This off-topic stuff gets into side issues like illegal immigration, etc.   Not about "Why we stopped dating AW"

[LiveFromUkraine]

I think that multi-generation welfare takers are direct evidence of "most don't want handouts" as being specious and poorly supported as an argument.  When nearly 37% are multi-generation recipients... 

"Welfare promotes intergenerational dependence -- 29.3 percent of recipients had parents who received welfare as children and a remarkable 7.5 percent are third-generation recipients. "

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=3844

This off-topic stuff gets into side issues like illegal immigration, etc.   Not about "Why we stopped dating AW"

You're taking a stat and making assumptions on why generations are on welfare.  In your world, they want to be on welfare and that stat says so.  In my world, they are stuck in a cycle and it's extremely difficult for any person to rise above their economic class.  Especially when you're on the lower rungs economically. 


I agree, we are off topic and probably should either discuss this in a different thread or the mods (apologies for the additional mod work) can move it.

[Boethius]

The next step is normally a dying society by not renewing enough the population, or in Europe with the number of muslims increasing fastly, the new society could become ruled by the Coran for a large part. Surprise surprise for women's rights.
As we have seen in Canada (Bo, stop me if i am wrong, not in all states? Or in all states?) the government already forces men to halve their assests as soon as they have a children. The next step could be to force them to have a baby, even is they don't want one.
It's purely and simply a totalitarian regime.

No, this is inaccurate.  In Canada (we have provinces, not states), there are two distinct ways income is distributed on divorce:

1.  Matrimonial property settlement - This is determined by provincial law.  There are a few differences by province, but in general terms, on divorce, all of the assets and all of the debts accumulated during the marriage will be split 50/50.  Any assets the parties owned before marriage are not subject to that division.  Any increase in the value of assets during marriage, even of assets owned before marriage, are split 50/50.  Prenuptial agreements typically are intended to cover these assets (the assets owned before marriage, so that nothing from those assets is split 50/50), although some prenuptial agreements delineate all assets, no matter when acquired.

So, no, a man will not lose 50% of his assets, unless he came into the marriage with nothing; and

2.  Child Support - This is determined by federal legislation.  There are tables which determine how much child support is paid.  Since most women work, they are also paying that child support.  So, if a man makes $100,000 a year, and his wife makes $60,000 a year, and they have joint custody of 1 child, the father would pay $868 a year in my province, and the mother would pay $500.  So, the father would pay the mother $368 a month.  On a salary of $100,000, assuming the father is an employee (not self employed), he would be taking home, after tax/pension/employment insurance, $6200 (rounded down).  Rent or mortgage - $1500 per month, food (assuming he eats out at lunch), $600 per month (that is very generous - I spend $200 a week on groceries for four people), vehicle (payment, gas, insurance) $500 per month, utilities (averaged for the year) $300 per month, property taxes for house $300 per month.  So, he still has significant discretionary income.  If that couple had 3 children, his share would jump to $1,866 and the wife's would be $1,130, for a net of $736, which would still leave him with over $2,000 a month in discretionary income. 

If the man made $50,000, with 3 children, his payment would be $942 per month, and $405 per month for one child.

For those making over $150,000 annually, amounts paid are at the top of the scale, and additional child support is as agreed, or as determined by a judge.  The test is to give the children as much of the lifestyle as they had before the parents separated.

Alimony is only paid if the one of the parties is not working, and it is intended to provide him/her with income until he/she obtains training.  It is limited in scope, usually 4 or 5 years.  If the parties both worked, or have skills, then alimony is not paid.

Most couples decide whether or not one will stay in the home.  Typically, they will if they have children, for the stability of the children.  If there are no children, then the home is sold and the proceeds therefrom split.  One party can buy the other's shares, and that also happens often.

[Boethius]

Women debating on why men do or did things would be as silly as me
explaining the difficulties of carrying a child in the eighth month of pregnancy.
I could certainly explain it to a child but, explaining it to a woman who had
previously experienced this would be sort of ridiculous.

The women here are not debating why men did certain things.

[Boethius]

The issue is most of us put in very little compared to the benefits we receive.

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.

[LiveFromUkraine]

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. 

There are plenty of people who will stay awake at night thinking about that 250.   

[ML]

There are plenty of people who will stay awake at night thinking about that 250.   

Money growing at 10% a year will double roughly every 7 years.

So at the end of 50 years, that $250 could grow to $29,348.  Something to think about at night.

Now let's look at a new $250 added each year and compounded at 10% for 50 years.  The ending sum would be $291,000.

Unrealistic you say . . . the 10% and 50 years.

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

[Miquel Westano]

We are able to have a higher standard of life because we pool our resources as a group.  We elevate each other.  We would have only a fraction of what we use today if we relied only on ourselves.

Except the people I am talking about don't pool.  They just use.  You are a typical lib.  You take my point and try to redefine it.  I never said a word about people who work and pay taxes not being deserving of infrastructure.  I said people who never pay in don't deserve to live off me. 

BTW, while I am no where near rich, I am also no where near poor.  I have also been employed my entire life, am a real estate owner of both personal and commercial real estate and an owner of several motor vehicles and a couple of boats.  I pay plenty in taxes. 

[LiveFromUkraine]

Except the people I am talking about don't pool.  They just use.  You are a typical lib.  You take my point and try to redefine it.  I never said a word about people who work and pay taxes not being deserving of infrastructure.  I said people who never pay in don't deserve to live off me. 

BTW, while I am no where near rich, I am also no where near poor.  I have also been employed my entire life, am a real estate owner of both personal and commercial real estate and an owner of several motor vehicles and a couple of boats.  I pay plenty in taxes.

lol  I must be the only "lib" voting for Trump.  What a comeback!  Hilarious.  Better to be a lib than some old crusty fake Christian who cares more about his motor vehicles and boats.  Be honest, that $250 got you riled up. 

[Gator]

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.

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.