Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've seen that chart before, and it sure makes some very questionable assumptions. The glaringly obvious one is childcare. Apparently there is a ~$17,000 childcare subsidy, and it's essentially a "cliff" benefit that never diminishes but rather goes away entirely at ~45,000 income.
I tried looking quickly for where this amount is coming from (I mean, really? $8,500 or so in childcare per kid for free? Where and how?) and if someone can guide me to where that comes from, I'd be thrilled to see it. Take that away and the entire graph changes dramatically.
There are plenty of other issues with that graph. It includes amounts for CHIP and/or Medicaid, but the hypothetical $69,000 job apparently has pays NO medical insurance whatsoever. I don't know about you, but in my existence, jobs that pay 69K or a lot less have the employer picking up a substantial part of the medical insurance costs. You wanna go apples to apples, then that should be factored in.
Obviously, the chart has an axe to grind. Every single "welfare" type benefit is added in (and I haven't broken down all the numnbers but I'm guessing the creator was looking for one of the best scenarios from a welfare standpoint) but the hypothetical pays a salary and apparently has absolutely zero additional benefits provided by the employer. No 401K match (heck, one can argue that simply offering a 401K with no match at all is still a benefit to the employee), no employer contributions toward medical or dental, nothing at all. That it, to put it simply, a bit unrealistic.
I'll also add that in my experience (and pretty much the experience of everyone I know), people earning limited amounts of money receiving government assistance are not living the lives of Riley. Certainly there are some people who try to milk the system for everything they can, but even then it ain't welfare moms driving cadillacs or whatever the meme is.
Last, if the idea is "people don't save because of all the "welfare" benefits that make people lazy and live off the gummint", well, again, prior to social security, about half of all the elderly lived in poverty. Now, if Social security were to vanish...about half of all the elderly would be living in poverty. There are people who save and people who don't, regardless of income level or political leanings. It's certainly a bit easier to save as your income goes up, but I've known people who earn well into the six figures who can spend as quickly as they can earn, and people who earn $12/hr who manage to save decent sums all the time.
The childcare benefit comes from the taxpayers. The poor welfare mother gets free daycare and the daycare provider gets paid by the government.
The welfare mother gets food stamps
The welfare mother gets ... welfare!
The welfare mother gets medicaid
The children are educated at public schools and this cost about 14K per student
Now the welfare mother will get a 13K credit for free health care
Poor people get lots of money for free and the rich pay for it all
The childcare benefit comes from the taxpayers. The poor welfare mother gets free daycare and the daycare provider gets paid by the government.
That's my point. where is this "free daycare"? Point me to the specifics of this program! That's what I'm saying. And how does this equal ~$8,500 per kid per year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter
The welfare mother gets food stamps
The welfare mother gets ... welfare!
The welfare mother gets medicaid
Yes, yes, we all understand this. Although food stamps are (IIRC) only available for limited time frames. And as I note AGAIN, if you're going to include "medicaid" on the chart, then it should also include "employer paid health insurance" on the compensation for a higher paid job. That's just one point, THAT I ALREADY RAISED, which makes the chart questionable. All your doing is repeating basic items that don't answer the questions/issued I raised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter
The children are educated at public schools and this cost about 14K per student
You DO know that that will be the case whether she earns 29K, 69K, or 269K, right? It's not some super-extra wondrous benefit she gets just for being "poor".
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter
Now the welfare mother will get a 13K credit for free health care
Er, if they're about to get a subsidy for "free health care" (it's not "free", it's "subsidized", but never mind), then they're not getting medicaid, because they make too much to qualify for medicaid. But apparently you don't know that, because you don't know about the ACA. The ACA was going to expand medicaid coverage up to the level where the ACA would kick in and provide subsidized care (therefore making the medical assistance essentially a phased out benefit rather than a cliff benefit), but the Supreme Court ruled that that decision was up to the states and over half have decided not to do that, which ironically enough makes the sort of situation you're railing about more likely rather than less.
But rather than know about the ACA, would prefer to just rant about how
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter
Poor people get lots of money for free and the rich pay for it all
Yes, yes, those poor people, living the life of Riley off the sweat of the brow of hard working rich folks. Of course! And yes, that chart showing somebody making 29K better than someone making 69K MUST be true, even though I have yet to meet the person getting 18K in free daycare and still want to see the exact legislation that made up that part of the chart.
Yes, yes, those poor people, living the life of Riley off the sweat of the brow of hard working rich folks. Of course! And yes, that chart showing somebody making 29K better than someone making 69K MUST be true, even though I have yet to meet the person getting 18K in free daycare and still want to see the exact legislation that made up that part of the chart.
What I'm seeing now is a lot of outright, irrational hatred of the less affluent, complete with utterly ridiculous claims, distortions and outright lies. It's typical scapegoating behavior - some people aren't enjoying as much affluence as they'd like, and they fear criticizing the rich and powerful, so they take out their petty frustrations on people who's lives are far more of a struggle than their own. It's pitiful.
That's my point. where is this "free daycare"? Point me to the specifics of this program! That's what I'm saying. And how does this equal ~$8,500 per kid per year?
Yes, yes, we all understand this. Although food stamps are (IIRC) only available for limited time frames. And as I note AGAIN, if you're going to include "medicaid" on the chart, then it should also include "employer paid health insurance" on the compensation for a higher paid job. That's just one point, THAT I ALREADY RAISED, which makes the chart questionable. All your doing is repeating basic items that don't answer the questions/issued I raised.
You DO know that that will be the case whether she earns 29K, 69K, or 269K, right? It's not some super-extra wondrous benefit she gets just for being "poor".
Er, if they're about to get a subsidy for "free health care" (it's not "free", it's "subsidized", but never mind), then they're not getting medicaid, because they make too much to qualify for medicaid. But apparently you don't know that, because you don't know about the ACA. The ACA was going to expand medicaid coverage up to the level where the ACA would kick in and provide subsidized care (therefore making the medical assistance essentially a phased out benefit rather than a cliff benefit), but the Supreme Court ruled that that decision was up to the states and over half have decided not to do that, which ironically enough makes the sort of situation you're railing about more likely rather than less.
But rather than know about the ACA, would prefer to just rant about how
Yes, yes, those poor people, living the life of Riley off the sweat of the brow of hard working rich folks. Of course! And yes, that chart showing somebody making 29K better than someone making 69K MUST be true, even though I have yet to meet the person getting 18K in free daycare and still want to see the exact legislation that made up that part of the chart.
This is how federal tax policy subsidizes not local or state government services. Research NYC they have both free and subsidized service based on income or lack of. Many major local governments do. There is usually a shortage of slots.
you are correct, i was just refering to the chart.. i just saw we do have a free program here in nyc. thankfully our subsidies here is one area i know nothing about. although i bet back in the day when i was a child my parents could have qualified for quite a bit of stuff.
i grew up in a nyc housing project which we qualified for.i would think today we would have qualified for more stuff.
you are correct, i was just refering to the chart.. i just saw we do have a free program here in nyc. thankfully our subsidies here is one area i know nothing about. although i bet back in the day when i was a child my parents could have qualified for quite a bit of stuff.
i grew up in a nyc housing project which we qualified for.i would think today we would have qualified for more stuff.
Much of what people object to is local or state and not always federal. When that happens people probably need to drive in their local lanes and not try to dictate local policy elsewhere.
If every American made a conscious effort to save, wouldn't it be worse off? Wouldn't a lot of jobs be lost due to the lack of frivolous spending?
We don't need to eat out, buy new clothes, new cars, new electronics, take vacations, etc etc so wouldn't companies have to lay off more employees because business is noticeably slower? If the majority stayed within their budgetary means won't it impact employment?
If everyone quit doing these things instantly, this might be true...but that is extremely unlikely. Over time, the economy would adjust to a higher savings rate and our economy would be more stable. No more economic crashes like we had in 2008-09 (and still haven't fully recovered from) because of excess consumer debts and crazy mortgages that people can't pay back.
We would also have a smaller trade deficit or even a surplus, which would also help our economic growth rate.
If more people saved, wages might also go up, because there would be fewer people willing to work low paying jobs or jobs they hated.
Also, if people saved throughout their lives, they'd have more to spend in their retirement years. So, once again, we're talking about stabilizing spending (and our economy) over the long run.
It would also help with the inflation rate. If people save more and spend less, prices can't be raised as easily. This is especially true as it pertains to renting or owning real estate. If it becomes more normal for people to borrow less than they qualify for when taking out mortgages, home prices stay reasonable for everyone. Same idea for people who are unwilling to pay 1/3 of their gross salaries in rent.
But instead, what we do is compete with each other to see who can go broke the fastest and then we wonder why life is so stressful.
Think about the recent recessions, government leaders come out and encourage people to spend to stimulate the economy. All to often those without much heed the call and spend the little they have. Those with much or a decent amount see a buying opportunity invest and profit from the rebound. Five years later someone looks back and complains about the wealth gap increasing. Hmmmmmmmm wonder why! We even have heard the affluent being criticized for saving and not spending with government being urged to tax them and give to folks who will spend it and not save it.
Strange but true. Wow simply Wow and we wonder why the OP needed to ask.
That's federal income tax. At the risk of being a jackhole, I know all about the federal child care tax credit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
