Coerced Child Support
jeff...@my-deja.com
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.
Virginia child support advisory committee. Apparently, this article was
a major part of the reason why he was kicked off.
Bob Whiteside
"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
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
"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
> 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
"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
<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
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
> 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
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
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
> 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
"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
"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
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:
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
"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
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
"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
<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 $2,000 total. When you start paying
that
> > kind of tax, then we can talk about who is scapegoating what.
>
> you're not rich, you're middle class and you are getting screwed too.
I see you know the first line of the Liberal Recruitment Fight Song....
Tony Dunlap
<os...@techie.com> wrote in message
news:daLb7.30200$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
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
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
> "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
> 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
> *** 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
> *** 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
>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
"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
"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
"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
"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
<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?
Auntie Mame
says...
>
>
>
>"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.
>
income taxes mixed up again. They only deduct FICA
(aka Social Security) up to a maximum dollar amount.
State and federal taxes and everything else you have
deducted keeps on being withheld with no end in sight.
Bob Whiteside
Tony Dunlap wrote:
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***
>
> Bob, If a rich person buys 5 gallons of gasoline, $2.00 goes to tax. Same if
> a poor person buys 5 gallons of gasoline.
> The same applies if each bought the same pair of blue jeans and paid sales
> tax.
>
> Sales tax
> Excise tax (mostly utilities)
> Gasoline tax
> Auto License fees
> Cigarette tax (for those who use them)
>
> And probably many others.
>
> These taxes are a larger percentage of the poor person's income than of the
> rich person's. The poor also pay a higher percentage of their income on
> necessities. That loaf of bread costs the same for rich and poor alike. So
> does a doctor visit, or a package of toilet paper, etc.
>
> But none of this means that someone deserves a handout just because they are
> poor.
Meanwhile back in a-c-s . . . When a father pays taxes on a large portion of his
income and sends the post tax amount to the mother as CS he has paid the vast
majority of the taxes on that money. Using the same logic, fathers pay more for
taxes than mothers as a percent of total income and of disposable income.
Therefore, taxes are more regressive for men than for woman. It costs a father
more to buy food, gasoline, utilities etc. for his children than it costs the
mother. Thus CS should be reduced to account for this unequal tax burden based
on gender.
Tony Dunlap
<os...@techie.com> wrote in message
news:bxac7.261$NW6.5...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
>
>
> "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.
Examples?
>
> > 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.
Green bandaids are only postponing the problems, not fixing them.
os...@techie.com
"Tony Dunlap" <tdu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3b71608f$1...@post.newsfeeds.com...
> > not after $65,000 they don't.
>
> Huh?
There is a wage cap on social security payroll tax, it used to be $65,000 a
year but now it's up to $80,400 after that you don't pay payroll tax on
whatever amount is over that.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/CBB.html
> What are the reasons you think it isn't just-that-easy?
Do I have to repeat myself? There are so many reasons why the rich get
richer and the poor get poorer, not the least of which is that wealth is
inherited and unfortunately so is poverty. Go read that book, "what the
rich teach their kids about money that the poor and middle class do not" and
it takes money to make money. It also takes a strong economy, low
unemployment rate and supportive services like daycare and healthcare and a
living wage. And that's if you've managed to find a place to live so you
have an address and phone number to put on your resume and overcome any
disabilities or substance abuse or domestic violence issues. So many bars
to the cage of poverty.
> Don't want to talk about solutions?
I do, I really do. If I didn't I wouldn't be here investing this much time
and effort into these issues. But for those who insist there is no problem,
no inequality, how do we ever begin to find solutions?
os...@techie.com
"Tony Dunlap" <tdu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3b71...@post.newsfeeds.com...
Go there and see for yourself, or look 'em up in the phone book and call
them and ask how much for milk, bread and gas. It costs more in the 'hood
but if you think about it, imagine their cost of doing business there, like
insurance. Would you want to insure them?
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Green bandaids are only postponing the problems, not fixing them.
I agree that "the system" is not really fixing the problems of poverty. I
think it is merely shuffling money around, mostly into the hands of the
administrators and legislators who regulate the lives of the poor. It is
very hard to escape poverty and it is shameful and misguided to shame those
who are trapped in it.
ishka bibble
grocery stores in poor neighborhoods do in fact charge (overall) more for items.
milk will run you about 50 cents to a dollar more just as an example. simple
supply and demand. people without cars (for cities) and people in rural areas
are relegated to shop where shopping is available.
Paul Fritz
ishka bibble wrote:
That transportaion issue is only part of the equation, there is is the supply
shortage because less people want to take the risk of doing business in those
areas. Secondly, the is the cost of doing business.....urban areas typically have
highe tax rates, high losses due to theft, also the big chains don't operate there
as often for those reasons, the mom an pop shops cannot buy in large enough
quanities to get the huge wholesale discounts, rural areas have higher shipping
costs as well.
Bob Whiteside
os...@techie.com wrote:
You are right, the prices are higher in the 'hood. The biggest problems they
face is shoplifting and other thefts. The Safeway on North Interstate in
Portland closed several years ago because of the losses. They made attempts to
get the citizens and community leaders involved to reduce the losses so they
could reduce the prices back to normal and/or not have to close down. Nothing
worked, so they closed the store. A few bad apples caused the entire community
to lose the convenience of having a store nearby.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Green bandaids are only postponing the problems, not fixing them.
>
> I agree that "the system" is not really fixing the problems of poverty. I
> think it is merely shuffling money around, mostly into the hands of the
> administrators and legislators who regulate the lives of the poor. It is
> very hard to escape poverty and it is shameful and misguided to shame those
> who are trapped in it.
So how would you do it differently if you were in charge?
Tracy
> "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.
If you are talking about Social Security tax, you are mistaken. The roof
on just SS (6.2%) is $80,400, but medicare (1.45%) doesn't have a roof.
Tracy
> >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?????
No, just for Oregon's income tax. There is Federal income tax, social
security, and Medicare. Then on top of that there is the little taxes
like gas, utilities, etc... oh, and of course property, but I don't pay
that directly since I rent right now.
> 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......
People in NZ have it much worse than the US. I posted in another thread
that I probably spend 35% of my income just on taxes.
> 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)
Half? Wow... that is a lot! I'm not totally sure how much of our taxes
are going to welfare type benefits. Maybe someone has already stated how
much. If not, I'll try to dig it up.
Tracy
That strictly depends on where you purchase your house. Near Seattle it
is more, but near my older sister it isn't more expensive than what I'm
use to. It is actually cheaper. The homes around me range from $145K to
$2M. The "average" is around $350K with about 2,800 sq ft and sitting on
a 7,000 sq ft lot.
Tracy
>
>
> "Tony Dunlap" <tdu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:3b71608f$1...@post.newsfeeds.com...
> > > not after $65,000 they don't.
> >
> > Huh?
>
> There is a wage cap on social security payroll tax, it used to be $65,000 a
> year but now it's up to $80,400 after that you don't pay payroll tax on
> whatever amount is over that.
A year ago it was $76,200. It hasn't been $65,000 for quite a few years
now.
On top of that... making $80,400/yr isn't rich.
Tony Dunlap
(I meant this for the other night, but for some reason it didn't go out.)
<os...@techie.com> wrote in message
news:xsnb7.26568$Ke4.15...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
>
> "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.
So? What do you want to do, make other taxes tax vary with income? I know.
Let's
also charge rich people $1000 for a loaf of bread. Somebody can run faster
than
you, so you want to cut his feet off so the race will be "fair".
> 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.
Most of corporate america is owned by liberal democrats. Small buisness and
farms are where you will find most of the conservative replublicans.
IMO, a lot of small business are better than a few big ones.
>
> 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.
Do you truly believe that? That the only way to get ahead is by
maliciousness and cruelty and taking advantage of the less fortunate? If
this is some personal experience of yours, I'm truly sorry, but I don't
believe it is typical.
> 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 government can feed off someone without necessarily impoverishing them.
A BIG government can do it to more people, and it MUST do so, in order to
survive. Few divorces meant fewer court, and child support agencies would be
needed. So just change the law to make it easier to divorce. People take the
bait, divorce, pay child support, and the government must grow to take
care of the increased caseloads and hire more police to arrest the
juveniles-turn-criminals-because-there-is-no-longer-two-parents-in-the-home
that turn out bad because of the government's own policies.
It is the government that is the enemy. Both sides of the aisle. The
liberals, and the liberals that call themselves conservatives.
> The ones you should be hating
> are the administrators that are getting rich off of regulating the lives
> of the poor.
I don't hate anyone at the moment (I've had 3 or 4 brief flashes of it in my
life though, and I hated the feeling every time).
Kenneth S.
and ultimately reverse, the breakdown of family life in the U.S.
Single-parent (i.e. fatherless) families are very closely associated
with poverty. And the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family.
It would not be difficult to think of ways of supporting and
strengthening two-parent families, and thus making a major contribution
towards reducing poverty in the U.S. However, the main difficulty is
that the ways of achieving this objective are unwelcome to the feminists
who currently are so influential in determining the specifics of
domestic relations laws. Faced with a choice between reducing poverty
and maintaining the freedom women currently have to establish fatherless
families, the feminists will unhesitatingly choose to keep as many
options as possible for women. They want that even if many of these
options lead to impoverishment of children and tremendous long-term
social problems.
In my own state, when fathers try to get changes in domestic relations
laws, our two biggest opponents are (1) the state representative of the
National Organization for Women, and (2) (get this!) a woman who
supposedly represents a state poverty law center that is funded by
compulsory contributions from lawyers throughout the state.
The woman from the poverty law center, a dyed-in-the-wool radical
feminist, consistently opposes fathers' efforts to have a bigger role in
their children's lives. She wants nothing better than to find more ways
of forcing fathers to pay money to mothers. Apparently, she never
considers the fact that the best way of reducing poverty in the state
would be to find ways of protecting the place of fathers within their
families.
ishka bibble
some of these may be valid. i am avoiding the individual points however in an
effort to not be distracted. the post was originally disputing that things cost
the same no matter where you are and that is false and you have agreed that is
false.
as for your individual points is your statement 'the poor bring it on
themselves'?
ishka bibble
the first college i went to was filled with little rich kids and i have never
seen a bigger group of shoplifters and i am talking big money items. thousands
in clothes usually. course when they got caught mommy and daddy just payed off
the store - not really disagreeing with you just a glimpse at the other side of
the fence.
Tracy
FICA was divided into two parts sometime around 1990. There is Medicare
at 1.45% which does not have a limit. The OASDI is 6.2% which has a limit
of $80,400. Thus a person making $100K/yr still pays "Social Security"
tax, but they pay $4,984.80 towards the OASDI part and $1,450 towards
Medicare. It is a misconception that Social Security tax (was FICA)
stops at the roof...
The OASDI part is applied to what we receive for social security when we
retire. The Medicare is to ensure that medicare is there for everyone.
Thus the limit the government has imposed actually hurts those making
above $80,400 because they don't get to pay more into their social
security benefits. That is why it is so important for a person making
above that income to invest, but investing poses many other types of
challenges including loses in investments. Kind of sucks if you retired
after making an income above the limit and your investments have suddenly
tumbled with the markets. That tumbling even affects 401Ks.
os...@techie.com
"Tony Dunlap" <tdu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3b71e0cb$1...@post.newsfeeds.com...
> So? What do you want to do, make other taxes tax vary with income? I know.
> Let's
> also charge rich people $1000 for a loaf of bread. Somebody can run faster
> than
> you, so you want to cut his feet off so the race will be "fair".
No, but at least don't scapegoat the poor. Ironically, I've often compared
how the government treats the poor to cutting their feet off then
criticizing them because they can't walk while everyone calls them lazy.
> Most of corporate america is owned by liberal democrats. Small buisness
and
> farms are where you will find most of the conservative replublicans.
>
> IMO, a lot of small business are better than a few big ones.
I totally agree. I try to buy local whenever I can and I prefer small
businesses. Around here it's like pac man though, all the small businesses
getting bought out by a few large multinational corporations. And many
large corporations are dropping like flies. It's depressing.
> Do you truly believe that? That the only way to get ahead is by
> maliciousness and cruelty and taking advantage of the less fortunate? If
> this is some personal experience of yours, I'm truly sorry, but I don't
> believe it is typical.
I believe capitalism is founded on this mores. I do not behave this way. I
prefer cooperation and very little hierarchy.
> The government can feed off someone without necessarily impoverishing
them.
> A BIG government can do it to more people, and it MUST do so, in order to
> survive. Few divorces meant fewer court, and child support agencies would
be
> needed. So just change the law to make it easier to divorce. People take
the
> bait, divorce, pay child support, and the government must grow to take
> care of the increased caseloads and hire more police to arrest the
>
juveniles-turn-criminals-because-there-is-no-longer-two-parents-in-the-home
> that turn out bad because of the government's own policies.
sigh. I know.
> It is the government that is the enemy. Both sides of the aisle. The
> liberals, and the liberals that call themselves conservatives.
You mean the republicrats? lol.
> I don't hate anyone at the moment (I've had 3 or 4 brief flashes of it in
my
> life though, and I hated the feeling every time).
Well sometimes you sound like you hate the poor and I just don't think the
poor have the power to have caused all the problems that are attributed to
them.
os...@techie.com
"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:3B71D96C...@teleport.com...
> You are right, the prices are higher in the 'hood. The biggest problems
they
> face is shoplifting and other thefts. The Safeway on North Interstate in
> Portland closed several years ago because of the losses. They made
attempts to
> get the citizens and community leaders involved to reduce the losses so
they
> could reduce the prices back to normal and/or not have to close down.
Nothing
> worked, so they closed the store. A few bad apples caused the entire
community
> to lose the convenience of having a store nearby.
I am sure it is much more complex than simply blaming it on the minority of
the poor that are the criminal element.
> So how would you do it differently if you were in charge?
I would scrap the welfare system and change it to direct payments of child
allowance like Sweden does, it would be much cheaper and much less
stigmatized. I do believe that a healthy society will provide for all of
it's people from the wealth that should be accessible by all as far as basic
human needs are concerned. Leave the individualism and self reliance and
horatio alger ideals to success not survival. How to do this, beats me, I'm
not a social scientist.
Bob Whiteside
os...@techie.com wrote:
> "Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:3B71D96C...@teleport.com...
>
> > You are right, the prices are higher in the 'hood. The biggest problems
> they
> > face is shoplifting and other thefts. The Safeway on North Interstate in
> > Portland closed several years ago because of the losses. They made
> attempts to
> > get the citizens and community leaders involved to reduce the losses so
> they
> > could reduce the prices back to normal and/or not have to close down.
> Nothing
> > worked, so they closed the store. A few bad apples caused the entire
> community
> > to lose the convenience of having a store nearby.
>
> I am sure it is much more complex than simply blaming it on the minority of
> the poor that are the criminal element.
My point was, and continues to be, the minority community cannot control the
problem people within the minority segment of society who cause the problems for
the poor. Until the minorities/poor figure out how to reprimand their own, no
one from outside the 'hood can do it for them. This is not a white, rich man
problem. It comes from within the 'hood.
>
>
> > So how would you do it differently if you were in charge?
>
> I would scrap the welfare system and change it to direct payments of child
> allowance like Sweden does, it would be much cheaper and much less
> stigmatized. I do believe that a healthy society will provide for all of
> it's people from the wealth that should be accessible by all as far as basic
> human needs are concerned. Leave the individualism and self reliance and
> horatio alger ideals to success not survival. How to do this, beats me, I'm
> not a social scientist..
So who pays the money into the system and who gets the benefits? If you want
to scrap the current system what would you replace it with?
Mel Gamble
If you're going to do your shopping at the corner 7-11 you're going to pay an
extra 50% to 100%....same applies to anyone who's too lazy to get dressed and
go uptown/downtown or wherever to shop at Safeway or Fred Meyer or any of
several other big chains. That extra 50% you pay on the corner is for the
privelege of being able to waddle on down there in your bedclothes and robe and
slippers and not have to put out the effort to actually go buy more than
half-a-day's worth of food at a time....
I guess only the poor can afford that convenience.
>> > > 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.
>>
>> Green bandaids are only postponing the problems, not fixing them.
>
>I agree that "the system" is not really fixing the problems of poverty. I
>think it is merely shuffling money around, mostly into the hands of the
>administrators and legislators who regulate the lives of the poor. It is
>very hard to escape poverty and it is shameful and misguided to shame those
>who are trapped in it.
It's hard as long as you're willing to let them pay you to stay poor.... But,
hey, it's an easy way to earn a living.....if you're lazy enough to look at
anything better as too much effort...
Mel Gamble
os...@techie.com
"Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.33.0108081738480.1948-100000@mom...
> Half? Wow... that is a lot! I'm not totally sure how much of our taxes
> are going to welfare type benefits. Maybe someone has already stated how
> much. If not, I'll try to dig it up.
I got time and the inclination so here it is:
In 1994, per the House Ways and Means Committe Green Book, it was:
http://www.afreeman.com/metro/Welfare.html
Total Federal spending (billions)
.......................................................................
$13.8
Total Federal/State spending (billions)
................................................................ $25.2
Average cost for each American taxpayer**
........................................................... $156
For 2002 federal budget, per the white house:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide02.html#Spending
As noted, the Federal Government will collect around $2.2 trillion and spend
nearly $2.0 trillion,1 which is divided into several categories as shown in
Chart 2-7, leaving a surplus of $231 billion in 2002.
a.. The largest Federal program is Social Security, which will provide
monthly benefits to more than 46 million retired and disabled workers, their
dependents, and survivors. It accounts for 23 percent of all Federal
spending.
b.. Medicare will provide health care coverage for more than 40 million
elderly Americans and people with disabilities. Since its creation in 1965,
Medicare has accounted for an ever-growing share of spending. In 2002, it
will comprise 12 percent of all Federal spending.
c.. Medicaid will provide health care services to a little more than 34
million Americans, including the poor, people with disabilities, and senior
citizens in nursing homes. Unlike Medicare, the Federal Government shares
the costs of Medicaid with the States, paying between 50 and 83 percent of
the total (depending on each State's requirements). Federal and State costs
are growing rapidly, although the rate of growth has fallen from the
double-digit pace of the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 2002, Medicaid will
account for seven percent of the budget.
d.. Other means-tested entitlements provide benefits to people and
families with incomes below certain minimum levels that vary from program to
program. The major means-tested entitlements are Food Stamps, Supplemental
Security Income, Child Nutrition, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and veterans
' pensions. This category will account for an estimated six percent of the
budget.
e.. The remaining mandatory spending, which mainly consists of Federal
retirement and insurance programs, unemployment insurance, and payments to
farmers, makes up seven percent of the budget.
f.. National defense discretionary spending will total an estimated $319
billion in 2002, comprising 16 percent of the budget.
g.. Non-defense discretionary spending-a wide array of programs that
include education, training, science, technology, housing, transportation,
and foreign aid-will total an estimated $373 billion in 2002, or 19 percent
of the budget.
h.. Interest payments, primarily the result of previous budget deficits,
averaged seven percent of Federal spending in the 1960s and 1970s and rose
to a high of 15 percent in 1996. Since 1998, the budget has been in surplus.
As a result, interest payments are estimated to drop to less than 10 percent
of the budget in 2002.
i.. Slightly less than 11 percent of your Federal dollar (the budget
surplus) will be reserved for contingencies or used to reduce the Federal
debt to ensure the continued solvency of Social Security.
os...@techie.com
"Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.33.0108081748150.1948-100000@mom...
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 os...@techie.com wrote:
>
> > "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.
>
> That strictly depends on where you purchase your house. Near Seattle it
> is more, but near my older sister it isn't more expensive than what I'm
> use to. It is actually cheaper. The homes around me range from $145K to
> $2M. The "average" is around $350K with about 2,800 sq ft and sitting on
> a 7,000 sq ft lot.
shhh! we don't want oregonians moving across the river over here anymore
than you guys want those pesky californians moving there! traffic, higher
cost of living, suburban sprawl, we don't need no stinking commuters. lol.
os...@techie.com
"Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.33.0108081758470.1948-100000@mom...
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 os...@techie.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "Tony Dunlap" <tdu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> > news:3b71608f$1...@post.newsfeeds.com...
> > > > not after $65,000 they don't.
> > >
> > > Huh?
> >
> > There is a wage cap on social security payroll tax, it used to be
$65,000 a
> > year but now it's up to $80,400 after that you don't pay payroll tax on
> > whatever amount is over that.
>
> A year ago it was $76,200. It hasn't been $65,000 for quite a few years
> now.
It was four years ago and I already corrected myself. My point still stands.
>
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=_V
4*v8Uf&p_lva=&p_refno=000525-000043&p_created=959273961&p_sp=cF9ncmlkc29ydD0
mcF9yb3dfY250PTYwOCZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**&p_li=
>
> On top of that... making $80,400/yr isn't rich.
It is to me!
os...@techie.com
"Kenneth S." <nim...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3B71EC...@erols.com...
> The most obvious solution to the problems of poverty is to slow down,
> and ultimately reverse, the breakdown of family life in the U.S.
> Single-parent (i.e. fatherless) families are very closely associated
> with poverty. And the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family.
Well now who is spouting rhetoric? The problems of poverty have existed
long before the erosion of the patriarchal family unit. And single parent
families wouldn't have to be so damn poor if absent fathers would support
them regularly and in full. I, for one, wouldn't have been an unmarried
mother if my son's father hadn't skipped out on the marriage plans as soon
as I said the p word. and you forget all the two parent families who are
still dirt poor. Cinderella is a fairy tale, rich men marry real princesses
not pretty poor women.
> It would not be difficult to think of ways of supporting and
> strengthening two-parent families, and thus making a major contribution
> towards reducing poverty in the U.S.
Bush plans to structure the new tax code to no longer penalize marriage tax
wise.
> However, the main difficulty is
> that the ways of achieving this objective are unwelcome to the feminists
> who currently are so influential in determining the specifics of
> domestic relations laws.
I don't think so. I'd marry a good man if I could find my equal. Lots of
feminists are married to men. And lots of two parent homes are raising kids
just fine without the benefit of marriage. It's all about choice not
conformity to outmoded standards.
> Faced with a choice between reducing poverty
> and maintaining the freedom women currently have to establish fatherless
> families, the feminists will unhesitatingly choose to keep as many
> options as possible for women. They want that even if many of these
> options lead to impoverishment of children and tremendous long-term
> social problems.
I was willing to face homelessness, poverty, stigma and uncertainty to
"establish a fatherless family" when I left my ex husband because he
wouldn't stop trying to kill me. I thank the feminists for their fight to
change the laws and open shelters for women and children. That is freedom.
If you don't like poverty then do things to attack poverty not women.
> In my own state, when fathers try to get changes in domestic relations
> laws, our two biggest opponents are (1) the state representative of the
> National Organization for Women, and (2) (get this!) a woman who
> supposedly represents a state poverty law center that is funded by
> compulsory contributions from lawyers throughout the state.
What sort of changes are you angling for?
> The woman from the poverty law center, a dyed-in-the-wool radical
> feminist, consistently opposes fathers' efforts to have a bigger role in
> their children's lives. She wants nothing better than to find more ways
> of forcing fathers to pay money to mothers. Apparently, she never
> considers the fact that the best way of reducing poverty in the state
> would be to find ways of protecting the place of fathers within their
> families.
Probably because having a father around is certainly no guarantee of
economic security! Most of the fathers in my family are either absent or
disabled or bumming off the working mother. Maybe you are not like that but
lots of fathers are much more of a financial and psychological liability
than an asset. Many are violent and manipulative and a negative force in
the children's lives even if they do have a good job.
I think it's great that fathers are challenging the system and the status
quo and forcing us to rethink traditional stereotypes about parenting but
when settig policy you have to consider all kinds of fathers not just the
good ones.
os...@techie.com
"Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.33.0108082135420.408-100000@mom...
Well, the thinking is that since there is a maximum benefit to the social
security there should be a maximum income level at which it is paid.
os...@techie.com
"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:3B721F65...@teleport.com...
oh, brother. go read the article i posted about why inequality should
matter to you, you rich, white man, lol.
> > I would scrap the welfare system and change it to direct payments of
child
> > allowance like Sweden does, it would be much cheaper and much less
> > stigmatized. I do believe that a healthy society will provide for all
of
> > it's people from the wealth that should be accessible by all as far as
basic
> > human needs are concerned. Leave the individualism and self reliance
and
> > horatio alger ideals to success not survival. How to do this, beats me,
I'm
> > not a social scientist..
> So who pays the money into the system and who gets the benefits? If you
want
> to scrap the current system what would you replace it with?
we all pay in and we all benefit, whether directly or indirectly. less
poverty less crime (no justice, no peace, well then give up some justice and
get some peace) I know, I sound like a marxist, from each according to
means to each according to needs. geez. well, it sounds fair in theory but
i can see that somehow the money always winds up at the top again.
os...@techie.com
"Poverty is an anomaly to rich people. It is very difficult to make out why
people who want dinner do not ring the bell." - Walter Bagehot, 19th Century
English economist
--
"There are two classes of people, the rich and the rest of us." - Ralph
Nader, May 30, 2000
"Mel Gamble" <melg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010809013530...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
MommyDearest
melg...@aol.com wrote on 8/8/01 10:35 PM:
> It's just laziness...
>
> If you're going to do your shopping at the corner 7-11 you're going to pay an
> extra 50% to 100%....same applies to anyone who's too lazy to get dressed and
> go uptown/downtown or wherever to shop at Safeway or Fred Meyer or any of
> several other big chains. That extra 50% you pay on the corner is for the
> privelege of being able to waddle on down there in your bedclothes and robe
> and
> slippers and not have to put out the effort to actually go buy more than
> half-a-day's worth of food at a time....
>
> I guess only the poor can afford that convenience.
Are you serious, or are you doing your Rush Limbaugh imitation? Did it not
occur to you that if you don't have a car, and the big chains are far it's
just not that simple? Did it ever occur to you that some of these folks may
not be able to afford more than a few items at a time?
Your portrayal of these people is as obscene as your insensitivity.
Kenneth S.
personal anecdotes won't work, Osote. The overall statistics are
perfectly clear. Poverty in the U.S. (as well as many other social
problems) is very closely associated with fatherless families --
including yours, apparently.
There are well-known problems associated with efforts to reduce poverty
through government handouts. One problem is the incentive effects these
handouts create. As was becoming clear before the debate on welfare
reform started, if you provide financial rewards for certain kinds of
behavior, such as having illegitimate children, you get more of that
kind of behavior.
By contrast, if incentives are provided for two-parent families (and
these incentives would not involve taxpayer funds), there will be a
major reduction in poverty.
So why ARE there no incentives to protect two-parent families? Why,
instead, do we provide incentives for women to establish fatherless
families, through such things as the continued glass ceiling on paternal
custody and generous "child support?" You obligingly provide the answer
to these questions in what you say below.
The answer is that feminists don't want anything that would strengthen
the position of fathers within their families. They'd rather have
futile efforts to end poverty by forcing fathers, and taxpayers, to pay
the women who head (and in most cases established) these fatherless
families. In a significant proportion of these cases, including
apparently yours, what's going on is just another example of feminists
insisting on the right to make their own choices, but also on being able
to force men, or the taxpayers, to pay for those choices.
ishka bibble
In article <20010809013530...@ng-ck1.aol.com>, Mel Gamble says...
Paul Fritz
ishka bibble wrote:
To a point, but also that it is not simply "corporations taking advantage of the poor"
like the thread appeared to be headed. BTW around here, gasoline prices are the
cheapest in the poorer areas, and the highest in the "uptown" areas....by as much as 20
cents a gallon.
os...@techie.com
"Kenneth S." <nim...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3B726C...@erols.com...
> Your efforts to put up a smokescreen of feminist propaganda and
> personal anecdotes won't work, Osote. The overall statistics are
> perfectly clear. Poverty in the U.S. (as well as many other social
> problems) is very closely associated with fatherless families --
> including yours, apparently.
Sure I'd be doing better if I had a partner here to help financially and
otherwise but it doesn't have to be a man. he he. And we'd really be doing
better financially if i wasn't burdened with disabilities. Stop making this
complex issue such a simplified one that suits your patriarchal agenda.
> There are well-known problems associated with efforts to reduce poverty
> through government handouts. One problem is the incentive effects these
> handouts create. As was becoming clear before the debate on welfare
> reform started, if you provide financial rewards for certain kinds of
> behavior, such as having illegitimate children, you get more of that
> kind of behavior.
That is NOT clear and not backed up at all by scientific research. For one
thing, welfare mothers have just as many kids as the rest of the general
population. I already posted proof of that and debunked other myths you
insist on believing. And believe you me, welfare is no reward. It is a
hell to be avoided at all costs, including aborting your own fetus.
> By contrast, if incentives are provided for two-parent families (and
> these incentives would not involve taxpayer funds), there will be a
> major reduction in poverty.
Such as?
> So why ARE there no incentives to protect two-parent families? Why,
> instead, do we provide incentives for women to establish fatherless
> families, through such things as the continued glass ceiling on paternal
> custody and generous "child support?" You obligingly provide the answer
> to these questions in what you say below.
Look, being a single mom is not fun, it is not the ideal for most people and
most single moms did not want this for their life.
> The answer is that feminists don't want anything that would strengthen
> the position of fathers within their families. They'd rather have
> futile efforts to end poverty by forcing fathers, and taxpayers, to pay
> the women who head (and in most cases established) these fatherless
> families. In a significant proportion of these cases, including
> apparently yours, what's going on is just another example of feminists
> insisting on the right to make their own choices, but also on being able
> to force men, or the taxpayers, to pay for those choices.
Nah, we just want the fathers to support their kids whether they live in the
same house or not.
Ivyjade2
deductions are the same thing? Federal income tax is a different kind of cat
than state tax than FICA than SDI, etc., etc., etc.,
Different deductions for different reasons, put into different pots.
Ivy
CC
"Kenneth S." wrote:
> The most obvious solution to the problems of poverty is to slow down,
> and ultimately reverse, the breakdown of family life in the U.S.
> Single-parent (i.e. fatherless) families are very closely associated
> with poverty. And the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family.
>
> It would not be difficult to think of ways of supporting and
> strengthening two-parent families, and thus making a major contribution
> towards reducing poverty in the U.S. However, the main difficulty is
> that the ways of achieving this objective are unwelcome to the feminists
> who currently are so influential in determining the specifics of
> domestic relations laws. Faced with a choice between reducing poverty
> and maintaining the freedom women currently have to establish fatherless
> families, the feminists will unhesitatingly choose to keep as many
> options as possible for women. They want that even if many of these
> options lead to impoverishment of children and tremendous long-term
> social problems.
>
> In my own state, when fathers try to get changes in domestic relations
> laws, our two biggest opponents are (1) the state representative of the
> National Organization for Women, and (2) (get this!) a woman who
> supposedly represents a state poverty law center that is funded by
> compulsory contributions from lawyers throughout the state.
Is there no representatives from the father rights groups?
Tony Dunlap
<os...@techie.com> wrote in message
news:d5qc7.3753$NW6.1...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
> we all pay in and we all benefit, whether directly or indirectly. less
> poverty less crime (no justice, no peace, well then give up some justice
and
> get some peace) I know, I sound like a marxist, from each according to
> means to each according to needs. geez. well, it sounds fair in theory
but
> i can see that somehow the money always winds up at the top again.
Not money per se... Power!
Tony Dunlap
<os...@techie.com> wrote in message
news:2zpc7.3699$NW6.1...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
> > The woman from the poverty law center, a dyed-in-the-wool radical
> > feminist, consistently opposes fathers' efforts to have a bigger role in
> > their children's lives. She wants nothing better than to find more ways
> > of forcing fathers to pay money to mothers. Apparently, she never
> > considers the fact that the best way of reducing poverty in the state
> > would be to find ways of protecting the place of fathers within their
> > families.
>
> Probably because having a father around is certainly no guarantee of
> economic security!
Not a guarantee, but it rasies the odds a lot! As a group, married mothers
are better off financially than single mothers. That sends a message that
many people don't want to hear. And many people, when they hear something
they don't want
> Most of the fathers in my family are either absent or
> disabled or bumming off the working mother. Maybe you are not like that
but
> lots of fathers are much more of a financial and psychological liability
> than an asset. Many are violent and manipulative and a negative force in
> the children's lives even if they do have a good job.
>
> I think it's great that fathers are challenging the system and the status
> quo and forcing us to rethink traditional stereotypes about parenting but
> when settig policy you have to consider all kinds of fathers not just the
> good ones.
And all kinds of mothers, not just the good ones.
os...@techie.com
"Tony Dunlap" <tdu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3b72...@post.newsfeeds.com...
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***
>
>
> <os...@techie.com> wrote in message
> news:2zpc7.3699$NW6.1...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
>
> > > The woman from the poverty law center, a dyed-in-the-wool radical
> > > feminist, consistently opposes fathers' efforts to have a bigger role
in
> > > their children's lives. She wants nothing better than to find more
ways
> > > of forcing fathers to pay money to mothers. Apparently, she never
> > > considers the fact that the best way of reducing poverty in the state
> > > would be to find ways of protecting the place of fathers within their
> > > families.
> >
> > Probably because having a father around is certainly no guarantee of
> > economic security!
>
> Not a guarantee, but it rasies the odds a lot! As a group, married mothers
> are better off financially than single mothers. That sends a message that
> many people don't want to hear. And many people, when they hear something
> they don't want
Yeah, it sends the message that men have the money and women had better
stick with them if they want to survive.
So, if it's economic security you are so concerned about why does it have to
be a father and mother, why can't it be two fathers or two mothers or
unmarried couples? could it be that you are really more concerned about
preserving the patriarchal family unit than you are about the economic
security of children or mothers?
Kenneth S.
you have now snipped), Osote.
The plain fact is that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent
family. However, you (and other women like you) don't want anything
done to protect two-parent families, because that would involve reducing
the present freedom that women have to establish fatherless families.
In the end, you'd rather have poverty -- accompanied by futile efforts
to extract subsidies from fathers and the taxpayers -- than have any
strengthening of the role of fathers in their families.
You want the full range of options, but you want other people to pay
for these options. You want as much choice as possible (including the
freedom to establish fatherless families), and you don't care about the
damage such families inflict on children and on the excluded fathers.
In the long run fatherless families are also very damaging to women.
Women are one of the categories of people who suffer most as a result of
the crime and other social pathologies that are incubated in fatherless
families.
Kenneth S.
(1) Many divorced fathers are demoralized, and few of them have extra
disposable income or time. There is a high turnover of membership,
because many fathers conclude the situation is hopeless and drop out.
(2) Fathers' groups themselves, unlike their feminist and pro-divorce
opponents, are very short of money. In my own state, it is absolutely
scandalous how the divorce-promoting and feminist groups are subsidized
by the taxpayers, and even by business. In the suburban area where I
live, there is a women's center that, among other things, runs courses
telling women how to screw their husbands in divorce, and is handsomely
funded by charitable contributions from business. The so-called state
"poverty law center" consistently opposes what fathers' groups suggest
to the legislature. This "poverty law center" gets funding from lawyers
in the state, and used to get about $250,000 per year from the federal
Legal Services Commission. Lawyers in the state are supposed to pay the
interest from certain funds they hold for clients into a kitty that
subsidizes this "poverty law center." Then the center's rabidly
feminist lobbyist goes to the state legislature and opposes custody
changes that would enhance fathers' roles in their families, and reduce
the number of fatherless families.
Faced with well-funded and entrenched opposition like this, fathers'
groups do what they can. I've been involved in these matters for more
than 10 years. It's very much of an uphill battle. Not the least of
the problems is that we can't even get fair-minded coverage in the
predominantly liberal media, where most of the stories on family policy
issues are written by feminist-leaning women reporters.
Tracy
> "Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
> news:Pine.WNT.4.33.0108081738480.1948-100000@mom...
>
> > Half? Wow... that is a lot! I'm not totally sure how much of our taxes
> > are going to welfare type benefits. Maybe someone has already stated how
> > much. If not, I'll try to dig it up.
>
> I got time and the inclination so here it is:
Funny... I knew where to find it, I just didn't know how to present it
properly. It has always been in the instructions for the 1040 forms.
From the real source (IRS):
http://ftp.fedworld.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf , page 115 of 117.
17% goes towards Social Programs. Here is how 'social programs' are
defined:
4. Social programs: About 12% of total outlays were for
Medicaid, food stamps, temporary assistance for needy families,
supplemental security income, and related programs; and 6% for
health research and public health programs, unemployment
compensation, assisted housing, and social services.
Why do I prefer what the IRS stated over your article Lorian? Because
your article stated that the cost is $156 per American taxpayer. How nice
to just average the cost out over everyone, or I should say an estimated
162 million tax payers. In truth some are paying much less than that and
others are paying thousands more than that. How do they define tax payer?
Is that before or after they file their tax returns? Makes a huge
difference in how much you actually pay.
What about Mel who is paying child support to a woman who is/was on
welfare? Do we consider him doubled taxed in the 'Social Programs' area
since the mother didn't receive all of the support? Most of the support
paid went to cover the state's expenses.
Maybe what we should do is when the CP is on welfare, only charge the NCP
the difference. If $2,000 in taxes he paid goes directly towards any
program she is using, then he should deduct $2,000 from the child support
order. Now there's an idea. :-)
Tracy
> "Kenneth S." <nim...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3B71EC...@erols.com...
> > The most obvious solution to the problems of poverty is to slow down,
> > and ultimately reverse, the breakdown of family life in the U.S.
> > Single-parent (i.e. fatherless) families are very closely associated
> > with poverty. And the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family.
>
> Well now who is spouting rhetoric? The problems of poverty have existed
> long before the erosion of the patriarchal family unit.
Not all the problems you see today Lorian. Kenneth is right in many
aspects, and if you would have read what he wrote you'd understand why.
Housing cost have risen over the years. You've even brought that up many
times. It is to the point where the average income doesn't buy the
average house. Back in the 70's a single income household could afford to
purchase a house. That single income being about average. That doesn't
hold true anymore. As divorces have increased, dual-income families
increase, and government help (all types) had increased so has the housing
costs... if not the cost of living as a whole.
Now what Kenneth is trying to tell you, but you've decided to not listen
to, is that IF people remained married their household income would be
dual-income. More often than not this would increase their household
income. Think about it.
> And single parent
> families wouldn't have to be so damn poor if absent fathers would support
> them regularly and in full. I, for one, wouldn't have been an unmarried
> mother if my son's father hadn't skipped out on the marriage plans as soon
> as I said the p word.
Kenneth wasn't talking about unwed mothers giving birth, but divorces and
the affects on households because of those divorces. There is a
difference.
> and you forget all the two parent families who are
> still dirt poor. Cinderella is a fairy tale, rich men marry real princesses
> not pretty poor women.
In the story of Cinderella, she wasn't poor. Her father was wealthy, but
after his death her step-mother didn't allow her to live the life-style
she once lived with her father. She was robbed by a greedy mother who was
looking out for herself and her own daughters. There are different
endings to the story, and one includes that Cinderella took her father's
estate from her greedy step-mother which left the greedy step-mother
living in poverty. I'm sure you'll feel sorry for the greedy step-mother
now.
Bill Gates, who is the riches man in the US, didn't marry a princess. He
married an educated woman who worked for her money. Heck, she was an
employee of his. She has a Master's Degree, and worked for Microsoft
before they got married.
Tracy
And there should be a roof to how much is paid if they are going to limit
how much you receive.
Tracy
On a side note. I spent the first 10 years of my seperated/divorced life
without a car. I purposely lived within walking distance of decent
grocery stores. When attending college in Corvallis the nearest grocery
store was 9 blocks away. If I wasn't on bike, I was on foot.
Where there is a will, there is a way.
Tracy
> "Tony Dunlap" <tdu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:3b72...@post.newsfeeds.com...
> > *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***
> >
> >
> > Not a guarantee, but it rasies the odds a lot! As a group, married mothers
> > are better off financially than single mothers. That sends a message that
> > many people don't want to hear. And many people, when they hear something
> > they don't want
>
> Yeah, it sends the message that men have the money and women had better
> stick with them if they want to survive.
Huh? No it doesn't...
If I marry next week, and he works, I'll be better off financially. It
doesn't mean that I NEED him to survive. It MEANS that there is two
incomes coming into this household and BOTH adults are better off
financially. He would benefit from my income, just like I would benefit
from his. Neither one being dependent on the other for anything. It also
means that my income alone couldn't afford what the two income combined is
capable of affording.
MommyDearest
in article 3B733D...@erols.com, Kenneth S. at nim...@erols.com wrote on
8/9/01 6:48 PM:
> Your posting below is as unconvincing as your earlier comment (which
> you have now snipped), Osote.
>
> The plain fact is that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent
> family. However, you (and other women like you) don't want anything
> done to protect two-parent families, because that would involve reducing
> the present freedom that women have to establish fatherless families.
> In the end, you'd rather have poverty -- accompanied by futile efforts
> to extract subsidies from fathers and the taxpayers -- than have any
> strengthening of the role of fathers in their families.
Oh good grief!! Where do you come up with this stuff? The motives you
subscribe to all women are offensive and suggest an irrational hatred of
women. Your notion that the majority of women would happily choose divorce,
or deny our children their fathers is nothing more than unsubstantiated
conjecture on your part.
I don't know what you think the lives of single mothers are like, but I can
assure you it ain't easy, but is often the best option available. My guess
would be that far more of your sainted fathers walk out on their families on
any given day than mothers do. When we leave, it's usually because we've
been more used, abused, or devalued than any man could bear. We leave to
protect our children from the harm and example of these kind of men and
relationships. We leave to protect ourselves. We leave for 1,001 reasons
that have nothing to do with hand outs or lying on couches.
The ability of women to leave has done little more than raise the bar for
men's behavior. We now have the right to expect better treatment from our
husbands, and we do. We now have the right to expect better treatment for
our children, and we do. That men are having a hard time adjusting to higher
expectations of them is not our cross to bear, and you have no right blaming
men's shortcomings on us.
> You want the full range of options, but you want other people to pay
> for these options. You want as much choice as possible (including the
> freedom to establish fatherless families), and you don't care about the
> damage such families inflict on children and on the excluded fathers.
Change a phrase or two of the above and I could say the same for your C4M,
CS avoiding compadres. If men truly cared about the welfare of their
children they would not abandon them, whine about supporting them, or blame
women for their failures as fathers and husbands. You want the right to walk
away from the unplanned child, then blame a woman who chooses to raise one
w/o you as not caring about children or families. That is the height of
hypocrisy, and that is where your credibility as a man concerned about the
welfare of children disappears.
Paul R
The average father has little power over the situation compared to the
average mother. He can do nothing to prevent a divorce; the most he can do
is try to get better terms. In most cases, however, the Court will award
custody to mom; CS is determined by guidelines. If mom doesn't let him see
the kids, he can do little. But if he fails to pay CS or whatever, she can
prevent him from seeing the kids or call CS enforcement and get help.
This means the battle must be fought in the legislature. But liberal
legislators are in bed with the feminists--they want to see the family
destroyed because it gives them an excuse for one more government program.
And conservatives buy into the deadbeat dad myth--all those terrible men who
just one day up and walked out on their kids. Combined, these legislators
continue passing laws that encourage family breakup.
And let's face it: once mom and the kids are a new "alternative family," few
people care what happned to bring about that result. They see a poor single
mom and her kids struggling--and all their sympathy lies with the mom, not
with the absent dad. Everyone just wants to make sure the kids are taken
care of. And that is an argument almost impossible to overcome.
But the price we pay for failing to see the whole picture is a 50% divorce
rate and a 30% illegitimacy rate (and which is higher among certain groups).
Forty percent of our kids grow up without a father. In short, if we don't
find a way to make the argument for father involvement, the destruction of
the family will continue.
There are positive signs, especially the increasing recognition of the
damage done by fatherless families. But it will take a great deal of
political courage to take the steps necessary to re-create the family. Women
and the government have learned they can take whatever they want from dads
and no one will stop them. Au contraire--almost everyone, from Bill O'Reilly
to Bill Clinton, will encourage them to continue to do so. Until that
feeding frenzy ends, the destruction will continue unabated.
Paul R
"Kenneth S." <nim...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3B7342...@erols.com...
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
os...@techie.com
"Kenneth S." <nim...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3B733D...@erols.com...
> Your posting below is as unconvincing as your earlier comment (which
> you have now snipped), Osote.
as unconvincing as yours?
>
> The plain fact is that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent
> family.
you have no proof of that and i've never seen that to be true in my life at
all.
However, you (and other women like you) don't want anything
> done to protect two-parent families, because that would involve reducing
> the present freedom that women have to establish fatherless families.
What do you have against freedom?
> In the end, you'd rather have poverty -- accompanied by futile efforts
> to extract subsidies from fathers and the taxpayers -- than have any
> strengthening of the role of fathers in their families.
I'd rather not be doomed to poverty simply because I'm a single parent and
thankfully most single parents are not poor. And, I'd rather have fathers
stay involved with their kids and support them financially regardless of
their relationship with their mother.
>
> You want the full range of options, but you want other people to pay
> for these options. You want as much choice as possible (including the
> freedom to establish fatherless families), and you don't care about the
> damage such families inflict on children and on the excluded fathers.
I do?
>
> In the long run fatherless families are also very damaging to women.
> Women are one of the categories of people who suffer most as a result of
> the crime and other social pathologies that are incubated in fatherless
> families.
I don't know, I suffered a lot more when I was getting abused by my own
father and then again by my ex husband and my son's father who completely
abandoned us. I'd have to say being alone is much safer than remaining with
abusive husbands, money or no money. Think again, their Kenneth S. Free
your mind, just think of the possibilities. The patriarchal family unit is
a norm of the past, lots of good men stay with the mother and children and
just don't get married and lots of good fathers remain involved with the
family even after leaving the home and lots and lots of single mothers raise
healthy, happy kids without fathers.
os...@techie.com
"Kenneth S." <nim...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3B7342...@erols.com...
> Fathers' groups do their best within their limitations, which are:
>
> (1) Many divorced fathers are demoralized, and few of them have extra
> disposable income or time. There is a high turnover of membership,
> because many fathers conclude the situation is hopeless and drop out.
Mother's groups have the same problems, plus arranging daycare so we can
meet in peace.
> (2) Fathers' groups themselves, unlike their feminist and pro-divorce
> opponents, are very short of money.
???
> In my own state, it is absolutely
> scandalous how the divorce-promoting and feminist groups are subsidized
> by the taxpayers, and even by business.
???
> In the suburban area where I
> live, there is a women's center that, among other things, runs courses
> telling women how to screw their husbands in divorce, and is handsomely
> funded by charitable contributions from business.
???
> The so-called state
> "poverty law center" consistently opposes what fathers' groups suggest
> to the legislature.
???
> This "poverty law center" gets funding from lawyers
> in the state, and used to get about $250,000 per year from the federal
> Legal Services Commission. Lawyers in the state are supposed to pay the
> interest from certain funds they hold for clients into a kitty that
> subsidizes this "poverty law center." Then the center's rabidly
> feminist lobbyist goes to the state legislature and opposes custody
> changes that would enhance fathers' roles in their families, and reduce
> the number of fatherless families.
Because the custody would go to fathers and make motherless families?
> Faced with well-funded and entrenched opposition like this, fathers'
> groups do what they can. I've been involved in these matters for more
> than 10 years. It's very much of an uphill battle. Not the least of
> the problems is that we can't even get fair-minded coverage in the
> predominantly liberal media, where most of the stories on family policy
> issues are written by feminist-leaning women reporters.
Really?
os...@techie.com
"Paul R" <prob...@opcnetdeleteme.com> wrote in message
news:3b737...@corp-goliath.newsgroups.com...
> Just to add my two cents' worth:
>
> The average father has little power over the situation compared to the
> average mother. He can do nothing to prevent a divorce; the most he can do
> is try to get better terms. In most cases, however, the Court will award
> custody to mom; CS is determined by guidelines. If mom doesn't let him see
> the kids, he can do little.
He can have the custody order enforced and document it and take her back to
court.
> But if he fails to pay CS or whatever, she can
> prevent him from seeing the kids
not legally
> or call CS enforcement and get help.
yeah, right. back to court again, a long and tedious process while the kids
go without support from their father.
> This means the battle must be fought in the legislature. But liberal
> legislators are in bed with the feminists--they want to see the family
> destroyed because it gives them an excuse for one more government program.
> And conservatives buy into the deadbeat dad myth--all those terrible men
who
> just one day up and walked out on their kids.
um, it's not a myth, sadly.
> Combined, these legislators
> continue passing laws that encourage family breakup.
they pass laws to ensure the support of children regardless of their parents
marital status. and recently many states have experimented with trying to
manipulate family structure by manipulating entitlement programs and tax
structure. the issue of government programs affect on family structure is
being addressed. what you fail to realize is that most feminists and
legislators are going to put the interests of children ahead of fathers'
rights interests, particularly the foolish one of "choice for men" that
attempts to legitimize fathers abandoning their children. That will never
fly.
> And let's face it: once mom and the kids are a new "alternative family,"
few
> people care what happned to bring about that result. They see a poor
single
> mom and her kids struggling--and all their sympathy lies with the mom, not
> with the absent dad.
You think there is no social stigma on single mothers?
> Everyone just wants to make sure the kids are taken
> care of. And that is an argument almost impossible to overcome.
you have a problem with making sure kids are taken care of?
> But the price we pay for failing to see the whole picture is a 50% divorce
> rate and a 30% illegitimacy rate (and which is higher among certain
groups).
please don't use that term, it's as offensive as negro or squaw is today.
every child is legitimate irregardless of their parent's choices.
> Forty percent of our kids grow up without a father.
why are you blaming the mothers and the government instead of exhorting
fathers to be fathers?
> In short, if we don't
> find a way to make the argument for father involvement, the destruction of
> the family will continue.
You don't have to preach to the converted. Most people want the father to
be involved, try preaching to the fathers out there who don't value their
children enough to support them.
> There are positive signs, especially the increasing recognition of the
> damage done by fatherless families. But it will take a great deal of
> political courage to take the steps necessary to re-create the family.
Give it up, bud. Patriarchy is passe.
>Women
> and the government have learned they can take whatever they want from dads
> and no one will stop them.
boy, i sure made out big, uh huh. we really got rich quick having an
unplanned child and going it alone. and the government really squeezed that
old boy dry, $200 a month here and there over the years. and all the single
moms i know are just living it up off of child support, mmm hmmm.
remember that very few fathers pay child support in full, most don't pay it
in full or at all. and if single mother homes are so poor and so bad for
kids, why do you insist that women are out campaigning for the break up of
two parent families?
>Au contraire--almost everyone, from Bill O'Reilly
> to Bill Clinton, will encourage them to continue to do so. Until that
> feeding frenzy ends, the destruction will continue unabated.
or until you open your eyes and see past your needs for power and control to
what's really going on.
os...@techie.com
"Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.33.0108092044200.888-100000@mom...
> Funny... I knew where to find it, I just didn't know how to present it
> properly. It has always been in the instructions for the 1040 forms.
>
> From the real source (IRS):
>
> http://ftp.fedworld.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf , page 115 of 117.
>
> 17% goes towards Social Programs. Here is how 'social programs' are
> defined:
>
> 4. Social programs: About 12% of total outlays were for
> Medicaid, food stamps, temporary assistance for needy families,
> supplemental security income, and related programs; and 6% for
> health research and public health programs, unemployment
> compensation, assisted housing, and social services.
>
>
> Why do I prefer what the IRS stated over your article Lorian? Because
> your article stated that the cost is $156 per American taxpayer. How nice
> to just average the cost out over everyone, or I should say an estimated
> 162 million tax payers. In truth some are paying much less than that and
> others are paying thousands more than that. How do they define tax payer?
> Is that before or after they file their tax returns? Makes a huge
> difference in how much you actually pay.
Did you also look at the actual site for the House Ways and Means Committee
Green Book where my posted information was taken from? That breaks down how
much goes to medicare, medicaid, tanf/food stamps/ssi versus national
defense and domestic military expenditures. People think so much money is
"wasted" on supporting children and their mothers on welfare but that is
only .9% of the GDP while military spending is 6.3%. Medical care is the
money drainer (3.5%), regulating the inflated costs of medical care is what
we should be worrying about and how we are going to support the next
generation of social security users (4.2%) rather than scapegoating welfare
mothers for their pittance.
> What about Mel who is paying child support to a woman who is/was on
> welfare? Do we consider him doubled taxed in the 'Social Programs' area
> since the mother didn't receive all of the support? Most of the support
> paid went to cover the state's expenses.
Which has always bothered me. Not only should that child support be going
to the child, not to the state, but if the welfare mother does keep the cs
and she gets caught she goes to jail as a criminal. I know Wisconsin
applied for a federal waiver to try a demonstration project in several
counties to see if it would help kids if they got to keep the pittance of
welfare and the pittance of cs too. I don't know how it turned out, maybe
I'll dig it up. You forget that mothers on welfare are also tax payers
before and after welfare and children deserve unstigmatized support.
> Maybe what we should do is when the CP is on welfare, only charge the NCP
> the difference. If $2,000 in taxes he paid goes directly towards any
> program she is using, then he should deduct $2,000 from the child support
> order. Now there's an idea. :-)
anything to help reduce the absent father's responsibility to their kids,
right?
os...@techie.com
"Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.33.0108092111330.888-100000@mom...
> Not all the problems you see today Lorian. Kenneth is right in many
> aspects, and if you would have read what he wrote you'd understand why.
I did read and understand what he said but I disagree that the solution to
poverty is heterosexual marriage. Again, Cinderella is a fairy tale, not
reality.
> Housing cost have risen over the years. You've even brought that up many
> times. It is to the point where the average income doesn't buy the
> average house. Back in the 70's a single income household could afford to
> purchase a house. That single income being about average. That doesn't
> hold true anymore. As divorces have increased, dual-income families
> increase, and government help (all types) had increased so has the housing
> costs... if not the cost of living as a whole.
I know, I've said as much myself.
> Now what Kenneth is trying to tell you, but you've decided to not listen
> to, is that IF people remained married their household income would be
> dual-income. More often than not this would increase their household
> income. Think about it.
I did think about it and you must have ignored my points that I made
rebutting his oversimplification of the causes of poverty or the affect of
marriage on it. Such as not all fathers have good jobs and make positive
contributions to the household or the family, some fathers are a real
financial and emotional liability, homosexual couples and unmarried couples
can effectively parent but that isn't what Kenneth is after, now is it? And
again, household income does not necessarily correlate with better
parenting.
> In the story of Cinderella, she wasn't poor. Her father was wealthy, but
> after his death her step-mother didn't allow her to live the life-style
> she once lived with her father. She was robbed by a greedy mother who was
> looking out for herself and her own daughters. There are different
> endings to the story, and one includes that Cinderella took her father's
> estate from her greedy step-mother which left the greedy step-mother
> living in poverty. I'm sure you'll feel sorry for the greedy step-mother
> now.
hell no, that's ironic, where did you see that ending? i love it.
> Bill Gates, who is the riches man in the US, didn't marry a princess. He
> married an educated woman who worked for her money. Heck, she was an
> employee of his. She has a Master's Degree, and worked for Microsoft
> before they got married.
Well, most poor moms marry poor guys and remain poor. Family status is
neither the answer nor cause of poverty. And paternalistic efforts to
manipulate and regulate poor mothers are misguided and often mean spirited.
Poverty will not end by ending welfare nor by ending divorce.
os...@techie.com
"Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.33.0108092135160.888-100000@mom...
> On a side note. I spent the first 10 years of my seperated/divorced life
> without a car. I purposely lived within walking distance of decent
> grocery stores. When attending college in Corvallis the nearest grocery
> store was 9 blocks away. If I wasn't on bike, I was on foot.
>
> Where there is a will, there is a way.
your inability to recognize the vast difference in walking in your
neighborhood versus walking in the ghetto escapes me. your ability to blame
the victim rather than focus on changing unjust systems amazes me.
os...@techie.com
it's all about. Right ON!
"MommyDearest" <mommy_d...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B798BB2F.3F54%mommy_d...@hotmail.com...
Kenneth S.
You seem to be trying to introduce a new distortion of the English
language, and in the process you reveal something of your political
agenda. Apparently, you want to promote lesbianism, through changing
the definition of marriage to enable lesbians to "marry."
More and more, it seems to me that the solution is to take marriage out
of the hands of govenments. Privatize marriage, and have an end to the
process of special interest groups, like lesbians, lobbying to have
government change the definition of marriage to suit their own
interests. If people could make their own enforceable pre-nuptial
agreements, covering all subjects including any conditions of divorce,
many problems would be solved.
In the meantime, I'm going to start a movement to enable people to
marry their cats. I've had a long-term stable relationship with my cat
that has lasted longer than many people's marriages. Why shouldn't my
cat and I get married? When we get the necessary changes to marriage
law, you're all invited to the wedding.
Oh wait, maybe Vermont ALREADY allows me to marry my cat. See you all
there! Don't forget the wedding presents--a Ferrari for me and lots of
cans of Friskies for my cat.
os...@techie.com
"Kenneth S." <nim...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3B73CA...@erols.com...
> "Heterosexual marriage," Osote? There IS no other kind of marriage.
Sure there is, whether you or the state recognize it or not.
> You seem to be trying to introduce a new distortion of the English
> language, and in the process you reveal something of your political
> agenda. Apparently, you want to promote lesbianism, through changing
> the definition of marriage to enable lesbians to "marry."
and gay men and maybe even polyamorous relationships. ha!
> More and more, it seems to me that the solution is to take marriage out
> of the hands of govenments. Privatize marriage, and have an end to the
> process of special interest groups, like lesbians, lobbying to have
> government change the definition of marriage to suit their own
> interests.
nah, they just want the same rights as heterosexual folks since they have
the same responsibilities.
> If people could make their own enforceable pre-nuptial
> agreements, covering all subjects including any conditions of divorce,
> many problems would be solved.
>
> In the meantime, I'm going to start a movement to enable people to
> marry their cats. I've had a long-term stable relationship with my cat
> that has lasted longer than many people's marriages. Why shouldn't my
> cat and I get married? When we get the necessary changes to marriage
> law, you're all invited to the wedding.
Well, I don't know about you, but I don't have sex with my dogs and they are
not equal partners to me, they are pets and utterly useless otherwise.
> Oh wait, maybe Vermont ALREADY allows me to marry my cat. See you all
> there! Don't forget the wedding presents--a Ferrari for me and lots of
> cans of Friskies for my cat.
Well, yeah, but can your cat pull in his own income so you have a dual
income household?
GudGye11
writes:
>Well, yeah, but can your cat pull in his own income so you have a dual
>income household?
I'll bet 9-Lives' Morris pulled most of the wage earning weight in HIS family!
GudGye11
my income, IS an income tax. No matter the reason for the collection, it's
still a tax. People have to stop allowing our government to use touchy-feely
slogans like 'revenue enhancements' or 'benefits' in order to mask a true tax.
Bottom line (not Ralph Nader's, of course): If it's mandated by the
government, it's a tax.
In article <20010809114929...@ng-cj1.aol.com>, ivyj...@aol.com
Edmund Esterbauer
> <os...@techie.com> wrote in message
> news:xsnb7.26568$Ke4.15...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...> > 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.
>
> So? What do you want to do, make other taxes tax vary with income? I know.
> Let's
> also charge rich people $1000 for a loaf of bread.
That's the State Stalinist feminazi criminal extortion demands by the CSA.
These criminal S.feminazi are about patricide, infanticide and laziness.
>Somebody can run faster
> than
> you, so you want to cut his feet off so the race will be "fair".
>
> > 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.
>
> Most of corporate america is owned by liberal democrats. Small buisness
and
> farms are where you will find most of the conservative replublicans.
>
> IMO, a lot of small business are better than a few big ones.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Do you truly believe that? That the only way to get ahead is by
> maliciousness and cruelty and taking advantage of the less fortunate? If
> this is some personal experience of yours, I'm truly sorry, but I don't
> believe it is typical.
>
> > 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 government can feed off someone without necessarily impoverishing
them.
> A BIG government can do it to more people, and it MUST do so, in order to
> survive. Few divorces meant fewer court, and child support agencies would
be
> needed. So just change the law to make it easier to divorce. People take
the
> bait, divorce, pay child support, and the government must grow to take
> care of the increased caseloads and hire more police to arrest the
>
juveniles-turn-criminals-because-there-is-no-longer-two-parents-in-the-home
> that turn out bad because of the government's own policies.
>
> It is the government that is the enemy. Both sides of the aisle. The
> liberals, and the liberals that call themselves conservatives.
>
> > The ones you should be hating
> > are the administrators that are getting rich off of regulating the lives
> > of the poor.
>
> I don't hate anyone at the moment (I've had 3 or 4 brief flashes of it in
my
> life though, and I hated the feeling every time).
Kenneth S.
agenda (as outlined below) in mind, Osote. Apparently, you want
"marriage" between lesbians, between homosexual men, and between
"polyamorous" people (group marriage?).
I think it's extremely narrow-minded of you to stop me from marrying my
cat. I was looking forward to getting that Ferrari as a wedding
present. Couldn't you send it anyway? Pass the hat around among your
"polyamorous" friends.
Could I marry my computer? It helps to bring in income. Oh wait,
would that be bigamy if I've already married my cat? Or does the
"polyamorous" business cover all that?
Tony Dunlap
<os...@techie.com> wrote in message
news:B0Oc7.6328$NW6.3...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
>
>
> "Paul R" <prob...@opcnetdeleteme.com> wrote in message
> news:3b737...@corp-goliath.newsgroups.com...
> > Just to add my two cents' worth:
> >
> > The average father has little power over the situation compared to the
> > average mother. He can do nothing to prevent a divorce; the most he can
do
> > is try to get better terms. In most cases, however, the Court will award
> > custody to mom; CS is determined by guidelines. If mom doesn't let him
see
> > the kids, he can do little.
>
> He can have the custody order enforced and document it and take her back
to
> court.
Yes, he can... if he can afford to... andas soon as she gets the papers, she
starts screaming in front of the child how his father is trying to throw his
mother in jail... then when she gets to court for the eleventh time, the
judge tells her not to do it again, and she says "Yes, Your Honor" in the
exact same pitiable voice she used the previous ten times... then they leave
and she still won't let him see his child. This is the reality for many NCP
fathers. Then, because he's spent tens of thousands of dollars hauling her
sorry ass into court. he falls a little behind on the CS, and she hauls HIS
ass into court... of course, the state pays for all of her legal costs, and
the judge usually RAISES the CS, and he STILL doesn't get to see his kids.
The majority of fathers pay all CS due on time. This is as reported by the
mothers themselves. The biggest reason those who don't pay all or on time is
that they cannot afford to (probably due to the aforementioned legal
expenses). This is also as reported by the mothers. And finally, 44% of
these very same mothers openly ADMIT to interfering in visitation or shared
custody agreements (I wonder how many others are doing it and notonenly
admitting it).
> > But if he fails to pay CS or whatever, she can
> > prevent him from seeing the kids
>
> not legally
>
> > or call CS enforcement and get help.
>
> yeah, right. back to court again, a long and tedious process while the
kids
> go without support from their father.
>
> > This means the battle must be fought in the legislature. But liberal
> > legislators are in bed with the feminists--they want to see the family
> > destroyed because it gives them an excuse for one more government
program.
> > And conservatives buy into the deadbeat dad myth--all those terrible men
> who
> > just one day up and walked out on their kids.
>
> um, it's not a myth, sadly.
Neither are mothers who don't let fathers see their children (as a matter of
fact, there are MORE of THEM), but you don't see any massive government
programs to put these bitches in jail, do you? No, because a father's
presence is not as important as his money, is it?
Tracy
> "Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
> news:Pine.WNT.4.33.0108092111330.888-100000@mom...
> > On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 os...@techie.com wrote:
> >
> > > "Kenneth S." <nim...@erols.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3B71EC...@erols.com...
> > > > The most obvious solution to the problems of poverty is to slow down,
> > > > and ultimately reverse, the breakdown of family life in the U.S.
> > > > Single-parent (i.e. fatherless) families are very closely associated
> > > > with poverty. And the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent
> family.
> > >
> > > Well now who is spouting rhetoric? The problems of poverty have existed
> > > long before the erosion of the patriarchal family unit.
> >
> > Not all the problems you see today Lorian. Kenneth is right in many
> > aspects, and if you would have read what he wrote you'd understand why.
> >
> > Housing cost have risen over the years. You've even brought that up many
> > times. It is to the point where the average income doesn't buy the
> > average house. Back in the 70's a single income household could afford to
> > purchase a house. That single income being about average. That doesn't
> > hold true anymore. As divorces have increased, dual-income families
> > increase, and government help (all types) had increased so has the housing
> > costs... if not the cost of living as a whole.
> >
> > Now what Kenneth is trying to tell you, but you've decided to not listen
> > to, is that IF people remained married their household income would be
> > dual-income. More often than not this would increase their household
> > income. Think about it.
>
> So all those stay at home parents who had to re-enter the workforce due to
> divorce...... they would have all rushed out to the job market anyway?
How does a pre-divorce dual-income household equal a stay at home parent?
In order to have a dual-income household, both parties much be working.
If I wasn't clear enough on this, then I apologize. My statement "IF
people remained married their household income would be dual-income."
This is assuming that BOTH parties are working prior to the divorce, and
after the divorce. Neither party is a stay at home parent. I hope this
clarifies the misconception.
I understand that you and Lorian would like to have everyone believe that
in a marriage it is expected that one party stays at home. But this isn't
the case. Dual-income households are much more common in the middle class
than in higher classes. When divorce happens for those living in
middle-class, it can put both parties into a low-income standing.
Assuming:
A > 0
B > 0
Rules:
1. A + B = C
2. A & B are subsets of C.
3. A != C, and B != C.
The above holds true if both parties are working prior to divorce.
After divorce some people believe that rule (3) should still apply in
their lives. Well it doesn't. That is a fact of divorce.
Bob Whiteside
os...@techie.com wrote:
While I don't doubt what you posted above, it really is not representative of
the total welfare package and amounts being paid. Your numbers are only the
Federal government's contribution to the STATE welfare programs. The big
dollars are spent at the state level out of state tax revenue. Its at the state
level that welfare is administrated and CS orders are set to comply with the
federal welfare guidelines. The amount of money spent by the Federal government
on welfare programs is the amount they use to reward the states for adopting
welfare and CS requirements in Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.
>
>
> > What about Mel who is paying child support to a woman who is/was on
> > welfare? Do we consider him doubled taxed in the 'Social Programs' area
> > since the mother didn't receive all of the support? Most of the support
> > paid went to cover the state's expenses.
>
> Which has always bothered me. Not only should that child support be going
> to the child, not to the state, but if the welfare mother does keep the cs
> and she gets caught she goes to jail as a criminal. I know Wisconsin
> applied for a federal waiver to try a demonstration project in several
> counties to see if it would help kids if they got to keep the pittance of
> welfare and the pittance of cs too. I don't know how it turned out, maybe
> I'll dig it up. You forget that mothers on welfare are also tax payers
> before and after welfare and children deserve unstigmatized support.
States have the ability under the Title IV-D CS program to continue to pass
through $50 of the CS to the mother for the child. The states are greedy and
most chose to keep the $50 and give the mother only the welfare benefits.
Congress voted to no longer fund the $50 pass through, but gave the states the
option to continue it. Naturally, the states decided to not fund it too.
>
>
> > Maybe what we should do is when the CP is on welfare, only charge the NCP
> > the difference. If $2,000 in taxes he paid goes directly towards any
> > program she is using, then he should deduct $2,000 from the child support
> > order. Now there's an idea. :-)
>
> anything to help reduce the absent father's responsibility to their kids,
> right?
There is another way to look at this. Why not scrap the entire CS collection
system that costs the government $4 billion per year, and spend the money on the
children?
Bob Whiteside
GudGye11 wrote:
> Doesn't matter, Ivy...a tax taken out of my income, that is computed based on
> my income, IS an income tax. No matter the reason for the collection, it's
> still a tax. People have to stop allowing our government to use touchy-feely
> slogans like 'revenue enhancements' or 'benefits' in order to mask a true tax.
>
> Bottom line (not Ralph Nader's, of course): If it's mandated by the
> government, it's a tax.
I tend to agree. Consequently, when CS is set based on income, the government
sets the amount, and payroll withholding is mandated by the government, it's a tax
on NCP's to pay for welfare or to allow the state to generate cash flow to produce
income. Better stated, it's a tax on fathers most of the time. And no matter how
you cut it, it's taxation without representation. And the government is only
interested in collecting the CS "tax" they levy against the NCP. they ignore the
CS "tax" levied against the CP and never collect it.
Tracy
> "Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
> news:Pine.WNT.4.33.0108101014450.1832-100000@mom...
> There was nothing about a pre-divorce dual-income family - merely that "IF
> people remained married their household income would be dual-income" -
> And Kenneth's statement was about dual *parent* families - not dual income
> families.
What part of "dual-income" do you not understand? If your issue is with
Kenneth's statement, then why address it to me? I brought up dual-incomes
and what happens to those dual-income after divorce. That is how *I*
viewed Kenneth's statements. It isn't my problem if you viewed his
statements differently.
> > In order to have a dual-income household, both parties much be working.
> > If I wasn't clear enough on this, then I apologize. My statement "IF
> > people remained married their household income would be dual-income."
> > This is assuming that BOTH parties are working prior to the divorce, and
> > after the divorce. Neither party is a stay at home parent. I hope this
> > clarifies the misconception.
> >
> > I understand that you and Lorian would like to have everyone believe that
> > in a marriage it is expected that one party stays at home.
>
> You have demonstrated on a number of occasions that you have very little
> idea what I would like, much less what I would like to have anyone else
> believe.
BS... you addressed stay at home parents to me when I clearly was talking
about dual-income households and how they become two single-income
households after divorce. You choose to bring up stay at home parents.
If your beef was with Kenneth's statement, then bring it up against him.
If you beef wasn't with Kenneth, then all you tried to attempt was adding
confusion into the equation.
> But this isn't
> > the case. Dual-income households are much more common in the middle class
> > than in higher classes. When divorce happens for those living in
> > middle-class, it can put both parties into a low-income standing.
> >
> > Assuming:
> > A > 0
> > B > 0
> >
> > Rules:
> > 1. A + B = C
> >
> > 2. A & B are subsets of C.
> >
> > 3. A != C, and B != C.
> >
> > The above holds true if both parties are working prior to divorce.
> >
> > After divorce some people believe that rule (3) should still apply in
> > their lives. Well it doesn't. That is a fact of divorce.
>
> As is the concept of continuing to support one's children, regardless of the
> parents' ongoing marital status.
Did I state anywhere that a child doesn't deserve support from their
parents? NO. Once again your statement above is an attempt to cause
confusion of the facts. I presented facts on what happens to dual-income
households after divorce. I didn't state that a child doesn't deserve
continued support from his/her's/their parents.
os...@techie.com
"Tony Dunlap" <tdu...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3b74...@post.newsfeeds.com...
> Neither are mothers who don't let fathers see their children (as a matter
of
> fact, there are MORE of THEM), but you don't see any massive government
> programs to put these bitches in jail, do you? No, because a father's
> presence is not as important as his money, is it?
Well, there is no big campaign to put NCP fathers in jail for NOT visiting
their kids either, and yes that is more important than the money.
os...@techie.com
"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:3B74172D...@teleport.com...
> While I don't doubt what you posted above, it really is not representative
of
> the total welfare package and amounts being paid. Your numbers are only
the
> Federal government's contribution to the STATE welfare programs. The big
> dollars are spent at the state level out of state tax revenue. Its at the
state
> level that welfare is administrated and CS orders are set to comply with
the
> federal welfare guidelines. The amount of money spent by the Federal
government
> on welfare programs is the amount they use to reward the states for
adopting
> welfare and CS requirements in Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.
That is a good point. Washington state has cut the amount they spend on
poor children in half in the last 4 years. It is a pittance.
State spending on welfare grants has been nearly cut in half under
WorkFirst, going from $452 million for 1997 to $201 million for this fiscal
year.
http://www.wa.gov/WORKFIRST/reporter/factsheet.htm
> There is another way to look at this. Why not scrap the entire CS
collection
> system that costs the government $4 billion per year, and spend the money
on the
> children?
What? And expect NCP's to suddenly support their kids without being
coerced? Now there's an idea, lol.