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.
And it is a certainty that tax revenue will decrease if tax rates are raised. That happens every time. Historical fact. Pages 249 and 250, here: Economics - Google Books
No. That's why it has to end.
Really, a certainty? If taxes were to rise for the 98%, you may be correct. I don't know that you can say that if only the upper 2% see increases. In fact, I seriously doubt that would be the case.
That is not entirely true. I went thru the process at 58. It took about 7-8 months and was not automatically denied. It also did not require an advocate or Atty. If you have all the pertinent info, supporting Doctors evaluations and records, it is quite easy to get thru. If there is little question as to the justification, it works well.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,349 posts, read 54,490,349 times
Reputation: 40791
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Okay... more s-l-o-w-l-y this time so you'll understand... The benefits described in the minimum wage earner column are those available to single head-of-household families, hence the family of 3 instead of 4. Note the family of 4 earning $60,000 is not eligible for any of the benefits listed (in black) due to their earnings, so any claim of inaccuracy due to family size is irrelevant as the comparison of childcare cost for 2 children (in red) is consistent between the 2 columns.
The article's title may contain an error, but the facts in the chart and the analysis are accurate. Direct quote from article: "a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year."
It may contain an error? There's NO doubt it does, the question is WHERE? And why should we take the rest as gospel? Nope, ain't buyin', especially since it's unclear whether that $60K includes benefits or they just felt better ignoring what amount they might be.
It's nothing more than political blather, facts optional.
What should be more telling, is that it takes an income of $60k to escape poverty.
Actually, as the chart shows, $60k is not enough to even have at least the same amount of disposable income as a single head-of-household minimum wage earner. And people wonder why the recent poll showed that 39% believe marriage is outdated. Of course they do... they qualify for more freebie benefits as a single.
you are not informed, informedconsent. yes, it is unusual. why do you spread this propaganda? there is no way people are recieving 6000 dollars in food stamps.
And yet the Pennsylvania document I linked disproves your ridiculous claim, directly.
Really, a certainty? If taxes were to rise for the 98%, you may be correct. I don't know that you can say that if only the upper 2% see increases. In fact, I seriously doubt that would be the case.
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.
There's NO doubt it does, the question is WHERE? And why should we take the rest as gospel? Nope, ain't buyin', especially since it's unclear whether that $60K includes benefits or they just felt better ignoring what amount they might be.
