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 don't see where it says a family of four... looks like three. And it's unlikely that a $60k income family would have deductions exceeding the standard credit.
Well, I was going by the link in the OP that said family of four. Even so, the chart's author still screwed it up. He apparently doesn't know the difference between gross income and taxable income and calculated based on a taxable income of $60K. If you assume a gross income of $60K for a family of three, the FIT plus payroll taxes would be $7705. Again, stupid mistake and everybody just takes the rest of it at face value?
And yes they might not have itemized deductions that exceed the standard deduction, but that doesn't matter for employer-provided health care premiums, FSAs, or child care because they aren't itemized deductions.
Here's what I said the last time this very same BS was posted (no need to re-write it):
Quote:
Didn't know there were two threads on this.
This article is extremely subjective and incorrect. The Medicaid, free lunch (which I doubt is going to $1800/year), Section 8 and utility assistance programs cannot be counted as disposable income since it is not income that can be saved or spent by the individual. The Medicaid amount ($16,500) is totally ridiculous in comparison to a healthcare premium. The average yearly cost for health insurance for a family is $13,770, the employee is responsible for 30% of that ($4131/year). Contrary to what the author of this article is attempting to communicate, it is not easy or fun being poor and working some hard labor minimum wage job. To think that some people want to get rid of the minimum wage, which would only result in more entitlements and subsidies. SMH This article is so biased.
For the 60K family (notice the number of children is not specified) and the minimum wage family with a single parent and three children, it assumes the average cost of childcare is $9600. That is $800/month. I suppose this is assuming that one of the children is a baby or toddler but if not, that number is unrealistic. Furthermore, the combined state and federal tax amount for the 60K family is $16,034 but they failed to subtract the child care tax credit and obviously, the family has more than one dependent. This amount in taxes is unrealistic for that income for a family with children.Obviously there are going to be some deductions and credits. The EIC is counted for the poor families but no deductions or credits are counted for the middle class family.
As for the poor families, they would not have that much disposable income when they are only receiving $170/month from TANF and $302/month from other sources and if you include the EIC,their total monthly income would be $542 cash and $526/month for food stamps. Food stamps do not pay for diapers, clothes, transportation, laundry detergent, toilet paper, etc. That would have to come out of their cash. The utility assistance program does not pay for the entire utility bill, nor does section 8 pay the entire rent. So I guess the disposable income is $542/month before bills, rent and necessities are paid. If you subtract childcare at $200/month, they are left with $342 without having paid for anyting else.
As for the minimum wage family, their section 8 subsidy cannot be more than the section 8 subsidy than the welfare recipient family. Section 8 subsidies are based on income. After taxes and with the EIC credit, they end up with $1463/month. If you subtract $800/month they end up with $663/month, before any other expenses are paid.
The middle class family, after taxes (with no credits or deductions counted), they end up with $3663.83 per month. If you subtract childcare ($800) and the same amount of food as the food stamp recipients ($526) and estimate $344/month for their health insurance premium (the cost of the average employee contribution for a family), they end up with $ 1993 left before paying for anything else. If we subtract the school lunch amount ($150/month), they still have $1843. Not hard to live on in MS where the cost of living is low.
Also, based on the logic of the author and OP, employer contributions to health insurance should also be included in their phony definition of disposable income but are not That would add another $9639 to the 60K. I don't know about the rest of you, but the company I work for offers a variety of perks such as fitness club reimbursement (I received $300 toward my gym fee), bonuses, discounts on appliances made by the company (I work in the healthcare IT field but for a very large company which is often discussed here), discounts on airfare, hotels, rental cars, software, 401K payment matching (which actually is disposable income), they also pay for lunch quite a bit as well...I could go on but the point is, according to the author and OP, that could count as disposable income. So 60k is is not usually 60K. Again, being poor is not easy nor fun.
Do you people ever tire of posting the same things over and over again? A person on government assistance does better than someone making 60K/year, there is always a minority in the grocery store that uses an EBT card, has a handicap sticker and drives off in a luxury vehicle, blacks voted for Obama because they want free stuff, liberals are jealous of the rich and want to take their money, and 47% of the population are takers.
This assumes that every single person who receives SNAP also receives a housing subsidy which is absolutely not the case.
Based on just that fallacy alone, I'd say this is a failed premise.
No, it doesn't assume anything. It merely projects a scenario in which poor people can (and do) have as much disposable income as that of a person making $60,000.
I'll remind you that government estimates are always based on the "what if" and the "could happen," otherwise those estimates would be a fallacious and lead to underfunding and/or lack of sufficient resources.
That post is a fabrication. He inflates numbers, invents figures. He is a liar. First of to qualify for snap in Mississipi a mother of 2 children would have to make less than $8,500. So that benefit is not even available.
Secondly, the medicaid and chip costs are just made up. He takes what it would cost a family to buy private insurance and then adds a whole bunch of other figures to come up with that ridiculous number, but understand families on medicaid are not getting $16,000 a year in medical expense like he implies.
Plus he forgets that most people get their insurance through their employers and it is subsidized by the government.
Not to mention that the person making 60,000 is likely to own a home, which is another tax benefit, is likely to have a 401k which is another tax benefit, their whole gross income will not be taxed.
As thinking people we got to do better, if you really believe that any person would be better off being a single mom making 14,500 a versus making 60,000 you are in fantasyland.
Conservatives are liars who chain email each other made up bs posts about how its better to be making 14,500 a year instead of 60,000 and they BELIEVE this shyt. Just so they can feel persecuted or cheated by the system.
This is all you need to understand how hateful and disgusting and dishonest conservatives are.
You have to be one sick **** to believe that bs.
I'll say this to all the dumb f c ks who believe that chart of fiction. Go live on 14,500 and tell us about how great it is.
Based on this, the people who ought to be ticked off are the family earning $30,000, you know, the ones earning $14-15 bucks an hour in a one income family - or minimum wage in a two income family. They are the ones have the least disposable income. If this chart is accurate, we need kind of need to fix that.
Very few, because able-bodied adults do not qualify if they have meaningful iincome.
That's the big question. "IF" they don't have the income, but they do have children and/or qualify as head of household, then it's entirely possible that that person could have as much disposable income as a person with meaningful income. And that's the point of the OP....it could....and undoubtly does....happen.
Whether the chart is completely accurate or not I believe is irrelevant because somewhere there are states that at least somewhat engender the overall meaning of the chart......which is that our progressive tax and entitlement systems are badly broken.
The biggest welfare system of all is the absurdly low tax rate on dividends and interest. This income is just as spendable as any other but, is also far more valuable, because the recipients do hat have to spend any time or work obtaining this income. All they have to do is never touch the principal. This income should be added to all the rest and taxed at that rate.
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.
The big welfare system
