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 reason we were considered the greatest nation is because we had a lot of doers and producers. Now people think that because they live in this country they are automatically entitled to riches, other people's money.
Ok, let's try this. 100% of 1040 filers will be required to pay 10% of their income in federal income tax. A worker earning $20,000 a year will owe $2,000. Do you honestly believe that even a Republican majority administration is going to tell that worker to suck it up and live on $18,000 a year? I am pretty sure they won't. They will most likely add in a new EITC of $2000 to make up for the tax they are paying, which basically means the feds will take the tax from them with one hand and give it back with the other, right? And remember, EITC was a Republican idea and as far as I can tell they still advocate for it. I don't see a way to extract income tax from people who are that poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
I don't have a problem with that.
great, so we take $2,000 and give it back..you didn't intentionally cut out everything in my post except the first sentence did you?
The reason we were considered the greatest nation is because we had a lot of doers and producers. Now people think that because they live in this country they are automatically entitled to riches, other people's money.
Are you sure we are still considered 'the greatest nation'?
"We’re 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force and number four in exports. We lead the world in only three categories. Number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real and defense spending..."
Unless you are living in a shack with no running water or utilities, you are NOT living in poverty. If you had food in the last 12 hour, you are NOT living in poverty.
well thank you for redefining the definition of poverty and might you tell us how you arrived at that, did it come to you in a dream?
Guess who is having kids? Poor people and immigrants.
And the stats are likely messed up where kids "in poverty" are in such a place because there aren't two people in the household. Single parents = not as much income and resources.
And don't we all know those people who HAVE kids, maybe even live together, but officially, are not married and don't combine resources on paper so as to have access to government assistance? I have a family member like that.
That doesn't detract from the fact that the US is bottom of the league table.
There are plenty of poor kids in other countries like Estonia, once ruled by the Soviet Union where living standards are far worse than the US, yet they still manage to achieve far better results than a rich country like the US.
Last edited by Xircal; 05-15-2015 at 08:50 AM..
Reason: corrected spelling mistake
Are you sure we are still considered 'the greatest nation'?
"We’re 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force and number four in exports. We lead the world in only three categories. Number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real and defense spending..."
Guess who is having kids? Poor people and immigrants.
And the stats are likely messed up where kids "in poverty" are in such a place because there aren't two people in the household. Single parents = not as much income and resources.
And don't we all know those people who HAVE kids, maybe even live together, but officially, are not married and don't combine resources on paper so as to have access to government assistance? I have a family member like that.
that was quite the convoluted sentence, but I think you are saying that Dads are actually participating in the family but mom is denying that because his income would mean that she is ineligible for welfare, right? I think that happened 40 plus years ago when the presence of a the father (working or not) could disqualify the family from benefits. But the way it works now is that the County gets a support order for up to 60% of the absent parent's gross income and uses that to reimburse themselves for welfare costs. If Dad has no reportable income the family would get a larger benefit by counting him as a family member
That doesn't detract from the fact that the US is bottom of the league table.
There are plenty of poor kids in other countries like Estonia, once ruled by the Soviet Union where living standards are far worse than the US, yet they still manage to achieve far better results than a rich country like the US.
The link you posted from Washington Post compares "relative" child poverty.
Which means the children live in households making less than half the national median. So right off the bat the metrics are not an equal playing field.
It also means absolutely ZERO about how those kids that live "in poverty" are fairing, or what programs and assistance exists to help those kids in poverty. Food assistance, housing assistance, etc. Do they have electricity? Clothes? TV/Cable? Video games?
The majority "in poverty" are not destitute and on the street. Though that does of course exist in tragic ways.
And yes, it matters that the children in poverty metric is based on a registered "household"... because unless one of the parents are dead, incarcerated, etc., then there's nothing "America" can do to make people pool their resources and raise their kids together. Single parents raising kids are as low as 16% for some groups, to a high of 67%.
I don't know what the stats in Estonia are for that sort of thing, do you?
That is HUGE. If just two parents, both working minimum wage, are together in a home, they would make enough to NOT qualify as "in poverty" if they had two kids.
that was quite the convoluted sentence, but I think you are saying that Dads are actually participating in the family but mom is denying that because his income would mean that she is ineligible for welfare, right? I think that happened 40 plus years ago when the presence of a the father (working or not) could disqualify the family from benefits. But the way it works now is that the County gets a support order for up to 60% of the absent parent's gross income and uses that to reimburse themselves for welfare costs. If Dad has no reportable income the family would get a larger benefit by counting him as a family member
It still happens.
Also, the metric used in the study that is the premise of this thread does not say if it takes into account households where the parents are divorced or separated, but child support (Which is NOT income) is at play in the equation.
Bottom line: It seems rich people and Poorer people have the most kids in the United States. It's the way it is these days. Middle class people have 1-2.
The reason we were considered the greatest nation is because we had a lot of doers and producers. Now people think that because they live in this country they are automatically entitled to riches, other people's money.
Except for the people who know how to work the tax system, other peoples money means "every one's".
"The first step in solving a problem is recognizing there is one. We're not the greatest nation in the world any more." HBO Newsroom, opening scene.
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.
