Coerced Child Support

2 views
Skip to first unread message

jeff...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 6:12:26 PM7/31/01
to
The Washington Times,
as far as I know,
is the _only_ paper
that gives a rats-ass
about "Former Dads," NCPs.
The system we have today
treats Former Dads like
sub-human slaves.
-- Jeff Relf
The Washington Times, June 17, 2001, Sunday, COMMENTARY, Pg. B5
A little-noticed commission is beginning work in Virginia that has major
implications nationwide for both families and governmental ethics. Every
four years, each state is required to review its guidelines for child
support. In Virginia, the outcome may be less remarkable than the process.

The last review in 1999 was a classic case of the foxes guarding the hen
house. The review panel was selected by the director of the state's Division
of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE), and at least 10 of the 12 members
derived income from the divorce system: two judges, four lawyers, a
feminist, an enforcement official, two custodial parents, and a legislator.
All these people have a stake in encouraging divorce and criminalizing
fathers and therefore in making child support as onerous as possible. "By
virtue of the Director of DCSE deciding its make-up, conflict-of-interest
concerns are both evident and also reflective of much larger improprieties."

The words are from the minority report of Barry Koplen, the lone
representative of parents paying court-ordered child support. A full-time
clothier, Mr. Koplen was appointed only after fundamental decisions had
already been taken and by his own account had neither the time nor the
expertise to attend to his duties. Yet he was told he would serve or no one
would.

Mr. Koplen set about to educate himself on the intricacies of the
child-support industry. The result was a scathing indictment of how powerful
interests can hijack the machinery of government not simply to line their
pockets but to seize children and use them as weapons against law-abiding
parents. Mr. Koplen accused the commission of nothing less than "criminal
wrongdoing" in jailing parents "without due process of law." He discovered a
political underworld where government officials are feathering their nests
and violating citizens' rights while cynically proclaiming their concern for
children. "This is frightening in its disregard for due process," Mr. Koplen
wrote. "The violation of constitutional rights is perpetrated by both our
courts and the DCSE."

The review process was hardly better than the system itself: "conducted in a
manner so questionable as to cast doubt on its credibility," said Mr.
Koplen. "We had been asked to blind ourselves to the illegal incarceration
of thousands of citizens in our state, to the harassment and pursuit of
parents by attorneys on loan to DCSE." By controlling this panel, judges,
lawyers, and plainclothes police are making the same laws they adjudicate
and enforce.

Perhaps most questionable is that the system used in the Old Dominion (and
some 30 other states) is largely the creation of one man, who also happens
to preside over the nation's largest private child support contractor.
Robert Williams created Policy Studies Inc., to compound the ethical
conflict, while working as a paid consultant to the Department of Health and
Human Services, which in turn imposed his system on the states. "His
company's participation in child support guideline determination and the
profit it derives from its child support collection division points to an
obvious conflict of interest," Mr. Koplen noted. "His proposal's higher
numbers meant more collections" for his company.

So why should we care about punitive burdens on divorced fathers? If they
don't want to pay child support perhaps they shouldn't have gotten divorced.

That is precisely the point: Most noncustodial parents are divorced
involuntarily and without legal grounds. The same interests represented on
the review panels can force divorce on the parents whose property they then
confiscate - for the children, of course. This makes unilateral divorce very
lucrative for all concerned. High guidelines, Mr. Koplen points out, "create
an irresistible incentive to divorce for the party most likely to be
rewarded with child custody and child support." Coerced child support, along
with forced attorneys' fees, is the financial fuel of the divorce machinery.

Academic studies by Sanford Braver, Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen, and
others confirm that the parent expecting custody usually files for divorce.
Divorcing parents can then plunder their spouses by an assortment of charges
that are "punitive and inappropriate," as Mr. Koplen puts it, and which
render them subject to "incarceration and criminalization." This "civil
rights nightmare" is perpetrated under the guise of providing for children
by the very people who are forcibly destroying their homes. The divorce
industry, in short, has turned children into cash cows.

Similar chicanery operates in other states. "The commissions appointed to
review the guidelines have been composed . . . of individuals who are
unqualified to assess the economic validity of the guidelines, or who have
an interest in maintaining the status quo, or both," writes William Akins, a
Georgia district attorney writing in the Georgia Law Journal.

This time around, the eyes of the nation will be on Virginia to see if it
will continue to enrich the divorce industry by engineering the destruction
of its children's homes.

STEPHEN BASKERVILLE

The author teaches political science at Howard University, and is a member
of the Virginia Child Support Guideline Review Panel.

Kenneth S.

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 10:02:29 PM7/31/01
to
A few days ago Steve Baskerville was told he was being kicked off the
Virginia child support advisory committee. Apparently, this article was
a major part of the reason why he was kicked off.

Bob Whiteside

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 12:41:09 AM8/2/01
to

"Kenneth S." wrote:

> A few days ago Steve Baskerville was told he was being kicked off the
> Virginia child support advisory committee. Apparently, this article was
> a major part of the reason why he was kicked off.

This kind of chicanery happens all the time. During the last review of CS
guidelines in Oregon, they held the final meeting to "unanimously approve" their
findings. Problem was they didn't tell the fathers advocate about the meeting or
invite him to attend. They prevented having to publish a dissenting opinion, and
made the process have the appearance of unanimity. Sounds like a similar thing is
happening in Virginia.


Paul R

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 10:48:18 PM8/2/01
to
What scares me is that nobody has any idea what they're really trying to
accomplish. In the end, dads will have no place in the family and so the
traditional family will cease to exist.

But at what point does it become that obvious that, since fathers play no
role in the family, they should have no responsibility? The fatherhood role
will end and with it any expectation of what a father does. That's already
happened to a large extent in the black family. The result is not utopia.
It's a ghetto.

In the end, women may find they are forced to both provide the financial
support and do all the caretaking. That already happens--and women complain.
But it won't change simply because women complain. Many wanted this result,
they got it, and now they're unhappy.

My short and sweet view on matriarchy is that's the system where women do
all the work and men fish, hunt, and play golf all day. Those are the
reasons it's always been rejected by women, who get a lot more out of
patriarchy.

Paul R

"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:3B68D9E5...@teleport.com...


______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net

Tony Dunlap

unread,
Aug 3, 2001, 9:03:45 AM8/3/01
to
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***


"Paul R" <prob...@opcnetdeleteme.com> wrote in message
news:3b6a1...@corp-goliath.newsgroups.com...


> What scares me is that nobody has any idea what they're really trying to
> accomplish. In the end, dads will have no place in the family and so the
> traditional family will cease to exist.

Maybe you answered the first sentence with the second.

> But at what point does it become that obvious that, since fathers play no
> role in the family, they should have no responsibility? The fatherhood
role
> will end and with it any expectation of what a father does. That's already
> happened to a large extent in the black family. The result is not utopia.
> It's a ghetto.

It's all about power. The more people who are dependent upon the government,
in one form or other, the stronger government will be. It is in big
government's best interest to keep most of its citizens down, leaving a few
who do really well to pay for it. That's what the liberals asked for, and
that's what they got.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 90,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

os...@techie.com

unread,
Aug 3, 2001, 10:48:55 AM8/3/01
to

"Paul R" <prob...@opcnetdeleteme.com> wrote in message
news:3b6a1...@corp-goliath.newsgroups.com...
> What scares me is that nobody has any idea what they're really trying to
> accomplish. In the end, dads will have no place in the family and so the
> traditional family will cease to exist.

Never in a million years will women stop wanting men and vice versa.
Although the family structure norm may be changing and men may no longer
dominate the rest of the family.

> But at what point does it become that obvious that, since fathers play no
> role in the family, they should have no responsibility? The fatherhood
role
> will end and with it any expectation of what a father does. That's already
> happened to a large extent in the black family. The result is not utopia.
> It's a ghetto.

That is not what is happening. Dont' you hear us insisting that fathers DO
have a place in the family, in their children's lives whether they live in
the same home or not? Perhaps our cries are drowned out by all the men here
shouting about their right to run away and forget their offspring.

> In the end, women may find they are forced to both provide the financial
> support and do all the caretaking. That already happens--and women
complain.
> But it won't change simply because women complain. Many wanted this
result,
> they got it, and now they're unhappy.

Well, shit, I've been doing all the financial support and caretaking before
I married, during my marriage, and now in life after divorce. I've NEVER
had a man take care of me although a true partnership is something I hope
for one day. All the women in my family that I can think of either do all
the work, paid AND unpaid while the men either run off or leech, or there
are a few where both parents work outside and inside the home. I don't know
any women who are living the high life off of child support or a man.

The women's movement is about equality, not getting the right for women to
do to men what men have always gotten away with doing to women in the past.

> My short and sweet view on matriarchy is that's the system where women do
> all the work and men fish, hunt, and play golf all day. Those are the
> reasons it's always been rejected by women, who get a lot more out of
> patriarchy.

Well, you could insist that fishing and hunting is work...lol. Better bring
home some protein though. Women do not get a lot more out of patriarchy,
we'd get much more out of an egalitarian society.


os...@techie.com

unread,
Aug 3, 2001, 10:51:44 AM8/3/01
to

"Tony Dunlap" <tdu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3b6a...@post.newsfeeds.com...

> It's all about power. The more people who are dependent upon the
government,
> in one form or other, the stronger government will be. It is in big
> government's best interest to keep most of its citizens down, leaving a
few
> who do really well to pay for it. That's what the liberals asked for, and
> that's what they got.

Hey, the conservatives are all about tax breaks for the rich and sticking it
to the poor and they wind up with big government too you know.

You're right, it is all about power, and greed. Obviously the rich and
powerful are benefitting from the system status quo way more than those they
purport to serve. So scapegoating the poor for the sins of the rich is
foolish.


Tony Dunlap

unread,
Aug 3, 2001, 11:35:53 AM8/3/01
to
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***


<os...@techie.com> wrote in message
news:4Uya7.19902$Ke4.11...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...


>
> "Tony Dunlap" <tdu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:3b6a...@post.newsfeeds.com...
> > It's all about power. The more people who are dependent upon the
> government,
> > in one form or other, the stronger government will be. It is in big
> > government's best interest to keep most of its citizens down, leaving a
> few
> > who do really well to pay for it. That's what the liberals asked for,
and
> > that's what they got.
>
> Hey, the conservatives are all about tax breaks for the rich and sticking
it
> to the poor and they wind up with big government too you know.

Since the rich pay most of the taxes, they SHOULD get most of the breaks.
Have you ever looked at the people who make up those richest people in
America lists, or who owns the Fortune 500 companies? The "Rich and
Powerful" mostly claim to be liberals....

>
> You're right, it is all about power, and greed. Obviously the rich and
> powerful are benefitting from the system status quo way more than those
they
> purport to serve. So scapegoating the poor for the sins of the rich is
> foolish.

.... It's these rich and power liberals who have convinced the poor liberal
sheep that they need the government to take care of them. That's why
government is so big and intrusive. The true conservative, on the other
hand, wants nothing more than for everyone to be successful, and to be
responsible for their own success.

Buzzz...@webtv.net

unread,
Aug 3, 2001, 1:04:58 PM8/3/01
to

Re: Coerced Child Support

Group: alt.child-support Date: Fri, Aug 3, 2001, 2:51pm (EDT+4) From:
os...@techie.com (<os...@techie.com>)


I totally agree ((Buzzzy-Bee))

os...@techie.com

unread,
Aug 5, 2001, 10:40:29 PM8/5/01
to

"Tony Dunlap" <tdu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3b6ac550$1...@post.newsfeeds.com...

> Since the rich pay most of the taxes, they SHOULD get most of the breaks.
> Have you ever looked at the people who make up those richest people in
> America lists, or who owns the Fortune 500 companies? The "Rich and
> Powerful" mostly claim to be liberals....

spoken like a true believer. however, the rich pay a far less percentage of
their income on tax than the poor do. and the real welfare cheats are
corporate america ripping you off and using you to perpetuate their wealth
while you beat the scapegoat for it.

http://www.mdle.com/WrittenWord/rholhut/holhut3.htm

> .... It's these rich and power liberals who have convinced the poor
liberal
> sheep that they need the government to take care of them. That's why
> government is so big and intrusive. The true conservative, on the other
> hand, wants nothing more than for everyone to be successful, and to be
> responsible for their own success.

Bull shit. You can't have wealth without hierarchy, the majority has to
slave away to feed the greed of the few at the top. capitalism is an
eternal struggle to be one of the kings of the mountain, by shoving down
your fellow man and using him. Nobody had to convince the poor they needed
government, government was there when suddenly damn near everyone was poor
and they had to think fast to avoid a mass uprising (post stock market crash
and ensuing depression years.) Now it's a poverty industry, keep a certain
amount of people down and feed off of them. The ones you should be hating
are the administrators that are getting rich off of regulating the lives of
the poor.


Edmund Esterbauer

unread,
Aug 6, 2001, 6:43:45 AM8/6/01
to
Business is the basis of the society's wealth and living standard.

The CSA S.feminazi child abusers create liability against fathers who have
risked their assets and spent their time lifting to living standards of
their families and society via employment through the production of goods
and services only to find the innumerate Stalinist feminazi in the CSA
imputing incomes at will against their businesses without even any
definition of income or any rudimentary knowledge of business operations.

These hooded criminal S.feminazi scum are not only child abusers but they
are destroying the very basis of Australia society's wealth- business, with
their Stalinist tactics and collectivisation of the population into a group
of government controlled sofa loafers.

Death to the CSA!

The S.feminazi criminals that inhabit their corridors of the CSA are child
abusers and traitors to the national interest.

<os...@techie.com> wrote in message
news:xsnb7.26568$Ke4.15...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...

Bob Whiteside

unread,
Aug 6, 2001, 9:54:48 PM8/6/01
to

os...@techie.com wrote:

> "Tony Dunlap" <tdu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:3b6ac550$1...@post.newsfeeds.com...
>
> > Since the rich pay most of the taxes, they SHOULD get most of the breaks.
> > Have you ever looked at the people who make up those richest people in
> > America lists, or who owns the Fortune 500 companies? The "Rich and
> > Powerful" mostly claim to be liberals....
>
> spoken like a true believer. however, the rich pay a far less percentage of
> their income on tax than the poor do. and the real welfare cheats are
> corporate america ripping you off and using you to perpetuate their wealth
> while you beat the scapegoat for it.

What planet are you from? Do you have any idea what a progressive tax system is
all about? I challenge you to come up with an example where a low end wage
earner pays taxes as a percentage of income anywhere near the 30+% level paid by
the so called "rich." While the high end wage earners are paying huge
percentages of their income to the federal government and the states, the low
end wage earners get tax credits that give them refunds below the zero tax
level. If a "rich person" is paying 39.5% of their incremental income to the
feds and 9-10% to the state they are paying one big tax bill and that bill in
ALL cases for people in that tax bracket is more than the lower end wage earners
make for the year.

>
>
> http://www.mdle.com/WrittenWord/rholhut/holhut3.htm
>
> > .... It's these rich and power liberals who have convinced the poor
> liberal
> > sheep that they need the government to take care of them. That's why
> > government is so big and intrusive. The true conservative, on the other
> > hand, wants nothing more than for everyone to be successful, and to be
> > responsible for their own success.
>
> Bull shit. You can't have wealth without hierarchy, the majority has to
> slave away to feed the greed of the few at the top. capitalism is an
> eternal struggle to be one of the kings of the mountain, by shoving down
> your fellow man and using him. Nobody had to convince the poor they needed
> government, government was there when suddenly damn near everyone was poor
> and they had to think fast to avoid a mass uprising (post stock market crash
> and ensuing depression years.) Now it's a poverty industry, keep a certain
> amount of people down and feed off of them. The ones you should be hating
> are the administrators that are getting rich off of regulating the lives of
> the poor.

You can't have wealth without ambition, sacrifice, and risk. Hierarchy has
nothing to do with it. Stick to your women's studies arguments and leave the
economic theory to the professionals.


Tracy

unread,
Aug 6, 2001, 11:46:30 PM8/6/01
to
On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 Buzzz...@webtv.net wrote:

> Hey, the conservatives are all about tax breaks for the rich and
> sticking it to the poor and they wind up with big government too you
> know.

Huh? Let's see... the real poor don't pay taxes because of EIC and their
low tax rate. Those just above them are paying about 15% of their income
prior to filing their taxes. People in my range are paying 33% of their
income to taxes. And it continues to go up with your income. Would you
rather see a flat tax? How much do you think it would cost the poor if we
had a flat tax? Big hint... 15% would seem small, and mine would
decrease. :-)


> You're right, it is all about power, and greed. Obviously the rich and
> powerful are benefitting from the system status quo way more than those
> they purport to serve. So scapegoating the poor for the sins of the rich
> is foolish.

Yeah right... try paying out more than $25,000 towards taxes in one year
and only receive back less than $2,000 total. When you start paying that
kind of tax, then we can talk about who is scapegoating what.

Tracy

~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ ICQ: 18737275
....................................
I believe that all humans are created equal and deserve
the same respect and dignity. Let's end hatred...

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***


os...@techie.com

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 1:34:01 AM8/7/01
to

"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message

news:3B6F4A68...@teleport.com...


>
> What planet are you from? Do you have any idea what a progressive tax
system is
> all about?

yeah, sounds good in principle but in practice the poor pay more.

> I challenge you to come up with an example where a low end wage
> earner pays taxes as a percentage of income anywhere near the 30+% level
paid by
> the so called "rich." While the high end wage earners are paying huge
> percentages of their income to the federal government and the states, the
low
> end wage earners get tax credits that give them refunds below the zero tax
> level. If a "rich person" is paying 39.5% of their incremental income to
the
> feds and 9-10% to the state they are paying one big tax bill and that bill
in
> ALL cases for people in that tax bracket is more than the lower end wage
earners
> make for the year.

states with the most regressive tax systems include my state, washington:

http://www.ctj.org/whop/whop_txt.pdf

> You can't have wealth without ambition, sacrifice, and risk.

But you can sure have ambition, sacrifice and risk with NO wealth.

> Hierarchy has
> nothing to do with it. Stick to your women's studies arguments and leave
the
> economic theory to the professionals.

fuck you.


os...@techie.com

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 1:39:21 AM8/7/01
to

"Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.33.0108062047500.1848-100000@mom...

> Huh? Let's see... the real poor don't pay taxes because of EIC and their
> low tax rate.

everyone pays sales tax, gas tax, property tax through rent, and the god
forsaken electricity and other utilities...

> Those just above them are paying about 15% of their income
> prior to filing their taxes. People in my range are paying 33% of their
> income to taxes. And it continues to go up with your income. Would you
> rather see a flat tax?

there are other taxes besides income tax tracy. and the really poor don't
get the eic. you forget about payroll tax. the rich don't have to pay that.
don't have to pay the estate tax anymore either, the bastards.

>How much do you think it would cost the poor if we
> had a flat tax? Big hint... 15% would seem small, and mine would
> decrease. :-)

that would be worse for the poor then wouldn't it. i take it you didnt'
read the links i posted on this subject last night.


> Yeah right... try paying out more than $25,000 towards taxes in one year
> and only receive back less than $2,000 total. When you start paying that
> kind of tax, then we can talk about who is scapegoating what.

you're not rich, you're middle class and you are getting screwed too. but
hey, the shit rolls down hill so go on and kick the (welfare) dog.


Bob Whiteside

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 2:02:30 AM8/7/01
to

os...@techie.com wrote:

"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:3B6F4A68...@teleport.com...
>
> What planet are you from?  Do you have any idea what a progressive tax
system is
> all about?

yeah, sounds good in principle but in practice the poor pay more.

So where is your example to show the poor pay more that I challenged you to produce?  It's time to stop the rhetoric and get realistic about what is really going on with taxes and who pays what amounts.

 

>  I challenge you to come up with an example where a low end wage
> earner pays taxes as a percentage of income anywhere near the 30+% level
paid by
> the so called "rich." While the high end wage earners are paying huge
> percentages of their income to the federal government and the states, the
low
> end wage earners get tax credits that give them refunds below the zero tax
> level.  If a "rich person"  is paying 39.5% of their incremental income to
the
> feds and 9-10% to the state they are paying one big tax bill and that bill
in
> ALL cases for people in that tax bracket is more than the lower end wage
earners
> make for the year.

states with the most regressive tax systems include my state, washington:

http://www.ctj.org/whop/whop_txt.pdf

So move to Oregon.  It's a real tax haven for the "rich" because we don't have a sales tax.  Of course, our property taxes are the highest in the west and our income tax is ranked in the top ten nationally.

 

> You can't have wealth without ambition, sacrifice, and risk.

But you can sure have ambition, sacrifice and risk with NO wealth.

I agree with that.  there is the element of luck and a good business plan that comes into play too.

 

> Hierarchy has
> nothing to do with it.  Stick to your women's studies arguments and leave
the
> economic theory to the professionals.

fuck you.

I guess this comment means you have no rebuttal to what I posted.  So much for a kinder, gentler a-c-s.  You blinked first my dear.
 

os...@techie.com

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 2:08:43 AM8/7/01
to

"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message

news:3B6F8476...@teleport.com...

> > fuck you.
>
> I guess this comment means you have no rebuttal to what I posted. So much
for a
> kinder, gentler a-c-s. You blinked first my dear.
>

no i didn't. you did:

"Stick to your women's studies arguments and leave the economic theory to
the professionals."

You obviously are not interested in debate only war. well, fuck you.


Paul Fritz

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 9:27:10 AM8/7/01
to

Bob Whiteside wrote:

> os...@techie.com wrote:
>
> > "Tony Dunlap" <tdu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> > news:3b6ac550$1...@post.newsfeeds.com...
> >
> > > Since the rich pay most of the taxes, they SHOULD get most of the breaks.
> > > Have you ever looked at the people who make up those richest people in
> > > America lists, or who owns the Fortune 500 companies? The "Rich and
> > > Powerful" mostly claim to be liberals....
> >
> > spoken like a true believer. however, the rich pay a far less percentage of
> > their income on tax than the poor do. and the real welfare cheats are
> > corporate america ripping you off and using you to perpetuate their wealth
> > while you beat the scapegoat for it.
>
> What planet are you from?

She is from the planet of "women's studies"....where there minds are filled with
this sort of crap.....For starters, the "evil"corporatations. She has no clue how
owns the corporations, nor who really pays the taxes that corporations pay.

> Do you have any idea what a progressive tax system is
> all about? I challenge you to come up with an example where a low end wage
> earner pays taxes as a percentage of income anywhere near the 30+% level paid by
> the so called "rich." While the high end wage earners are paying huge
> percentages of their income to the federal government and the states, the low
> end wage earners get tax credits that give them refunds below the zero tax
> level. If a "rich person" is paying 39.5% of their incremental income to the
> feds and 9-10% to the state they are paying one big tax bill and that bill in
> ALL cases for people in that tax bracket is more than the lower end wage earners
> make for the year.
>

Regardless, the top 1% of filers pay something like 15% of all taxes, the top 15%
pay something like 50%, and the top 33% pay almost all the taxes. I am recalling
the numbers off the top of my head, but the figures are in the ballpark.

Tony Dunlap

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 8:37:39 AM8/7/01
to
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***

"Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.33.0108062047500.1848-100000@mom...

> On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 Buzzz...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > Hey, the conservatives are all about tax breaks for the rich and
> > sticking it to the poor and they wind up with big government too you
> > know.
>
> Huh? Let's see... the real poor don't pay taxes because of EIC and their
> low tax rate. Those just above them are paying about 15% of their income
> prior to filing their taxes. People in my range are paying 33% of their
> income to taxes. And it continues to go up with your income. Would you
> rather see a flat tax? How much do you think it would cost the poor if we
> had a flat tax? Big hint... 15% would seem small, and mine would
> decrease. :-)

Tracey, there is more than just income tax. Poorer people do pay a higher
percentage of their income toward "total taxes". The solution is simple
though. Get a higher paying job.

It doesn't change anything else though.

Tony Dunlap

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 9:52:50 AM8/7/01
to

<os...@techie.com> wrote in message
news:daLb7.30200$Ke4.17...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...

>
>
> "Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
> news:Pine.WNT.4.33.0108062047500.1848-100000@mom...
>
> > Huh? Let's see... the real poor don't pay taxes because of EIC and
their
> > low tax rate.
>
> everyone pays sales tax, gas tax, property tax through rent, and the god
> forsaken electricity and other utilities...
>
> > Those just above them are paying about 15% of their income
> > prior to filing their taxes. People in my range are paying 33% of their
> > income to taxes. And it continues to go up with your income. Would you
> > rather see a flat tax?
>
> there are other taxes besides income tax tracy. and the really poor don't
> get the eic.

Another handout.

> you forget about payroll tax. the rich don't have to pay that.
> don't have to pay the estate tax anymore either, the bastards.

What makes you think the rich don't have to pay payroll tax? (you're talking
about income tax withholding from pay, right?) If they have a job, they pay
income tax on wages. If they're living off of interest and dividends, they
pay income tax on that.

Why should ANYONE have to pay an estate tax?

> >How much do you think it would cost the poor if we
> > had a flat tax? Big hint... 15% would seem small, and mine would
> > decrease. :-)
>
> that would be worse for the poor then wouldn't it. i take it you didnt'
> read the links i posted on this subject last night.

Propoganda. If the poor want those perks, then they should get un-poor.
Disabilities aside, why should anyone subsidize anyone who refuses to help
themselves? Everyone has the right to persue happiness. That implies that
you should go after it, not just sit there and wait for it to jump in your
lap.

>
>
> > Yeah right... try paying out more than $25,000 towards taxes in one year
> > and only receive back less than $2,000 total. When you start paying
that
> > kind of tax, then we can talk about who is scapegoating what.
>
> you're not rich, you're middle class and you are getting screwed too.

I see you know the first line of the Liberal Recruitment Fight Song....


Tony Dunlap

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 9:53:32 AM8/7/01
to
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***

<os...@techie.com> wrote in message
news:daLb7.30200$Ke4.17...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
>
>

> "Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
> news:Pine.WNT.4.33.0108062047500.1848-100000@mom...
>
> > Huh? Let's see... the real poor don't pay taxes because of EIC and
their
> > low tax rate.
>
> everyone pays sales tax, gas tax, property tax through rent, and the god
> forsaken electricity and other utilities...
>
> > Those just above them are paying about 15% of their income
> > prior to filing their taxes. People in my range are paying 33% of their
> > income to taxes. And it continues to go up with your income. Would you
> > rather see a flat tax?
>
> there are other taxes besides income tax tracy. and the really poor don't
> get the eic.

Another handout.

> you forget about payroll tax. the rich don't have to pay that.
> don't have to pay the estate tax anymore either, the bastards.

What makes you think the rich don't have to pay payroll tax? (you're talking


about income tax withholding from pay, right?) If they have a job, they pay
income tax on wages. If they're living off of interest and dividends, they
pay income tax on that.

Why should ANYONE have to pay an estate tax?

> >How much do you think it would cost the poor if we


> > had a flat tax? Big hint... 15% would seem small, and mine would
> > decrease. :-)
>
> that would be worse for the poor then wouldn't it. i take it you didnt'
> read the links i posted on this subject last night.

Propoganda. If the poor want those perks, then they should get un-poor.


Disabilities aside, why should anyone subsidize anyone who refuses to help
themselves? Everyone has the right to persue happiness. That implies that
you should go after it, not just sit there and wait for it to jump in your
lap.

>
>


> > Yeah right... try paying out more than $25,000 towards taxes in one year
> > and only receive back less than $2,000 total. When you start paying
that
> > kind of tax, then we can talk about who is scapegoating what.
>
> you're not rich, you're middle class and you are getting screwed too.

I see you know the first line of the Liberal Recruitment Fight Song....


Tony Dunlap

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 10:13:10 AM8/7/01
to
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***

Bob, If a rich person buys 5 gallons of gasoline, $2.00 goes to tax. Same if
a poor person buys 5 gallons of gasoline.
The same applies if each bought the same pair of blue jeans and paid sales
tax.

Sales tax
Excise tax (mostly utilities)
Gasoline tax
Auto License fees
Cigarette tax (for those who use them)

And probably many others.

These taxes are a larger percentage of the poor person's income than of the
rich person's. The poor also pay a higher percentage of their income on
necessities. That loaf of bread costs the same for rich and poor alike. So
does a doctor visit, or a package of toilet paper, etc.

But none of this means that someone deserves a handout just because they are
poor.

"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message

news:3B6F8476...@teleport.com...

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----

Brad

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 1:34:42 PM8/7/01
to
I didn't follow this thread long enough to see it turn into a debate on
taxation, which would seem to be out of place in this newsgroup. But
for anyone who may have arrived late, I think you should read the
ORIGINAL post which gives an example of what's going on in one state,
Virginia, regarding the unbelievably corrupt "child support" system.
What's happening in that state is also happening in most or all states.
Anyone who reads this and isn't outraged just isn't paying attention.

Brad

Tracy

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 11:47:56 PM8/7/01
to
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001 os...@techie.com wrote:

> "Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
> news:Pine.WNT.4.33.0108062047500.1848-100000@mom...
>
> > Huh? Let's see... the real poor don't pay taxes because of EIC and their
> > low tax rate.
>
> everyone pays sales tax, gas tax, property tax through rent, and the god
> forsaken electricity and other utilities...

You don't pay a sales tax in Oregon. Who uses more gas? Who pays more
dollars in property taxes? Etc....


> > Those just above them are paying about 15% of their income
> > prior to filing their taxes. People in my range are paying 33% of their
> > income to taxes. And it continues to go up with your income. Would you
> > rather see a flat tax?
>
> there are other taxes besides income tax tracy. and the really poor don't
> get the eic. you forget about payroll tax. the rich don't have to pay that.

The rich don't pay what type of tax?


> > Yeah right... try paying out more than $25,000 towards taxes in one year
> > and only receive back less than $2,000 total. When you start paying that
> > kind of tax, then we can talk about who is scapegoating what.
>
> you're not rich, you're middle class and you are getting screwed too. but
> hey, the shit rolls down hill so go on and kick the (welfare) dog.

Based on what Paul posted today, the federal government does indeed
consider me "rich". Now if I agree with that is another topic.

Tracy

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 11:49:28 PM8/7/01
to
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Bob Whiteside wrote:

> So move to Oregon. It's a real tax haven for the "rich" because we don't have a
> sales tax. Of course, our property taxes are the highest in the west and our
> income tax is ranked in the top ten nationally.

One of the thing we talk about at work is when you retire, you move to
Washington first. Why? Because Oregon will eat you alive with taxes.

Tracy

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 12:06:41 AM8/8/01
to
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tony Dunlap wrote:

> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***
>
>
> "Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
> news:Pine.WNT.4.33.0108062047500.1848-100000@mom...
> > On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 Buzzz...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > > Hey, the conservatives are all about tax breaks for the rich and
> > > sticking it to the poor and they wind up with big government too you
> > > know.
> >
> > Huh? Let's see... the real poor don't pay taxes because of EIC and their
> > low tax rate. Those just above them are paying about 15% of their income
> > prior to filing their taxes. People in my range are paying 33% of their
> > income to taxes. And it continues to go up with your income. Would you
> > rather see a flat tax? How much do you think it would cost the poor if we
> > had a flat tax? Big hint... 15% would seem small, and mine would
> > decrease. :-)
>
> Tracey, there is more than just income tax. Poorer people do pay a higher
> percentage of their income toward "total taxes". The solution is simple
> though. Get a higher paying job.

When I was making $18K/yr about 22% of my income went to federal, state,
SS, and medicare taxes. After property, etc taxes... it was still low
(below 25%). Since I would receive 100%, or close to it, of federal and
state taxes back after filing, the amount of taxes I actually paid would
be closer to 10%. If you add up _all_ taxes I am paying currently it
would be close to 35%. I would say that I'm paying a higher percentage
than what I did when I make below average income.

The bulk of the taxes you pay is in the form of federal and state (if
state applies). In Oregon, when you are making below the average income
with a couple of children that qualifies you for EIC, you will receive
almost all taxes paid (federal and state). Hence, eliminating the bulk of
the taxes paid.

Sorry, but someone who qualifies for EIC would have to be paying out well
over 25% of their income towards those "other" taxes to come close to what
I'm paying out every year. If they had that kind of money to waste on
gas, cigarettes, alcohol, etc... they wouldn't have an income that
qualifies for EIC. Property taxes in Oregon is about $200/month for a
house that is worth $175,000. The poor isn't going to be paying
$200/month in just property taxes. The gas tax maybe up there, but who
that is poor goes through *that* much gas in one year? I pay out about
$90/month. The same applies for cigarettes, alcohol, etc.

Tracy

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 12:18:34 AM8/8/01
to
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tony Dunlap wrote:

> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***
>
> Bob, If a rich person buys 5 gallons of gasoline, $2.00 goes to tax. Same if
> a poor person buys 5 gallons of gasoline.
> The same applies if each bought the same pair of blue jeans and paid sales
> tax.
>
> Sales tax

In Oregon we don't have a sales tax, we have income tax. Every dollar
over $50,000 is taxed at 9%, and when it is under $50K it is less. A
person who has a couple of kids and is making $25K in Oregon will receive
about 80%, or more, back after filing. A person who has a couple of kids
and is making $65K in Oregon will be lucky to see $40 after filing.
Meanwhile the person who made $65K paid over $4,000 in income tax to the
state of Oregon, and the one who made $25K paid less than $2,000. Who
paid more in terms of percentage?


> Excise tax (mostly utilities)

A person making $25K/yr typically doesn't live in a larger home than a
person making $65K/yr.


> Gasoline tax

Who uses the most gas? You think a person making $25K/yr can afford to
pay out $120+/month just for gas? The cost of a gallon of gas here is
about $1.79/gallon.

> Auto License fees
> Cigarette tax (for those who use them)
>
> And probably many others.
>
> These taxes are a larger percentage of the poor person's income than of the
> rich person's. The poor also pay a higher percentage of their income on
> necessities. That loaf of bread costs the same for rich and poor alike. So
> does a doctor visit, or a package of toilet paper, etc.

It still doesn't add up to be more (in terms of percentage) than what a
person pays in just income taxes (federal, state, SS, and medicare).

Max Burke

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 2:06:04 AM8/8/01
to
>Tracy wrote in message ...

>On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tony Dunlap wrote:

>> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***
>> Bob, If a rich person buys 5 gallons of gasoline, $2.00 goes to tax. Same
if
>> a poor person buys 5 gallons of gasoline.
>> The same applies if each bought the same pair of blue jeans and paid
sales
>> tax.
>> Sales tax

>In Oregon we don't have a sales tax, we have income tax. Every dollar
>over $50,000 is taxed at 9%, and when it is under $50K it is less. A
>person who has a couple of kids and is making $25K in Oregon will receive
>about 80%, or more, back after filing. A person who has a couple of kids
>and is making $65K in Oregon will be lucky to see $40 after filing.
>Meanwhile the person who made $65K paid over $4,000 in income tax to the
>state of Oregon, and the one who made $25K paid less than $2,000. Who
>paid more in terms of percentage?


That 9% isn't the TOTAL of the income tax you pay is it?????

Because if it is you should try living with the NZ income tax rates.....

Up to $21,000 its 22%, up to $34,000 it's 33%, Over 34,000 it's 39%. These
are the base rates....
Then we have a 15% Goods and services tax (covers *everything* you buy and
*every* service you pay for), a witholding tax on your savings, and numerous
other taxes for things like fuel for the car, road tax, fringe benefit tax,
etc, etc......

To keep the debate on topic though, Half the welfare funding that comes out
of the total tax take goes on the DPB (domestic purposes
benefit/welfare/child support)
--------------
# Expecting men to be treated fairly is not a bad lesson to teach your
children.
The problem today is that too many women want men to be responsible so the
woman don't have to be.
Paul R, A.C-S July, 2001
--
mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.

See Found Images at :
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~mlvburke


os...@techie.com

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 8:45:16 AM8/8/01
to

"Tony Dunlap" <tdu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message

news:3dfbb2766680c7c5...@spamfreenews.org...


> What makes you think the rich don't have to pay payroll tax? (you're
talking
> about income tax withholding from pay, right?) If they have a job, they
pay
> income tax on wages.

not after $65,000 they don't.

> Propoganda. If the poor want those perks, then they should get un-poor.

Oh, they'll be so relieved to hear that! why, it's just-that-easy! lol.

> Disabilities aside, why should anyone subsidize anyone who refuses to help
> themselves? Everyone has the right to persue happiness. That implies that
> you should go after it, not just sit there and wait for it to jump in your
> lap.

sigh, never mind.


os...@techie.com

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 8:47:03 AM8/8/01
to

"Tony Dunlap" <tdu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message

news:3b6f...@post.newsfeeds.com...


> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***
>
> Bob, If a rich person buys 5 gallons of gasoline, $2.00 goes to tax. Same
if
> a poor person buys 5 gallons of gasoline.
> The same applies if each bought the same pair of blue jeans and paid sales
> tax.
>
> Sales tax
> Excise tax (mostly utilities)
> Gasoline tax
> Auto License fees
> Cigarette tax (for those who use them)
>
> And probably many others.
>
> These taxes are a larger percentage of the poor person's income than of
the
> rich person's. The poor also pay a higher percentage of their income on
> necessities. That loaf of bread costs the same for rich and poor alike. So
> does a doctor visit, or a package of toilet paper, etc.

ever been to the ghetto? it all costs way more there.

> But none of this means that someone deserves a handout just because they
are
> poor.

even if they are a child? you do realize that most poor people are
children... or seniors or the disabled or the otherwise discarded from
capitalism.

os...@techie.com

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 8:47:43 AM8/8/01
to

"Brad" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3B7026DC...@verizon.net...


> I didn't follow this thread long enough to see it turn into a debate on
> taxation, which would seem to be out of place in this newsgroup. But
> for anyone who may have arrived late, I think you should read the
> ORIGINAL post which gives an example of what's going on in one state,
> Virginia, regarding the unbelievably corrupt "child support" system.
> What's happening in that state is also happening in most or all states.
> Anyone who reads this and isn't outraged just isn't paying attention.
>
> Brad

Huh? Oh, that. lol.

--
"If you can count your money, you don't have a billion dollars." - John D.
Rockefeller (1839-1937)


os...@techie.com

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 8:50:46 AM8/8/01
to

"Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message

news:Pine.WNT.4.33.0108072054320.944-100000@mom...


> On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> > So move to Oregon. It's a real tax haven for the "rich" because we
don't have a
> > sales tax. Of course, our property taxes are the highest in the west
and our
> > income tax is ranked in the top ten nationally.
>
> One of the thing we talk about at work is when you retire, you move to
> Washington first. Why? Because Oregon will eat you alive with taxes.

Yeah, but for goodness sake don't buy a house here. There was an article in
todays "The Columbian" that Washington state is the fifth highest most
expensive state to buy a house in according to the 2000 US Census. Geeze.


Tony Dunlap

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 11:33:42 AM8/8/01
to
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***


<os...@techie.com> wrote in message
news:wvac7.260$NW6.5...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...


>
>
> "Tony Dunlap" <tdu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:3dfbb2766680c7c5...@spamfreenews.org...
> > What makes you think the rich don't have to pay payroll tax? (you're
> talking
> > about income tax withholding from pay, right?) If they have a job, they
> pay
> > income tax on wages.
>
> not after $65,000 they don't.

Huh?


>
> > Propoganda. If the poor want those perks, then they should get un-poor.
>
> Oh, they'll be so relieved to hear that! why, it's just-that-easy! lol.

What are the reasons you think it isn't just-that-easy?

> > Disabilities aside, why should anyone subsidize anyone who refuses to
help
> > themselves? Everyone has the right to persue happiness. That implies
that
> > you should go after it, not just sit there and wait for it to jump in
your
> > lap.
>
> sigh, never mind.

Don't want to talk about solutions?